Going more 'sustainable'

[Simpo Two]

A global tech fund I invest in is going more 'sustainable'.

It now excludes:
Any revenue from failure to comply with UN Global Impact Principles and OECD MNE including human rights, child labour, corruption and environmental pollution
Controversial weapons
Fossil fuels
Tobacco production

And only up to 5% revenue from:
Tobacco distribution
Conventional weapons
Fur production
Alcohol production
Civilian firearms and ammunition
Chemicals of concern
Intensive farming
Nuclear power generation - erm excuse me but nuclear power doesn't emit carbons
Gambling operations
Pornography
Non-medical animal testing

Presumably it invests in EVs and other 'green' things packed with lithium and heavy metals dug out of the ground no matter the collateral damage.

By excluding the above is the fund is hobbling itself? Or, given that sustainable is all the rage, will it actually do better? Do I jump on the fashion bandwagon or switch to somewhere that has more options?

And if a fund only wishes to invest in sustainable things, should it be called a Sustainable fund not a Global Tech fund?

[Burrow01]

Not sure how a "tech fund" would be involved in most of those anyway?

They are probably declaring themselves "sustainable" in order to appeal to a broader spectrum of buyers.

I would monitor what changes they make over the next year or so (watch what they do, rather than what they say...)

[Simpo Two]

Burrow01 said:

Not sure how a "tech fund" would be involved in most of those anyway?

They are probably declaring themselves "sustainable" in order to appeal to a broader spectrum of buyers.

That's very true. A bit like putting 'Tartrazine free' on a product even though it didn't contain tartrazine anyway... but people think 'Wahay no tartrazine and it's only 20p more expensive '

[anonymous-user]

It's all greenwashing and all complete lies to try and appear to be doing something when in actual fact you are completely unsustainable.

[Simpo Two]

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

It's all greenwashing and all complete lies to try and appear to be doing something when in actual fact you are completely unsustainable.

Phew. If it's just to tick eco boxes or appease wokes whilst actually making no difference that's OK

[asfault]

Their aim for my money should be to make money. I don't care if its 19% return and "green" or 20" return and not green the 20% will get my funds.

[drmike37]

“It’s only a principle if it costs you money.”

[Burrow01]

Simpo Two said:

ThingsBehindTheSun said:

It's all greenwashing and all complete lies to try and appear to be doing something when in actual fact you are completely unsustainable.

Phew. If it's just to tick eco boxes or appease wokes whilst actually making no difference that's OK

I think the main reason they will have done it is to ensure they are included in "Sustainable" or "Ethical" Funds of Funds and indexes

[sideways sid]

Given that returns are generally lower from ethical / sustainable etc funds, it might be better to invest in the fund that best meets your requirements in terms of risk-adjusted returns, then make a charitable donation and/or spend the returns ethically / sustainably etc.

[Simpo Two]

Well, I have asked them some awkward questions and we'll see what copy/paste guff comes back

[robertsnuffles55]

We all got to get more sustainable these days. Trust in the words of Gretta!