Is Blog Page: Yes
full
Complex problems rarely have simple, binary choices. You can take down the statue of the ‘imperialist’ Cecil Rhodes, at Oriel College, Oxford, but what do you do about his financial legacy that funds the Rhodes Scholarship enabling outstandingly talented young people from around the world to undertake two years of postgraduate study at Oxford University? That is a dilemma.

Likewise, you can divest your portfolio from owning polluting fossil fuel companies, but who are you selling to, what impact will your decision have, and is this the best way to make a positive impact?

In 2020, Oxford University - under pressure from its student body - voted to divest its endowment entirely of exposure to fossil fuel producers.   Around the same time, students at St John’s College demanded that the bursar make a similar move with the College’s endowment with immediate effect, by selling its shares in BP and Shell.  His response was perhaps not the one they were expecting, as reported in The Times[2]

‘I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice…but I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.’ 

The students objected, claiming that he was being flippant and provocative and even dangerous, given that it was January in a 15th century college - his response was: 

'You are right that I am being provocative, but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope.  It is all too easy to request others to do things that have no personal cost to you.  The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).' 

The point was well made. 

Should fossil fuel producers really carry all the burden of carbon emissions guilt? After all, it is our own, consumer-driven demands for petrol and diesel cars, international air travel, cheap goods produced in high-pollution economies and shipped by sea, a love of palm-oil filled Nutella, and a western, meat-eating diet encouraging 'advanced' agriculture with high mileage produce, that are really to blame. 

Yet making seemingly positive personal lifestyle changes, such as buying a Tesla or drinking almond milk, can have hidden environmental impacts.  The environmental and social costs of nickel and cobalt mining (often mined in less-developed countries) for electric vehicle batteries and increased demand for electricity generated, in the main by fossil fuels globally, make the argument less clear cut. 

Each litre of almond milk requires 1,600 liters of water[3] .  Much of the world’s almond crop (80%) is grown in California, on vast monoculture farms, reducing biodiversity and drawing from and depleting deep wells.  California has suffered severe droughts over the past decade, and one wonders whether this scarce resource is being sustainably managed. Tricky decisions. 

So where does this all leave investors who want to try to make some form of sustainability impact through investments that they hold or avoid? Should they divest from companies like BP and Shell? 

There are two options. 

Divest from companies like BP and Shell or stay the course and use your power as a shareholder to try and bring about change. 

Divest 

Most investors own shares that were originally bought in the secondary market i.e. from someone else who owned them before, rather than shares issued when a company needs to raise additional capital for its further development. 

Likewise, when an investor sells their stake – in this case as a positive act of divestment from fossil fuel producers – they will sell these shares to someone else.  Almost by definition, that person or institution will care less than the seller about the environmental impact of these companies.  If a large number of investors divest, it may well be that the buyers end up with higher expected returns on account of the lower prices that they pay.  What impact will this divestment have?  Perhaps it sends a message to these firms that they need to change.  

Stay the course 

Perhaps a better course of action is to stay invested and become a thorough nuisance, as a shareholder, at the company’s AGM but the reality is that a single individual has little power. 

However, the major fund management houses are powerful owners of most major companies and are ‘forever’ investors. Vanguard, SSga, and BlackRock own almost 20% of Exxon[4] – the US’ largest oil company. 

That is a very powerful voting bloc to engage with and apply pressure to the firm's management. Each of these fund management firms are signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment, which is a United Nations supported network that encourages engagement with corporations on ESG issues. 

Is it better to engage with firms like Exxon, BP, and Shell and encourage them into transitioning to a better place than to simply sell and walk away? 

As a result of shareholder pressure, BP has recently set out its ambition to become a net-zero company by 2050 or sooner[5]. Demonstrating real change brought about by continuous pressure. 

The reality is that most of us want to take steps in the right direction, particularly around climate change, and struggle with the trade-offs we face. One thing's for sure, it's better to try rather than to take no action at all, well most of the time.

1  rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/scholarships/the-rhodes-scholarship/

2  thetimes.co.uk/article/professor-at-st-johns-college-oxford-turns-oil-row-into-a-heated-debate

3  theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/05/ditch-the-almond-milk-why-everything-you-know-about-sustainable-eating-is-probably-wrong

4  https://money.cnn.com/quote/shareholders/shareholders

5  https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bernard-looney-announces-new-ambition-for-bp.html

Risk warning

Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance, and you may get back less than invested.

This article should be used for information purposes only and is subject to change without notice. None of the information contained in this article constitutes financial or other professional advice in any way. If you require additional information, you should contact Magus directly.

While Magus uses reasonable efforts to ensure that the information contained within articles is current and accurate at the date of publication, no warranties are made, either expressed or implied, as to reliability, accuracy or completeness of the information. Magus accepts no liability for any loss arising directly or indirectly from the use of or action taken in reliance on such information.

No warranty is given as to the freedom of this article from errors, defects, viruses, malicious programs or macros. Links from this article exist for information only and Magus accepts no responsibility or liability for the information contained on any such site. The existence of a link to another website does not imply or express endorsement of its provider, product or services by Magus. Please note that clicking on links to external websites will cause you to leave the Magus website.

Magus Private Wealth Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales No. 3611274. Registered address: Kingfisher House, Northwood Park, Gatwick Road, Crawley RH10 9XN.