KLD KLD 20th Anniversary
Media Center Contact Us Site Map Search KLD
Introduction
  Books
  Periodicals
  Articles and White Papers
  Resources, Directories & Lists
  Web Sites
  Legal Materials
   
FAQs
About KLD
  Frequently Asked Questions
   
How can I convince fellow board members to adopt a mission based investing policy?

What should the first steps be?
May trustees of charities engage in mission-based investing?
Are different legal standards applied to different types of institutions?
What types of institutions have adopted social investment policies?
Table 1: Examples of Institutional Social Investment Policies


Like it or not, the days when portfolio decisions could be made in a complete moral and social vacuum are numbered.

-- Financial Times editorial (1990)*

Mission-based investing can be a difficult concept for board members and staff alike. It may require a change in views on how an institution's purpose might be accomplished, and it introduces new criteria to the investment decision-making process.

Proponents of a mission-based investment policy will improve their position by preparing for the board's deliberations. Social investing has an undeserved reputation for a lack of discipline, for the substitution of "emotion" for "facts." Therefore, a careful presentation of the financial and policy arguments is essential.

Proponents of a mission-based investment policy should take the time to prepare their fellow board members, key staff, and financial services providers. A few principles should guide this education effort.

  • Keep discussions informal and in settings that do not inspire conflict.
  • Be open about short- and long-term objectives.
  • Emphasize the process for adopting and implementing the policy.
  • Focus on the benefits of mission-based investing to the institution's purpose.
  • Be candid about the arguments surrounding mission-based investing.

This approach gives proponents a chance to hear objections and respond before positions become fixed, while creating an atmosphere of trust around the concept of a mission-based policy.

What should the first steps be?

If the institution lacks a mission statement, the first step should be to develop a simple one. A mission statement is a brief (less than a page), sometimes inspirational, summary of why an institution exists and what its objectives are.

Step 1: Preparation. Be ready to answer the basic questions.

Step 2: Legality Check. Not every institution may use all of mission-based investing's techniques to further its mission. The sections that follow offer some general guidance in this area; counsel will have to provide answers specific to the institution.*

Step 3: Preliminary Discussions. Before launching a campaign, one should know how the land lies. Discussions with members of the board and staff will guide tactical decisions.

Internal board politics will define "success." In an initial effort for a mission-based investment policy, a major triumph may be convincing the board to designate an ad hoc committee to study the question.

May trustees of charities engage in mission-based investing?

This question ultimately is one for counsel.* The answer will depend on a number of factors, including:

  • The nature of the entity seeking to adopt a mission-based policy, i.e., is it a charitable trust or a charity treated as a corporation?
  • The type of policy to be implemented, e.g., proxy voting? portfolio screening?
  • The relationship between the institution's mission and the policy.
  • The source of the funds to be invested, e.g., endowment or capital appreciation?
  • The types of investments to be made, e.g., conventional securities or below-market community investments?

Are different legal standards applied to different types of institutions?

Yes. Where trusts or charities are concerned, the law usually allows mission-based investing. The answer may be different for some types of pension funds.

In general, if a trust instrument (a document creating a trust) or a governing document (e.g., articles of incorporation) covers whether the trustees may adopt non-financial guidelines, then it determines the question. If a trust instrument is silent on the subject, trustees may take into account non-financial considerations when either:

  • the trust's charitable purpose justifies spending trust funds on the issue, or
  • the investment decision advances -- financially or operationally -- one of the trust's charitable activities.

This mission-based interpretation of a board's power to adopt non-financial criteria is a narrow one. For trusts generally, the legal treatises* appear to support a broad interpretation of the trustees' powers to adopt non-financial screens. Nonetheless, keeping the focus on mission makes sense: it not only justifies a policy to regulators and stakeholders but also increases the chances of adoption by the board. Counsel should advise on whether a particular policy will advance the trust's mission.

Entities subject to the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act (UMIFA) or its equivalent -- a class that includes the vast majority of charities -- seem to have at least as broad authority for adopting mission-based guidelines as charitable trusts. The standard applied is the business judgment rule. The business judgment rule shields a board or management from liability on a transaction if:

  • it was within the organization's powers and management's authority, and
  • the board or management acted with due care and in good faith.

In any event, the more closely the risk-reward profile of the screened investments resembles that of conventional investments, the less subject to challenge they may be.

Restatement (Third) of Trusts' 227 cmt. c (1990)

Top of Page

What types of institutions have adopted social investment policies?

Institutions of many types have adopted social investment policies*. The scale and scope of these policies varies widely. Table 1 contains a representative list of the types of social investment policies adopted by institutions and examples of those institutions.

Table 1. Examples of Institutional Social Investment Policies

 

Type of Social Investment Policy

Type of Institution

Examples

Extensive screening and proxy sponsorship

Foundation

Jesse Smith Noyes Foundation

Extensive screening & proxy sponsorship

Defined benefit plan

United Methodist Pension Board

Extensive screening and proxy sponsorship via mutual fund/pooled account

Defined contribution pension plan (401k)

American Medical Association

Extensive screening & proxy sponsorship via mutual fund/pooled account

Defined contribution pension plan (457)

City of Milwaukee

Extensive screening

Annuity

Security Benefit Life

Limited screening & limited activism

Endowment

Harvard University

Legislatively mandated single screen

Public D.B. Pension Fund

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Restricted by law/regulation

Taft-Hartley D.B. Plan

Teamsters Pension Funds

Top of Page

 

 
 
Home | Research | Indexes | Compliance | Consulting | Resources | About KLD | Media Center | Site Map | Contact Us

© 2008 KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Legal Disclaimer and Terms of Use | Privacy Statement