|
|
Humane Investing: Mutual
Funds
Animal advocates go to great lengths to ensure that they do
not contribute to animal suffering. From a vegan diet to not
wearing leather to not buying products tested on animals. But
do you know what your investment money is funding? If not, you
should. |
|
Mutual Funds: Socially Responsible Investing... is it Cruelty-Free
Investing too?
Below is a list of the major Socially Responsible Investment (SRI)
Mutual Funds and their responses to our questions regarding their
animal-use screens. When a company is "screened out" they
are excluded from a mutual fund's investment money. Many of the funds
work very hard to ensure that a variety of human-issue concerns are
met before investing money in a company. Among the categories screened
out are such practices as gambling, alcohol, tobacco, human rights
violations & discrimination, etc. Detailed information about those
policies can be found on their individual web sites. This page is
intended to be a comprehensive analysis of one screen: animal rights
and animal welfare.
Before making any investment, be sure to contact the company to ask
if the animal policy has changed recently. As companies are bought
and sold, new parent companies may have different policies that they
have to adhere to. It is also a good idea to ask to see the prospectus
and other written materials for each fund. Be saavy and look for vague
and undefined screens. If a guideline is worded so that it invests
in companies that are "looking into alternatives" or "require
companies to stay within legal guidelines" or "trying to
reduce animal-use" without quantifying what those terms mean,
then it is not really a screen at all.
| List
of Mutual Funds |
| Name
of Fund |
Date
of Statement |
Name
of Contact |
Animal
Policy Statement from a fund representative (if available)
or description based on Animal Awareness research |
|
Advocacy Fund by Trillium Asset Management |
|
This fund seeks many comprehensive human rights and environmental
improvements as well as seeks humane treatment of farm animals.
Their method is not to screen out and not invest with those
companies. Instead they use their stock ownership and voting
power to work from the inside and steer the company in a more
positive direction. They post their voting record online (see
the PDF file of the
2002 voting record). Example 2002 voting was in favor of
increasing container recycling and the recycled content of coca-cola
products, voted for Chevron-Texaco to disclose their plans if
they intend to drill in the arctic, and voted for Duke Energy
Corporation to obtain power supply from clean & reusable sources.
The animal-use policy is one that pushes for humane treatment:
Exerpt from their Voting
Guidelines web page: "We support resolutions that ask companies
to ensure that their suppliers meet basic standards for the
humane treatment, transportation and slaughter of farm animals."
As noted on PETA'a Cruelty-Free
Investing information, The Advocacy Fund and Trillium Asset
Management joined PETA to file a resolution wiht McDonald's
asking the company to make global the standards the company
sets for its suppliers regarding farm animal welfare.
|
| Calvert
Social Funds |
August
5, 2002 |
CustomerService@Calvert.com |
Good
Afternoon, Calvert has an animal welfare policy on our Calvert
Social Investment Fund portfolios. You can view the policy and
our issue brief on the topic via the following link. http://www.calvert.com/sri_647.html#Product
Safety. Thank you for your inquiry.
Exerpt the link above: "We invest in companies that provide
a strong rationale for testing consumer products on animals
and commit to phasing in alternatives to animal testing. We
also ask companies to demonstrate their progress toward the
elimination of animal testing."
|
| Citizens
Social Funds |
August
5, 2002 |
Rhonda
Countryman |
The
following link outlines the screening criteria for all of our
funds. We do not offer a fund that specifically screens for
animal testing. http://www.citizensfunds.com/individual/philosophy/screens.asp
If you have any other questions, or if we may be of further
assistance, please feel free to contact our Shareholder Services
Department at (800) 223-7010. Our representatives are available
to assist you from 9 am until 6 pm Eastern Time Monday through
Friday.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Countryman, Shareholder Services Representative.
Exerpt from the link above:
We consider the use of animal testing by companies that
manufacture personal care products as a material line of business.
We avoid those that test on animals in excess of legal requirements.
We avoid companies with a pattern of violations of the Animal
Welfare Act.
|
| Cruelty
Free Value Fund |
July
22, 2002 |
bgainc@beaconglobal.com
|
It
no longer exists. Lack of interest, believe it, or not.
John Groth, Beacon Global Advisors
|
| Domini
Social Investments |
August
1, 2002 |
help@domini.com |
Thank
you for visiting our website and contacting us. We appreciate
your interest in Domini Social Investments.
As you may know, the Domini 400 Social Index ("Index") was created
and is maintained by our social research colleagues at KLD Research
and Analytics, Inc. ("KLD") and it is the Index upon which the
Domini Social Equity Fund is based. In direct response to your
inquiry, although KLD does monitor animal testing issues for
all companies in the Index, they have chosen not to implement
a formal animal testing screen to date.
The Index's formal exclusionary screens, alcohol, tobacco, gambling,
nuclear power and military weapons, are very clearly defined.
Decisions regarding these issues are generally clear-cut, based
on widely available, measurable data. Animal testing, however,
presents a very different case, involving a number of gray areas
that make it very difficult to reduce to a workable screen.
KLD might have chosen, for example, to screen out companies
that use animals for the development of cosmetics, but continue
to purchase companies that use animals for the development of
new drugs. This appears to be a simple screen on its face, but
in practice it is often difficult to distinguish between frivolous
products, such as cosmetics, and those essential to human health,
such as drugs. Schering Plough, for example, uses animal testing
to improve its Coppertone line of suntan and sun block lotions.
The FDA classifies these products as medicines, although many
animal rights activists might consider these to be cosmetics.
Motorola uses animals to determine if electromagnetic emissions
from its mobile telephones have potentially harmful health effects.
Once again, should this be classified as a health issue, or
as unnecessary testing to improve the use of a frivolous, luxury
item? There are those who would argue that this type of screen
is not sufficient, and that no animal testing for any purpose
should be permitted.
Moreover, it is not entirely clear what a commitment by a corporation,
such as Avon, not to use animal testing in new personal care
products means. Virtually all ingredients used in personal care
products have at one time or another been tested on animals,
or are now being tested. The Body Shop's cruelty free products,
for example, can contain ingredients tested on animals more
than five years prior to the product's introduction. Is it sufficient
for a company simply to wait for someone else to do the tests?
Many major consumer products companies, such as Procter & Gamble
and Bristol-Myers Squibb, are strong supporters of research
and development into alternatives to animal testing and advocates
of revamping of federal requirements for the use of animal tests.
These are positive steps targeted to bring about reductions
in animal testing at the most meaningful level.
We support and respect the position of animal rights advocates
that the use of animals in all testing can and should be dramatically
reduced. We also believe, however, that due to the complexity
of this issue, it is best addressed through public policy initiatives
rather than by the screening of company stocks. And so, KLD
has decided not to include a formal animal rights screen for
the Index.
Nevertheless, as it does with other legal infractions, KLD's
research process captures corporate violations of the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA). While KLD is unlikely to exclude companies
from the Index on this basis alone, KLD favors companies that
have not violated the AWA or other laws developed to prevent
animal cruelty. Corporate violations of laws designed to protect
any stakeholder group almost always detract from KLD's social
and environmental evaluation of the offending firms. Finally,
while there is no current plan to examine the matter of animals
in entertainment, KLD does plan to examine the issue of factory
farming more closely over the next year or so.
In conclusion, the screens used in selecting companies for the
Index recognize that no corporation is perfect. We make our
investments with the aim of engaging in the corporate governance
process and encouraging corporate accountability. One way we
participate in this process is through our proxy votes. In keeping
with that approach, the Domini Social Equity Fund supports shareholder
resolutions that require companies to adopt global animal welfare
standards, and to report these standards to shareholders. This
guideline is on page 32 of our Proxy Voting Guidelines, which
we've attached for your review. If you would like to receive
a hard copy of our Proxy Voting Guidelines, please call our
Investor Services line at 1-800-582-6757, M-F, 9am-5pm Eastern
Time, or reply to this email.
We understand that this explanation for our position may not
be satisfactory to you. There are socially responsible funds
with explicit animal rights screens, and you may wish to invest
with one of them. Before doing so, we would encourage you to
ask questions to be certain that their screens are appropriate
for you. If you would like additional information about our
approach to social screening issues, you may wish to visit our
website at http://www.domini.com/social-screening/index.htm.
If you have any additional questions, or if we may be of any
further service, please feel free to call our Investor Services
line at 1-800-582-6757, M-F, 9am-5pm Eastern Time, or reply
to this email.
Sincerely,
Domini Social Investments , Shareholder Services
http://www.domini.com
P.O. Box 60494, King of Prussia, PA 19406-0494
Shareholder Information Line: 800-582-6757
|
|
Delaware Social Awareness |
|
From The Social Investment Forum (socialinvest.com): "This Invests in medium and large
companies excluding those that are involved in the following:
damage the environment, nuclear power, military weapons, liquor,
tobacco, gambling, animal testing for personal care products."
They do not exclude investments in medical testing animal-use.
(A)
front load fund information (DEQAX - performance and statistics)
(B) back
load fund information (DEQBX - performance and statistics)
(C) back
load fund information (DEQCX - performance and statistics)
1818 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-3682
(800) 362-3863, www.delawarefunds.com
|
|
Devcap Shared Return Fund |
|
From their web site: "Consistent with Catholic teaching
and the U.S. Bishops Guidelines on Socially Responsible Investing,
the primary focus of our SRI work is to use our leverage as
owners to bring about positive change in companies and move
them closer to "socially responsible" practices. This is done
through Christian Brothers Investment Services, Active Ownership.
Processes involved are filing shareholder resolutions, engaging
in dialogue with companies and voting proxies according to our
SRI policy. " They do not have information about using
animal issues as a screen though SocialInvest.com did mention
that this fund does use an exclusionary screen for animal issues.
Animal Awareness will update this fund information once we hear
back from the fund managers.
Devcap Shared Return Fund (DESRX) - policies
and statistics
209 W. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21201
(800) 371-2655, www.devcap.org, devcap@catholicrelief.org
|
|
Friends Ivory & Sime |
|
London-based SRI mutual fund. Animal Awareness is waiting to
hear back from them about their animal-use screening. Information
will be posted as soon as it is available.
From the Planet Ark web
site: "Friends is one of the biggest players in the socially
responsible investment (SRI) market. Its approach is to work
with companies to improve their social, environmental and ethical
policies in the belief that this will have a positive impact
on the bottom line."
Friends Ivory & Sime manages 2 funds:
Friends Ivory Social Awareness Fund [FISWX] (800-481-4404)
Friends Ivory European Social Awareness Fund [FIESX] (800-481-4404)
www.friendsivoryfunds.com
|
| Henderson
Global Investors |
|
|
The good news: These funds actually fit
a strict animal rights criteria
The bad news: The fund managers do not appear to want anything
to do with U.S. Citizens.
Animal Awarness is still in trying to find out about this. Here
is the statement on their UK web site, "This web site is reserved
exclusively for non-US persons and should not be accessed by
any person in the United States." The statement goes on for
about 10 paragraphs describing what a U.S. citizen is just in
case someone is not sure. Global Care Growth, Pension Global
Care, and Life Global Care fit a strict criteria of screening
out all animal testing, factory farming, and animals used in
entertainment. None of these three social funds are even mentioned
on the U.S. version of their web site.
We have not received any responses from the London office, but
the U.S. office (Info@hendersonna.com)
did reply. We were told to contact Natalie Pickett in the London
office at natalie.pickett@henderson.com
or call the London office at 0800 832 832.
1) Henderson Ethical Fund:
Screens out factory farming and all animal testing (medical
and cosmetic).
http://www2.henderson.com/global_includes/pdf/sri/ethical_fund_criteria.pdf
2) Pension Global Care Fund:
The objective is for long-term growth of capital and income.
This will be achieved by investing in a range of companies which
make a positive contribution to protection of the environment,
social wellbeing and the wise use of natural resources. Companies
which harm people, animals or the environment are avoided. The
Fund is invested 100% in equities and cash.
http://www.npi.co.uk/npi/npipb.nsf/Content/gc_fund_profiles#GlobalCarePension
3) Global Care Growth OEIC Fund:
The objective of the Fund is to provide long-term capital growth
and income. The Manager will invest in companies quoted on stock
markets around the world whose activities contribute to social
well-being, protection of the environment, and the wise use
of natural resources. Companies which harm people, animals or
the environment are avoided. http://www.npi.co.uk/npi/npipb.nsf/Content/gc_fund_profiles#GlobalCareGrowth
4) Life Global Care Fund:
Companies whose products or activities harm people, animals
or the environment are avoided.
http://www.npi.co.uk/npi/npipb.nsf/Content/gc_fund_profiles#LifeGlobalCare
|
| Humane
Equity Fund |
August
9, 2002 |
Rob
Blizard, HSUS |
I
regret to report that The Humane Equity Fund, which was launched
some 30 months ago by Salomon Brothers Asset Management, with
The HSUS as a consultant, will be terminated. The fund was a
great idea, but many funds suffered in the recent economic conditions.
Still, The HSUS is committed to the concept of animal-friendly
investing, and we will continue to look for similar opportunities.
|
| IPS
Millennium Fund |
August
5, 2002 |
Robert
Loest, IPS Millennium |
We
are not an ethical fund by prospectus simply because we decided
not to do it that way. We are an ethical investment firm, but
that includes some things of an ethical nature (like disclosure
of all fund holdings within 24 hours and the Diary) other funds
don't do that we think they should, and does not include some
other things that other funds consider ethical that we don't
care about (human rights, wage issues). One of them is eating
meat. We simply don't take a position on it. The reason is the
same as why we don't take a position on nuclear power. They
are all reasons that result in philosophical conflicts no matter
which direction one comes from. I personally am more strict
on some of these issues in my personal life than the fund is
because I can simply declare that I don't like something. I
can't do that with a fund with a lot of shareholders who are
ethical, but many of whom have different views of what is ethical.
Other than that, we avoid any companies that test on animals,
and that aren't actively trying to reduce or eliminate any tests
that are required by law. Abbott Labs, for instance, which we've
held in the past, contributes heavily to FRAME (Fund for the
Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments). Kimberly Clark
does something similar. I hope this helps. If I can answer any
other questions you may have, please let me know. Good luck!
Robert Loest, Ph.D., CFA, Senior Portfolio Manager
IPS Millennium Fund, IPS New Frontier Fund
865.524.1676
http://www.ipsfunds.com
|
| Parnassus
Investments |
August
5, 2002 |
Juanita
Carnero |
We
do not invest in companies that do animal testing for cosmetic
purposes. However, we may consider a company if testing is done
for medical / medicinal purposes.
www.parnassus.com
|
| Pax
World Funds |
August
7, 2002 |
Jen
Bonaccorsi |
Thank you for contacting Pax World Funds. Animal
testing is an issue that we are sensitive to but it is not among
our formal screens. Our directors have discussed this issue
and have developed a policy that states our disapproval of non-medical
testing. Johnson & Johnson, held in the Pax World Fund, was
bought prior to the creation of the policy. For this reason
it was exempt from this decision, though we have been in contact
with the company and have seen considerable improvements. Johnson
& Johnson no longer uses animal testing for the development
of non-medical products in the U.S. From '90-'99 the company
reduced its use of animal testing for non-medical products outside
of the U.S. by over 85%. They are progressive in their movement
to reduce the number of animals used in testing and are seeking
and utilizing alternative methods. You have alluded to several
other animal uses such as factory farming, fur, and entertainment.
While our policy only relates to non-medical testing, we do
research each company on an individual basis. For example, companies
with factory farming operations fail our environmental screen
because of pollution associated with waste and run-off. I hope
that this information is helpful and please feel free to contact
me if you have additional questions or concerns. Thank you again
for your interest in Pax World Funds.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bonaccorsi, Social Analyst
www.paxfund.com
|
|
Portfolio 21 Fund |
|
This fund supports sustainable agriculture and is in support
of small farmers. Small farmers are obviously more humane than
factory farming. Their web site indicates that they are not
in favor of genetic engineering for many reasons but they do
not exclude all aspects of it. They acknowledge that animal
testing has not shown results that are applicable to humans
in regards to genetic engineering and that they feel more studies
are needed before they can fully support genetic engineered
food. They did not say specifically if those studies should
involve animals or not. See their complete statement about Biotechnology
and also their screening
criteria.
Animal Awareness is still waiting for an official statement from this fund as to their animal-use screens. More information will
be posted once available.
Portfolio 21 (PORTX) - policies
and statistics
721 Northwest 9th Ave. Portland, OR 97209
(800) 385-7003, portfolio21.com, welcome@portfolio21.com
|
| Rocky
Mountain Humane Investing |
August
3, 2002 |
Brad
Pappas |
Yes,
our minimum is $100,000. We manage portfolios hence the high
minimum, we're not a mutual fund.
Brad Pappas, Rocky Mountain Humane Investing
1-800-962-1980, 970-377-1700
www.greeninvestment.com
|
| Walden
Social Funds |
August
5, 2002 |
Regina
Morgan |
Thank you for your interest in Walden Asset Management. Walden's
mutual fund policies on animal welfare are not as stringet as
the approach you have outlined (Walden Social Equity and Walden
Social Balanced). The animal welfare policy is copied below.
Specifically, Walden funds do not impose a total ban on animal
testing. Companies primarily involved in factory farming or
in the production of fur would be ruled out, though these issues
are not addressed in our statement below. Animals in entertainment
would be considered in cases of egregious practices only (e.g.
theme parks).
Hope this addresses your questions.
Regina
SCREENING POLICY ON ANIMAL TESTING
Walden Asset Management does not impose an outright ban on companies
that use some animals to test the safety of consumer products.
In certain cases the Food and Drug Administration still recognizes
animal testing as the best methodology for testing new products
and ingredients. In these circumstances, we recognize companies
could be obliged to implement tests on animals to protect human
health and avoid financial liability.
Nonetheless, Walden does expect portfolio companies that conduct
tests on animals to demonstrate (1) a defensible ratioonale
for animal testing; (2) resolve to significantly reduce the
numbers of animals used over time; (3) a commitment to alternatives
to animal testing both in practice and through financial support;(4)
humane treatment of animals when no alternatives are available;
(5)and finally, a willingness to disclose information and dialogue
with concerned stakeholders on their efforts and progress in
minimizing animal testing.
|
| Winslow
Green Growth Fund |
August
5, 2002 |
Lisa
Thors |
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Winslow Green Growth Fund.
As you may know, we invest in companies that are environmentally
responsible, so our focus and energy is spent on researching
the environmental policies of companies in which we invest or
are considering investing. The issue arises most often with
the healthcare companies in our portfolio. As part of the environmental
audit we perform on the companies in our portfolio, we ask management
of companies about animal testing and also what alternatives
to animal testing exist for their business. Some companies conduct
extensive computer model simulations and other forms of simulations,
and they do this as in depth as possible, until they must resort
to testing directly on animals. When they do test on animals,
most, if not all of them, are supervised by a third party. The
challenge with animal testing is that in order to determine
the efficacy and safety of the drugs in development, the FDA
requires that healthcare companies conduct a certain amount
of animal testing before human trials are allowed. All of the
companies we invest in do follow all FDA safety regulations,
and comply with the USDA's Animal Welfare Act. So, in summary,
we screen for a company's policy on animal testing, but we do
not screen out these companies if they meet the FDA and USDA
guidelines mentioned above. We do not hold stocks of companies
making non-medical or cosmetic products that are tested on animals.
I hope this helps. Another resource you might try is www.socialfunds.com.
This site is very informative and has a checklist for which
funds screen for which social issues. Thanks again for your
interest.
Lisa Thors, Winslow Management Company
A division of Adams, Harkness & Hill
60 State Street, 12th floor
Boston, MA 02109
617-371-3838, www.winslowgreen.com
|
| Women's
Equity Mutual Fund |
August
20, 2002 |
Terry
Lilienfield |
WEMF
prefers companies that do not do animal testing, but we do not
impose an outright ban on those that use laboratory animal studies
as the best methodology for testing new products and ingredients.
In these cases, we understand that companies could be obliged
to implement tests on animals to protect human health and avoid
financial liability. Nevertheless, the fund does require portfolio
companies that conduct tests on animals to demonstrate:
A defensible rationale for animal testing
A resolve to significantly reduce the number of animals
used over time
A commitment to alternatives to animal testing in practice
and through financial support
Humane treatment of animals when no alternatives are available
A willingness to dialogue with concerned stakeholders and
to disclose information about their efforts and progress in
minimizing animal testing.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions
about our fund.
Sincerely,
Terry Lilienfield, Women's Equity Mutual Fund, PH. 888-552-9363
ticker symbol - femmx
|
back to top
|
|
 |
