Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 92, Supplement 1, pp 21–39 | Cite as

Being Virtuous and Prosperous: SRI’s Conflicting Goals

  • Benjamin J. RichardsonEmail author
  • Wes Cragg
Article

Abstract

Can SRI be a means to make investors both virtuous and prosperous? This paper argues that there can be significant tensions between these goals, and that SRI (and indeed all investment) should not allow the pursuit of maximizing investment returns to prevail over an ethical agenda of promoting social and economic justice and environmental protection. The discourse on SRI has changed dramatically in recent years to the point where its capacity to promote social emancipation, sustainable development and other ethical goals is in jeopardy. Historically, SRI was a boutique sector of the market dominated by religious-based investors who sought to invest in accordance with the tenets of their faith. From the early 1970s, the aspirations of the SRI movement morphed significantly in the context of the divestment campaign against South Africa’s apartheid regime. No longer were social investors satisfied with just avoiding profit from immoral activities; instead, they also sought to change the behavior of others. Business case SRI is a problematic SRI benchmark for several reasons: often there is a countervailing business case for financing irresponsible activities, given the failure of markets to capture all social and environmental externalities; secondly, even if investors care about such concerns, there may be no means of financially quantifying their significance for investment purposes; and, thirdly, even if such factors can be financially quantified, they may be deemed to be such long-term financial costs or benefits that they become discounted and ignored. The ethics case for SRI and ethical business practices more generally takes the view that both investors and the companies they fund have ethical responsibilities that trump the pursuit of profit maximization. Ethical investment should be grounded on this foundation. However, it may not be enough. To keep ethical investment ethical will likely require institutionalizing new norms and governance standards, in such domains as reforming fiduciary duties and the internal governance of financial organizations. SRI’s own codes of conduct including the UNPRI have yet to demonstrate the robustness to move the financial community beyond business as usual.

Keywords

socially responsible investing ethical investing fiduciary duty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, G.: 1993, ‘Pensions and Passivity’, Law and Contemporary Problems 5(1): 111-139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, K., R. Dhumale, and J. Eatwell: 2006, Global Governance of Financial Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  3. Atkins, D., I. Drennan and L. Bates: 2006, Reputational Risk: A Question of Trust (Lessons Professional Publishing, London).Google Scholar
  4. Bainbridge, S.M.: 2002, Corporation Law and Economics (Foundation Press, New York).Google Scholar
  5. Beder, S.: 2002, Global Spin. The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism (Green Books, Dartington, UK).Google Scholar
  6. Bell, S. and S. Morse: 2008, Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable (Earthscan, London).Google Scholar
  7. Brill, H., J.A. Brill, and C. Feingenbaum: 1999, Investing with Your Values: Making Money and Making a Difference (Bloomberg Press, Princeton).Google Scholar
  8. Brinkerhoff, D.W. and J.M. Brinkerhoff: 2002, ‘Governance Reforms and Failed States: Challenges and Implications’, International Review of Administrative Sciences 68(4): 511-531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, L.J. and P. Dunn: 2010, Business and Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives and Accountants, 5th ed. (South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, 2010).Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA): 2005, National Instrument 81-106 Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure and Companion Policy 81-106CP (CSA).Google Scholar
  11. Clark, R.: 1986, Corporate Law (Aspen Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
  12. Clarkson, M.: 1998, The Corporation And Its Stakeholders: Classic and Contemporary Readings. (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).Google Scholar
  13. Cosans, C.: 2009, ‘Does Milton Friedman Support a Vigorous Business Ethics?’ Journal of Business Ethics 87(3): 391-399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cragg, W.: 2000, ‘Human Rights and Business Ethics: Fashioning a New Social Contract’, Journal of Business Ethics 27(1-2): 205-214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cragg, W.: (2004). Human Rights, Globalization and the Modern Shareholder Owned Corporation. In T. Campbell (ed.), Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 105-128.Google Scholar
  16. Criscione, V.: 2009, March 16, ‘Pension Fund Treads a Thorny Path’, Financial Times, p. 9.Google Scholar
  17. Daly, H.: 1992, ‘Allocation, Distribution and Scale: Towards an Economics that is Efficient, Just and Sustainable’, Ecological Economics 6: 185-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, S., J. Lukomnik and D. Pitt-Watson: 2006, The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors are Reshaping the Corporate Agenda (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  19. Del Guercio, D. and J. Hawkins: 1999, ‘The Motivation and Impact of Pension Fund Activism’, Journal of Financial Economics 52: 293-340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Devall, B. and G. Sessions: 2001, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered (Gibbs Smith, Layton).Google Scholar
  21. Doering, D., et al.: 2002, Tomorrow’s Markets - Global Trends and their Implications for Business (World Resources Institute, Washington DC).Google Scholar
  22. Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston: 1995, ‘The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implication’, Academy of Management Review 20(1): 65-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Easterbrook, H. and D.R. Fischel: 1985, ‘Limited Liability and the Corporation’, University of Chicago Law Review 52: 89-117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Elhauge, E.: 2005, ‘Sacrificing Corporate Profits in the Public Interest’, New York University Law Review 80(3): 733-869.Google Scholar
  25. Fair Pensions: 2006, UK Pension Scheme Transparency on Social, Environmental and Ethical Issues (Fair Pensions, London).Google Scholar
  26. Falk, R: 1999, Predatory Globalization: A Critique (Polity Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  27. Freeman, E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston).Google Scholar
  28. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer: 2005, A Legal Framework for the Integration of Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Institutional Investment (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  29. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): 2010, ‘G3 Guidelines’, http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G3Guidelines.
  30. John Glover, ‘Banks and Fiduciary Relationships’ (1995) 7(1) Bond Law Review 50.Google Scholar
  31. Goodman, S. and T. Little: 2003, The Gap in GAAP: An Examination of Environmental Accounting Loopholes (Rose Foundation, Oakland).Google Scholar
  32. Gribben, C. and M. Gitsham: 2006, Will UK Pension Funds Become More Responsible: A Survey of Trustees (UK Social Investment Forum, London).Google Scholar
  33. Gunningham, N.: 2009, Corporate Environmental Responsibility (Ashgate, Farnham).Google Scholar
  34. Harte, G., L. Lewis and D. Owen: 1991, ‘Ethical Investment and the Corporate Reporting Function’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 12(3): 227-253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hawken, P.: 2004, Socially Responsible Investing (Natural Capital Institute, Sausalito).Google Scholar
  36. Hawley, J., and A. Williams: 2000, The Rise of Fiduciary Capitalism (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
  37. Herz, S., A. Vina, and J. Sohn: 2007, Development without Conflict: The Business Case for Community Consent (World Resources Institute, Washington DC).Google Scholar
  38. Hudson, A.: 1999, Principles of Equity and Trusts (Cavendish, London).Google Scholar
  39. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): 2010, ‘About ISO Social Responsibility’, http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/830949/3934883/3935096/07_gen_info/aboutStd.html.
  40. Jeucken, M,: 2001, Sustainable Finance and Banking: The Financial Sector and the Future of the Planet (Earthscan, London).Google Scholar
  41. Juravle, C. and A. Lewis: 2008, ‘Identifying Impediments to SRI in Europe: A Review of the Practitioner and Academic Literature’, Business Ethics: A European Review 17(3): 285-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein, N.: 2000, No Logo (Flamingo Harper-Collins, London).Google Scholar
  43. Kozul-Wright, R. and R. Rowthorn: 1998, ‘Spoilt for Choice? Multinational Corporations and the Geography of International Production’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(2): 74-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Labatt, S. and R. White: 2002, Environmental Finance: A Guide to Environmental Risk Assessment and Financial Products (John Wiley and Sons, New York).Google Scholar
  45. Laffont, J. and J. Tirole: 1991, ‘The Politics of Government Decision Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1089-1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langbein, J.: 2005 ‘Questioning the Trust Law Duty of Loyalty: Sole Interest or Best Interest?’ Yale Law Journal 114: 929-990.Google Scholar
  47. Langbein, J. and R.A. Posner: 1980, ‘Social Investing and the Law of Trusts’, Michigan Law Review 79: 72-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Light, A. and H. Rolston III, eds.: 2002, Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Blackwell, Oxford).Google Scholar
  49. Longstreth, B.: 1986, Modern Investment Management and the Prudent Man Rule (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  50. Luhmann, N.: 1995, Social Systems (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto).Google Scholar
  51. Macey, J.: 1991, ‘An Economic Analysis of the Various Rationales for Making Shareholders the Exclusive Beneficiaries of Corporate Fiduciary Duties’, Stetson Law Review 21: 23-55.Google Scholar
  52. Marjorie, K.: 2001, The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  53. Marris, R. and D.C. Mueller: 1980, ‘The Corporation, Competition and the Invisible Hand’, Journal of Economic Literature 18: 32-63.Google Scholar
  54. McGeachie, S., M. Kiernan and E. Kirzner: 2005, Finance and the Environment in North America: The State of Play of the Integration of Environmental Issues into Financial Research (Environment Canada, Ottawa).Google Scholar
  55. McMurtry, J.: 1998, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism (Pluto Press, London).Google Scholar
  56. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board (MEAB): 2005, Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-Being. Statement from the Board (MEAB).Google Scholar
  57. Moodie, D.W. and J.C. Lehr: 2008, ‘Macro-Historical Geography and the Great Chartered Companies: The Case of the Hudson’s Bay Company’, Canadian Geographer 25(2): 267-271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parliament of Ireland, Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service: 2006, Parliamentary Debates (February 23), p. 44.Google Scholar
  59. Purcell, N.: 2007; Remarks, UNEPFI Global Roundtable, Melbourne, October 24–25.Google Scholar
  60. Quarter, J., L. Mook, and B. Richmond: 2003, What Counts: Social Accounting for Nonprofits and Cooperatives (Prentice Hall, New Jersey).Google Scholar
  61. Redgwell, C.J.: 1997, ‘Privatisation and Environmental Regulation: Some General Observations’, Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law 15: 34-40.Google Scholar
  62. Richardson, B.J.: 2006, ‘Financing Environmental Sustainability: A New Role for the Law’, in S. Benn and D. Dunphy (eds), Corporate Governance and Sustainability: Challenges for Theory and Practice (Routledge, London), 122-142Google Scholar
  63. Richardson, B. J.: 2007, ‘Financing Sustainability: The New Transnational Governance of Socially Responsible Investment’, in Yearbook of International Environmental Law (Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 73–110.Google Scholar
  64. Richardson, B.J.: 2008, Socially Responsible Investment Law: Regulating the Unseen Polluters (Oxford University Press, New York).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sarra, J.: 2003, ‘The Corporation as Symphony: Are Shareholders First Violin or Second Fiddle?’ UBC Law Review 36: 403-441.Google Scholar
  66. Sassen, S.: 1996, Losing Control? Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization (Columbia University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  67. Slapper, G. and S. Tombs: 1999, Corporate Crime (Longman, Harlow, UK).Google Scholar
  68. Soros, G.: 2008, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means (Public Affairs, New York).Google Scholar
  69. Soskolne, C. ed.: 2007, Sustaining Life on Earth (Lexington Books, New York).Google Scholar
  70. Stewart, R.B.: 2001, ‘A New Generation of Environmental Regulation?’ Capital University Law Review 29: 21-182.Google Scholar
  71. Stout, L.: 2002, ‘Lecture and Commentary on the Social Responsibility of Corporate Entities: Bad and Not-So-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy’, Southern California Law Review 75: 189.Google Scholar
  72. Sunstein, C.R.: 1990, ‘Paradoxes of the Regulatory State’, University of Chicago Law Review 57: 407-441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sunstein, C.R.: 1991, ‘Administrative Substance’, Duke Law Journal 3: 607-646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Teubner, G.: 1987, Juridification of Social Spheres (Walter deGruyter, Berlin).Google Scholar
  75. Teubner, G.: 1998, ‘Juridification: Concepts, Aspects, Limits, Solutions’, in R. Baldwin, C. Scott, and C. Hood (eds), A Reader on Regulation (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 389-410.Google Scholar
  76. Thornton, R.: 2008, ‘Ethical Investments: A Case of Disjointed Thinking’, Cambridge Law Journal 67: 396-422.Google Scholar
  77. Triolo, P., M. Palmer, and S. Waygood: 2000, A Capital Solution: Faith, Finance and Concern for a Living Planet (Pilkington Press, London).Google Scholar
  78. Troyer, T., W. Slocombe, and R. Boisture: 1985, ‘Divestment of South Africa Investments: The Legal Implications for Foundations, Other Charitable Institutions, and Pension Funds’, Georgetown law Journal 74: 127-161.Google Scholar
  79. Trucost. 2007, Carbon Counts 2007: The Carbon Footprint Ranking of UK Investment (Trucost, London).Google Scholar
  80. Unerman, J., J. Bebbington, and B. O’Dwyer (eds): 2007, Sustainability Accounting and Accountability (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
  81. Union of Concerned Scientists: 1992, ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’, http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html.
  82. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): 2004, Use of Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy: Opportunities and Challenges (UNEP, Nairobi).Google Scholar
  83. United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEPFI): 2004a, The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Corporate Governance Issues in Equity Pricing (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  84. UNEPFI: 2004b. Generation Lost: Young Financial Analysts and Environmental, Social and Governance Issues. Executive Summary (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  85. UNEPFI: 2006, Show Me the Money: Linking Environmental, Social and Governance Issues to Company Value (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  86. UNEPFI: 2007, Responsible Investment in Focus: How Leading Public Pension Funds are Meeting the Challenge (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  87. UNEPFI: 2009, Fiduciary Responsibility. Legal and Practical Aspects of Integrating Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Institutional Investment (UNEPFI, Geneva).Google Scholar
  88. Watt, G.: 2006, Trusts and Equity (2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  89. Watts, P.: 2009, Directors’ Powers and Duties (LexisNexis, Wellington).Google Scholar
  90. Waygood, S.: 2006, Capital Market Campaigning (Risk Books, London).Google Scholar
  91. Williams, C. and J. Conley: 2007, ‘Triumph or Tragedy: The Curious Path of Corporate Disclosure Reform in the UK’, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 31(2): 317-361.Google Scholar
  92. Wolf, R.M.: 2001, ‘Will the Nation-State Survive Globalization?’ Foreign Affairs 80(1): 178-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wood, S.: 2006, ‘Voluntary Environmental Codes and Sustainability’, in B.J. Richardson and S. Wood (eds), Environmental Law for Sustainability (Hart Publishing, Oxford), 229-276.Google Scholar
  94. World Economic Forum (WEF): 2005, Mainstreaming Responsible Investment (WEF, Geneva).Google Scholar
  95. Yeager, P.C.: 1991, The Limits of Law: The Public Regulation of Private Pollution (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Osgoode Hall Law SchoolYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Schulich School of BusinessYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations