sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

If you are going to be a responsible investor, you need to dig below the surface of greenwashing and paid-for ESG shields. In partnership with Research IP, we are providing some tools to help you make better investing decisions

Investing / analysis
If you are going to be a responsible investor, you need to dig below the surface of greenwashing and paid-for ESG shields. In partnership with Research IP, we are providing some tools to help you make better investing decisions
investor analysis
Image sourced from

Socially responsible investing may have started out as a greenie fad but it has grown into a movement with building momentum. Now, it is hard to argue with, and why would you want to?

Investing 'responsibly' is what most investors would say they do.

Environmental, social and governance issues (ESG) are underlying factors most professional investors now consider and integrate when determining their asset allocations.

And these principles sell well to savers and investors, as well as to trustees and investment committee members. Everyone is on board.

But you don't have to scratch very far below the surface to find some very tricky questions. Grappling with them often becomes quite political.

The focus is squarely on responsible investing. But greenwashing is rife and the sales pitches are strong. It is a topic so broad that it can be made to cover every view. And therein lies trouble.

Traditional mandates involved getting the best sustainable return for the primary beneficiaries. It was tied up in the principles of fiduciary responsibility. The manager's personal standards of 'morality' were essentially set aside for the mandated objective that was usually about financial risk.

But the tide has turned, and judgements about ethics and morality are now very much to the fore, even if they are codified into new mandates.

To give you a taste of the issues involved, consider the Danish company Ørsted. It was once one of the most coal-intensive energy companies in Europe. Today, they claim to be the world’s most sustainable energy company, and a global leader in the transition to green energy. This is arguably where capital should be directed by responsible investors - but they would have appeared on many exclusion lists because of their history.

There are many other ethical issues to be struggled with and most can't be answered satisfactorily - they are essentially personal preferences and deeply political.

Do you want to turn your lights on at night? You probably do, but that will depend on mining, chemistry, global supply chains, and complex manufacturing systems with parts sourced from countries you may not wish to deal with. If your responsible investing funds avoid these sorts of industries, you are just relying on others to provide the capital for those activities, and happy that they do so your night-switch works reliably.

Do you need a competitive return on your socially responsible funds? The sales pitch will be that you don't need to compromise on that. But those essential industries you avoid will now deliver goods with higher prices (and probably better returns) because you shunned them. And those that don't have the disposable income you do (because you are an investor) will pay more for their goods because of the collective choices of many 'responsible' investors. Ethical choices may be a benefit and cost you can afford that others find a burden.

However, just because there are difficult judgments and choices to be made doesn't mean you should avoid them. You just need to commit to making them properly.

To be 'responsible' in the widest sense really means more than just passively choosing funds that self-market they are 'responsible' or have paid to have the green-tick ESG shields in their marketing materials. To be genuinely 'responsible' you need to be an active investor, prepared to find and download the fund's investment documents and compare them to the standards you wish to adopt. But how do you do that? has teamed up with Research IP to make available their RIPPL Effect Reports for over 300 separate funds. These easy to read reviews are each in a standard format, and enable you to find the same information about each fund or company.

This resource is being built out progressively, and we have recently launched over 200 KiwiSaver and non-KiwiSaver RIPPL Effect reports and you can find them starting here. Our menu navigation to this new extensive resource is here:

Also today, you can read Research IP's 38 page paper on the topic, Beneath the Surface of Responsible Investing, which highlights the many different ways to think about the topic. (Registration required.)

Download it here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


With the decline (read losses) in assets this year, coupled with restrictive credit, is there anyone who can find money to invest.


Some of us got into cash before rates started to rise. We're still going to take a kicking thanks to the lack of urgency in dealing with inflation but not nearly as bad as those who stayed on the bull to the end and where gored by the bull.


There is no responsibility in investing for profit.

If you want to improve your karma, gift some of your time to helping someone else.


I've always found it difficult to define ESG in a meaningful way.

For example while I don't invest in the manufacturing of weapons if I was invested in a company supplying weapons to Ukraine I wouldn't have any qualms about their actions in doing so. Similarly refining or distributing diesel, on the one hand it promotes climate change but on the other without sufficient diesel farmers couldn't harvest or distribute crops and there would be a far more acute food crisis.

Generally I find it more helpful to ask "On net is this activity helpful to society?" and at the moment without weapons and petrochemicals we would be be plunged into a humanitarian crisis.

How do other people view this question, do they care? Do they only invest more narrowly to avoid this problem?


My primary reason for investing is to make money. If a firm conducting legal business makes money, then I am all for it.

Re the ethical side, I believe that should be managed via societies behaviour. No point virtue signaling that you won't invest in BP, if you are sitting in the forecourt filling your SUV, boat, and jetski up with petrol.

That is how I manage my ethics, there are a range of companies/products that I avoid or minimise my use of. If everyone did this then the ethical investing takes care of itself, as the unethical companies will cease to exist.

Until then, I will happily invest and take some of the profits.


well done


ESG investing is a bull market luxury.


Mindful Money is a great information source for investing responsibly. 

It shows the portfolios of all KiwiSaver and retail investment funds, with holdings categorised into the areas of concern to the public, measured in annual surveys. The website has a fund Finder tool to help find more ethical and responsble option, and research, videos, podcasts and guides. It is free and easy to use.