Responsible Investment Policies in Addictive Industries

by Jon Scaccia October 30, 2024

In the world of finance, investment decisions carry substantial weight, not only in terms of financial impact but also in public health outcomes. A recent study examines how institutional investors—large-scale financial players such as banks and pension funds—are beginning to play a vital role in promoting public health by distancing themselves from addictive industries like tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and cannabis. While the study primarily focuses on the tobacco industry, it raises intriguing questions about broader responsible investment practices and their potential to reduce harm.

Why Institutional Investors Matter in Public Health

Due to the large amounts of capital they manage, institutional investors wield considerable influence. Their investment choices can either bolster or restrict industries that pose health risks, especially addictive industries. But what drives these investors to exclude certain industries from their portfolios? The answer lies in responsible investment (RI) policies, which allow investors to balance moral considerations with financial goals by screening out sectors seen as harmful to society.

One significant initiative in the realm of responsible investment is the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge (TFFP), established in 2021. The TFFP aims to de-normalize investment in the tobacco industry, aligning with a global push to reduce tobacco consumption. Signatories of the pledge—financial institutions that commit to excluding tobacco from their portfolios—represent a growing trend of investors taking ethical stances.

Examining the Role of Exclusion Policies

The study found that nearly half of TFFP signatories enforce a strict “zero-tolerance” policy, entirely excluding tobacco from their investments. However, this approach isn’t consistently applied across other addictive industries. While 35% of investors exclude gambling, only 24% exclude alcohol, and a mere 12% exclude cannabis. This discrepancy reveals that tobacco remains the primary target of exclusion policies, while other harmful industries often slip through the cracks.

Why the gap? For many investors, tobacco carries the highest reputational risk. Its well-documented connection to non-communicable diseases and widespread health campaigns against smoking make it a clear choice for exclusion. Other addictive sectors, such as alcohol and cannabis, lack the same degree of public health consensus and regulatory scrutiny, making them less likely to be excluded.

The Influence of Geography and Investor Type

Geography plays a major role in exclusion policies. European investors, for instance, are more likely to exclude additional addictive industries compared to their North American or Asian counterparts. Among European investors, those from Northern and Central Europe are even more stringent, often excluding not only tobacco but also gambling, alcohol, and cannabis. Meanwhile, North American and Oceania-based investors are less consistent in their exclusions.

The study also notes that investor type influences exclusion tendencies. Asset managers—companies that handle large investment portfolios—are most likely to implement strict exclusion policies for multiple addictive industries. This is largely because asset managers face significant public and client scrutiny, compelling them to adopt policies that protect their reputation.

Why Negative Screening Matters

At the heart of responsible investment policies lies “negative screening,” which involves removing certain industries from investment portfolios based on ethical or moral concerns. This approach holds promise for public health. By diverting funds away from harmful industries, investors can curb the growth of sectors that contribute to addiction and associated health risks. Moreover, when high-profile investors take a stand, they set an example that could influence other market players.

Negative screening also aligns with the principles of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing, a strategy that has gained popularity in recent years. ESG investors aim to minimize social harm and environmental impact by selecting companies that adhere to higher ethical standards. For institutional investors, ESG criteria provide a tangible framework for making decisions that prioritize social good over short-term profits.

Motivations Behind Exclusion Policies

According to the study, most investors justify their exclusion policies using two main factors: compliance with international standards and reputation management. For instance, many investors avoid tobacco because international guidelines discourage association with this industry. Similarly, the desire to maintain a positive public image motivates investors to steer clear of sectors perceived as socially harmful.

Financial considerations also play a role. Investors recognize that changes in legislation or shifts in consumer attitudes could lead to economic losses in these sectors. For example, stricter tobacco regulations or increased gambling restrictions could reduce profits in these industries, making them less attractive from a purely financial standpoint.

Public Health Implications of Ethical Investment

The commercial determinants of health—the influence that commercial industries have on health outcomes—are evident in how addictive industries operate. Companies in these sectors often use aggressive marketing strategies, lobby against public health regulations, and, in some cases, engage in socially irresponsible practices that worsen public health outcomes. When institutional investors refuse to support these industries, they help weaken the financial power of companies that profit from addiction.

Moreover, the Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge serves as a model for future initiatives aimed at other addictive industries. By raising awareness about the negative health impact of these sectors, initiatives like the TFFP could lead to broader campaigns against gambling, alcohol, and cannabis investments. The study suggests that, as these industries become increasingly associated with public health harm, more investors may begin to exclude them.

Challenges to Widespread Adoption of Responsible Investment Policies

Despite the positive trend toward responsible investing, challenges remain. Many institutional investors still prioritize financial returns over ethical considerations, especially when it comes to high-performing industries like alcohol and gambling. Additionally, the economic success of these industries makes them attractive to investors, even those with ethical inclinations.

The study highlights that while responsible investment policies are growing, their adoption varies widely across regions and investor types. This variability underscores the need for public health advocates and policymakers to push for greater accountability and transparency in the investment sector.

Join the Conversation

What do you think about the role of investment in public health? Should more investors adopt responsible investment policies to reduce harm from addictive industries?
Do you believe public awareness campaigns could encourage investors to divest from harmful sectors?

Transform Your Knowledge in Minutes!

Our weekly newsletter delivers easy-to-read summaries of the latest public health research. Perfect for busy professionals or anyone who wants to stay informed without the jargon. Subscribe for free and take control of your knowledge today! Click below!