We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

Are ethics really the only way?

Home / Press Centre / Are ethics really the only way?

Lewis Grant, Senior Portfolio Manager
25 September 2018
Global Equities

Inflows into ethical funds topped £164m in July, up from £101m the previous month, according to the Investment Association1. Lewis Grant, Global Equities Senior Portfolio Manager at Hermes Investment Management, questions what ‘ethical investing’ really means, its implications and dispels investors’ common misconceptions.

Let’s start at the very beginning
When deciding whether to shift to an ethical investment portfolio, investors first need to go back to basics and set a clear definition of what they constitute as ‘ethical’. Since there is no universal definition, it can be surprising how much variation there is between investors.

Exclusion or ‘negative screening’ perhaps offers investors the most direct approach to aligning their money with their morals. It is the oldest ethical investment method, and it’s easy to see why. Carving out entire sectors, companies or countries from a portfolio offers a relatively simple and transparent way for investors to express their particular ethical views and removes subjectivity.

Some exclusions are near universal – tobacco, for example – whereas others can be more controversial. For some investors, ethical exclusions are driven by religious beliefs, but in some cases defining acceptable and unacceptable company behaviour can be less black and white and more shades of grey and the devil really is in the detail. It might be simple to strike out the major gun, tank, fighter jet, cluster bomb and nuclear weapons manufacturers. But what about radar or parachute providers, or producers of other equipment that has both military and civilian uses? Often investors will use a revenue threshold to determine a “significant exposure” to a particular theme, but again this is a very subjective definition.

Investors should also consider how a company evolves over time as few stay completely still. A company excluded as a coal company today may be increasing its focus on renewables and becoming a future leader of the green economy. Investing in a coal company may not fit with many definitions of ethical, while providing the financing to enable a company to develop renewable energy solutions is widely considered virtuous: in some instances these two investments may actually be one and the same.

Investing ethically: The reality
The definition of ethical parameters is only the start. Investors should also consider the impact ethical parameters may have had on historic returns – would their definition of ethical have detracted value? How would they have felt about it then?

The classical view is that by excluding companies from the investment universe the expected return would decrease. For example, the growing cohort of investors who have excluded tobacco over the last ten years may have missed out on very healthy returns, prompting some to reconsider their decision.

On closer inspection, however, we can see that the sector returns have been driven primarily by the defensive, dividend-generating nature of tobacco companies rather than long-term industry fundamentals. Since the global financial crisis, yield-addicted investors have inflated income stocks to historical highs. In the longer term, however, we believe that the tobacco sector is likely to run out of puff: increasingly harsh global regulations and the rise of e-cigarettes, for example, present considerable challenges to the industry. Once the tide truly turns against these companies, investors who have given up tobacco may enjoy a reversal in performance outcomes.

In this example it is not the unethical characteristics of tobacco stocks that impact shareholder returns, but the sustainability of the business. Ethics and sustainability are closely linked and frequently overlap – but they are not the same.

Excluding all others
In order to fully understand the sustainability of a business or to identify whether it will transition from ‘unethical’ to ‘ethical’, each company needs to be evaluated on its own merits. When investing with an exclusionary approach, the focus becomes solely on determining which companies an investor does not want to buy – instead of seeking out the leaders and improvers.

At Hermes we believe that our responsibilities as investors do not stop with a decision to buy or sell a stock, instead, we must act as engaged owners of the companies in which we are invested and the assets that we manage. This means engaging in constructive dialogue and taking action where necessary through our ownership rights. This should contribute to better management of companies and ultimately their long-term success, which, in turn, may lead to wider benefits to society and investors.

  1. 1 Monthly Statistics for July 2018 from The Investment Association,
Share this post:
Lewis Grant Senior Portfolio Manager Lewis joined Hermes in February 2008 as a Global Equities portfolio manager. In addition to his role as portfolio manager, Lewis is responsible for designing and implementing many of the team's systems. In particular he created Hermes' proprietary risk-modelling system, MultiFRAME, utilised by the majority of Hermes’ investment teams. He joined from Aon Consulting, where he worked as an actuarial consultant specialising in providing valuations and asset-liability modelling to a range of corporate and institutional clients. Lewis graduated from the University of Warwick in 2003 with a master's degree in Mathematics, Operational Research, Statistics and Economics and subsequently qualified as a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. In 2014, Lewis featured in Financial News’s ‘40 Under 40 Rising Stars of Asset Management’, an editorial selection pick of the brightest up-and-coming men and women in the industry.
Read all articles by Lewis Grant

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Andrew Parry
  • Claire Gavini
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Eoin Murray
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Harriet Steel
  • Ilana Elbim
  • Jonathan Pines, CFA
  • Joseph Buckley
  • Kimberley Lewis
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Martin Todd
  • Maxime Le Floch, CFA
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Neil Williams
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Peter Hofbauer
  • Philip Nell
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Crockford
  • Tommaso Mancuso
  • Yasmin Chowdhury

Find posts by category

  • global equities

Press contacts