Ethical equivalent of Vanguard LifeStrategy

mothemoneysaver

A_T said:

Aviva have recently launched a range of funds that sound like ESG lifestrategy-type funds with an OCF of only 0.15%

Thanks all, this is a really useful discussion. This Aviva one did interest me but when I looked at their own website it seems like the OCF is 0.3% not 0.15% which is a shame. I can't share the link as I haven't been an MSE forum member for long enough apparently 😅
May still be one to look into though. Otherwise I suppose I could just switch everything to the Vanguard SRI fund for the time being as it will be the most convenient as I won't change platform. It seems like they have similar risk profiles too.

thegentleway

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

Struggling to fit that into ethical though. 

I don't understand what you're struggling with?
It is more ethical to invest in companies with sweat-shops than in companies that produce domestically in terms of using your resources to help others the most.
It would of course be even more ethical to invest in companies that employ people in poor countries that have higher labour standards.

thegentleway

barnstar2077 said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

I see where you are coming from, but couldn't Apple afford to treat people a bit better?

I also remember watching a news story once about Nike sweat shops employing children (they lived in a shanty town outside the factory walls and paid most of their wages to the middleman who got them the job.)   The girls were in a pretty desperate situation, unable to really make any money, but unable to go home to their families, I remember there being a lot of crying in the footage.  The producers went to Nike to show them the footage.  Nike made sure all of the girls were fired,  Problem solved,  Yes they should make sure that kids are not hired, but would it have killed them to have gone over there and helped those girls out?  Would have been some great PR for them instead.  A quick google suggests that not much has changed since.

Yes, I would imagine a company making billions of profits could certainly afford to pay and treat its workers better.

NottinghamKnight

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

Struggling to fit that into ethical though. 

I don't understand what you're struggling with?
It is more ethical to invest in companies with sweat-shops than in companies that produce domestically in terms of using your resources to help others the most.
It would of course be even more ethical to invest in companies that employ people in poor countries that have higher labour standards.

Well is it more ethical to invest in low wage labour companies, then the massive carbon footprint in transporting the goods, higher pollution levels that you can get away with in less developed companies, with associated deforestation to clear areas for factories. It's very multi level.

thegentleway

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

Struggling to fit that into ethical though. 

I don't understand what you're struggling with?
It is more ethical to invest in companies with sweat-shops than in companies that produce domestically in terms of using your resources to help others the most.
It would of course be even more ethical to invest in companies that employ people in poor countries that have higher labour standards.

Well is it more ethical to invest in low wage labour companies, then the massive carbon footprint in transporting the goods, higher pollution levels that you can get away with in less developed companies, with associated deforestation to clear areas for factories. It's very multi level.

There’s lots to consider isn’t there! Developing countries produce most of the world’s carbon emissions. Higher wages for poor countries doesn’t just benefit the factory workers, it’s improves the country’s economy, the sooner they develop, the sooner their emissions and pollution go down. Once they are developed we won’t need to transport as many goods since they won’t be as cheap any more.

NottinghamKnight

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

Struggling to fit that into ethical though. 

I don't understand what you're struggling with?
It is more ethical to invest in companies with sweat-shops than in companies that produce domestically in terms of using your resources to help others the most.
It would of course be even more ethical to invest in companies that employ people in poor countries that have higher labour standards.

Well is it more ethical to invest in low wage labour companies, then the massive carbon footprint in transporting the goods, higher pollution levels that you can get away with in less developed companies, with associated deforestation to clear areas for factories. It's very multi level.

There’s lots to consider isn’t there! Developing countries produce most of the world’s carbon emissions. Higher wages for poor countries doesn’t just benefit the factory workers, it’s improves the country’s economy, the sooner they develop, the sooner their emissions and pollution go down. Once they are developed we won’t need to transport as many goods since they won’t be as cheap any more.

It's a never ending circle, and the real issue is continual human population increase, though that can't be talked about of course. The best thing for the planet would be for humans to wipe themselves out. Carbon emissions are still far higher in developed countries, certainly per head, so developed countries are just moving their problem. I'm less concerned about carbon and global warming than habitat and species destruction, global temperatures have been far higher historically but once you wipe out a species and ecosystem then you can;t get it back, not for tens of millions of years at least. 

thegentleway

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

NottinghamKnight said:

thegentleway said:

barnstar2077 said:

Do these funds strip out companies like Apple, Nike or Amazon?  How many companies are there like Apple or Nike that sell expensive products that are manufactured for peanuts under questionable conditions in foreign factories?  What about how Amazon treats it's staff and suppliers?

It's counter intuitive because the extremity of global poverty is almost unimaginable but sweatshops are good for poor countries and boycotting them makes people in poor countries worse off. Conditions are bad in sweatshops but in poor countries they are the comparatively good jobs. E.g. Bolivians risk deportation to enter Brazil illegally in order to work in sweatshops there so they don't have to do backbreaking lower paid farm work, or scavenging/unemployment.

Struggling to fit that into ethical though. 

I don't understand what you're struggling with?
It is more ethical to invest in companies with sweat-shops than in companies that produce domestically in terms of using your resources to help others the most.
It would of course be even more ethical to invest in companies that employ people in poor countries that have higher labour standards.

Well is it more ethical to invest in low wage labour companies, then the massive carbon footprint in transporting the goods, higher pollution levels that you can get away with in less developed companies, with associated deforestation to clear areas for factories. It's very multi level.

There’s lots to consider isn’t there! Developing countries produce most of the world’s carbon emissions. Higher wages for poor countries doesn’t just benefit the factory workers, it’s improves the country’s economy, the sooner they develop, the sooner their emissions and pollution go down. Once they are developed we won’t need to transport as many goods since they won’t be as cheap any more.

It's a never ending circle, and the real issue is continual human population increase, though that can't be talked about of course. The best thing for the planet would be for humans to wipe themselves out. Carbon emissions are still far higher in developed countries, certainly per head, so developed countries are just moving their problem. I'm less concerned about carbon and global warming than habitat and species destruction, global temperatures have been far higher historically but once you wipe out a species and ecosystem then you can;t get it back, not for tens of millions of years at least. 

Overpopulation is a big issue. The birth rate of developed countries is stable/in decline. So developing developing addresses overpopulation!
Climate change will continue to wipe out species but I’m confident we will eventually take it seriously.
I think we have a moral duty not to wipe ourselves out so billions of billions future minds can colonies flourish and colonise. Human extinction would be a tremendous waste.

ados42

I have some investments in this.
https://www.trustnet.com/factsheets/o/pjt5/hsbc-global-sustainable-multi-asset-balanced-portfolio-c-inc
It may meet your requirements.

mothemoneysaver

Thanks for all your replies.
I've settled on the

BMO Sustainable Universal MAP Balanced or Growth.

I was just wondering in terms of choosing a platform for these, HL charge 0.39% as an OCF rather than the 0.35% that ii charge. I think HL would still work out cheaper for lower investment amounts so the flat fee from ii is still more expensive, but is this normal for the same fund to have different OCFs on different platforms?

ZeroSum

What's ethical can be somewhat subjective. The vanguard ethical funds include companies that are somewhat questionable with regards to ethics