I’m sickened by it and I would suggest that most students feel likewise.

Long may it continue.”

Hear hear!

The point is that BAE do that sort of thing. Rolls Royce also fit this category – NEXT etc. may well be unethical for other reasons but my point is that they are not banned by this policy. Not sure that NEXT point is as horrendous though since I’m fairly sure that a rather large amount of companies do it.

The two companies are not fantastic for jobs, economy or science. That’s just not true.

And yes, I have several gripes with a variety of Thatcher’s policies and would protested at the time. I think that several of her policies, specifically those at the beginning of her term of office, were very sensible but that a few policies were essentially, in the words of Tom Scott, “social bribery” regarding privatisation of some of the companies, selling off council houses etc. There was an element of bad-for-the-economy-and-the-country-in-the-long-run-but-popular-now in it. I’m not, however, jealous.

Once we have our own affairs in order, and frankly the government isn’t doing that badly at the moment – compared with previous governments, and other current governments – then we should go after the bigger fish. However, at present, we (as in the general student populace) feel that the tuition fee system doesn’t work, that charities investing money in BAE is wrong and that we should have a library that is open when we want to use it, along with a ton of other things.

If you want to campaign against the university for a stronger ethical investment policy, that excludes companies like Nestlé, NEXT, anything that isn’t fairtrade, rainforest alliance etc., all products with links to any undemocratic state etc… then by all means, submit it to the UGM and try to get support for it. Likewise if you want to argue against ethical investment and put through a UGM, give it a shot. That’s called democracy and I’m all in favour of it!!

I find it disgusting that you people seem to have such disdain for two of the very small group of really successful, modern, British companies. BAE systems are aerospace engineers. They don’t JUST make components military aircraft (and infact you could make the equally ill-founded claim that BAE help to save lives and put people in work through their huge investment in search and rescue helicopter systems. Rolls-Royce dont JUST make engines for military aircraft- again, they invest hugely in rescue and civilian aircraft. The fact is that these two companies are fantastic for British workers, the British economy and British science.

One last thing- please dont call me a tory because i’m not one! But sometimes uni students get a bit bored because the world is perfectly fine- they feel the need to go and protest about something. I think you are all just jealous of the lucky students who could go around moaning about maggie! (I know I am)

Erik, I said “in the last 30 years” for a reason. I acknowledge that Nestlé have improved a lot in a variety of ways and I’m not disputing that. Apologies if my words were not clear.

There are plenty of organisations worldwide that may be considered unethical, as Nestlé’s actions 30 years ago would probably include, and many would argue that McDonalds, Adidas, etc. are unethical. However this isn’t covered in the ethical investment policy – hence the reason that I responded to Aris’ point on the matter.

Your statement of ‘fact’ is this:

“Nestlé were responsible for the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or more by extremely unethical practise in Africa in the last 30 years.”

Seriously, Jason Rose? What is your source for this alleged genocide?

I think you should read up on matters before you make factually incorrect and offensive comments. Admittedly, Nestlé’s marketing strategy for milk formula in the 1970s was morally dubious to say the least, but in the last 30 years, the development has gone the other way – the board of directors responsible for the scandal has been replaced, and a new policy implemented (you can read a little about the adoption of the WHO Code here http://www.babymilk.nestle.com/Developping+World/WHO+Code/WHO+Code+recommendations.htm)

Jason Rose, I realise that you have a passion for debating in online forums, and sometimes I even think you have valid points, but check your facts, check again, and then think twice about commenting.

Sincerely,
Erik O’Connor

Really poor logic there.

“Unless you know for certain that the pension receivers agree with the ethical investment policy, and you can prove beyond doubt that there are other companies at least as safe as BAE and Rolls Royce, it is illegal to withdraw these investments.”

Not true. Because the university is a charity, the trustee board has a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the charity whether financial or otherwise. Since the university’s mission statement is to be ethical then they would be acting illegally to NOT act ethically. Granted that they also have a responsibility to be financially successful but, well, they haven’t.

And I’ve already named several companies that were more successful over the last year. It’s quite easy to spot trends – once Zavvi was closing down, HMV was going to profit from being a monopoly. Etc. Of course that isn’t necessarily going to increase shares prices but it’s still a point.

And the final thing I’m going to say in the thread is this: David Duncan, Registrar and Secretary, has raved about how university investments are invested in M&G and how it’s good enough for Amnesty International etc. The pension fund is not invested through M&G but the ‘important’ shares are… M&G don’t buy BAE and are also more profiting. Surely that suggests that, since the bigger investment companies aren’t investing unethically and are making bigger profits, the companies in question aren’t really any better for us?

After all, only £700,000 is invested in arms shares now compared to the £330,000,000 (according to CAAT and other online statistics), £150,000,000 approx (according to Graham Gilbert) or under £4,000,000 (according to David Duncan) in shares that York owns. Whilst having a wide investment is beneficial if all shares are going up, and in six months time they probably will start to go up again, there is obviously a large majority of share-holdings in other companies that HAVEN’T given weapons to dictators, provided torture implements to Saudi Arabia or been involved in massive scandals regarding military coups among other things.

Since the university’s major investment companies all seem to think that investing in BAE isn’t for them, the minor companies should probably follow suit. And you’d have less students complaining.

My question was not whether it was one of the safest. My question was whether it was THE safest investment that is currently possible. If it is not, or if there are other opportunities that are just as safe, then the argument about the legitimacy of ‘going ethical’ is invalid. I’ve said that before but you ignored it. Let me repeat myself again:

The university’s financial advisors are more than capable of finding safe and profitable investment opportunities, very much like those that they have entrusted the remaining £330,000,000 of the university’s money.

And the fact that we invest so little in BAE and Rolls is very very relevant; it proves that we can easily find other investment opportunities that are just as safe and just as profitable without risking absolutely anything.

To close this argument, not investing in the arms trade is really not that big a deal in financial terms – it is what the university already does with the vast majority of its money.

We only ask it to keep its own promises and remove its minuscule investments from two companies that violate the its own explicit commitments. And that’s a point you simply can’t ignore. No matter whether you agree or disagree with the notion of an ethical investment policy, the fact of the matter is that the university has made an explicit commitment to refrain from supporting practices that cause harm on society.

If you don’t agree with what we are arguing for, blame the university for making this commitment. Try to change it if you wish, but until that time an ethical investment policy is something that we should be and will be adopting.

“For instance, I explained to you that the fact that the shares in BAE only account for a fraction of the total investment is irrelevant: a balanced portfolio is meant to be split very diversely”

I am aware that a balanced portfolio is meant to be diverse, but this does not automatically mean that it should include BAE shares. By mere virtue of the fact that we have such a diverse portfolio we can see that there are countless other investment opportunities that the university can choose from. I am sure that you can concede that there is at least one profitable company out there that does not make money out of making killing machines.

“If you do not want this to get boring, you’d better reply to all points directly, rather than picking out minor holes in only some of them.”

That’s a bit rich – you do exactly the same.

And just to clarify, what is it that you want your university to invest in after all? Do you believe that the policy that is being discussed is not enough or do you think that there should not be an ethical investment policy in the first place?

It is pointless to discuss if we do not know what we are both arguing for.

What we actually said is that the economic aspect is irrelevant in this case because we invest an insignificant sum on those two companies, so we can easily spread it to our current portfolio without having an impact. This is very very different to what you suggested, which is that we just don’t care about what’s happening with the university’s finances.

“prove beyond doubt that there are other companies at least as safe as BAE and Rolls Royce”

I am sure that you are not suggesting that BAE and Rolls Royce are THE safest investments on earth. If you are not suggesting that, your argument is invalid. If you are suggesting that, then I don’t think I even need to respond. The university’s financial advisors are more than capable of finding safe and profitable investment opportunities, very much like those that they have entrusted the remaining £330,000,000 of the university’s money!

This conversation is moving in circles and it is getting increasingly boring and repetitive. Unless there are any new arguments to debate on I suggest we leave it at that.

If, a year ago, the University had taken all shares out of BAE, put it in a bag and buried it in front of Heslington Hall, they would have made more money than they did investing in the arms trade. It’s not the worst of their investments but it’s still blatantly a stupid idea. If people are complaining that all shares are dropping, why the heck are we still investing in them?!

It’s the university itself that made this definition in the first place.

Not only did we not claim this, in fact we categorically denied it in every message. I can only assume that you did not read the previous replies so allow me to repeat myself.

I think everyone is very much aware of the fact that there are actually other companies out there who are by no means ‘ethical’ in the standard sense. However, as you’ve said yourself, the harm they cause is indirect and is dependent on the actual company’s management and practices.

The harm caused by the arms trade and child labour is direct and it does not depend on the company – this practice is always harmful no matter what company does it. By definition, there can be no ‘ethical’ company exploiting 5 year old children, making money out of killing or supporting brutal dictators.

That does not go to say that every other company is ethical, but this debate is simply beyond the scope of whether the university should invest in industries that are INHERENTLY harmful. In other words, it’d be plain unreasonable to exclude all baby milk companies because of Nestle. But ALL companies that take part in the arms trade contribute towards a more dangerous and violent world.

It’s not a case-by-case analysis of every company that is being proposed here, it is whether the university should invest in those specific sectors of the economy. We think those sectors are inherently harmful and we do not believe we should finance them. If you disagree, feel free to explain. But the argument that we should do nothing because we would not automatically cure all the ills of the world is simply invalid.

To point out the magnitude of the struggle is not to point to a flaw in our logic. Fear in this world is fuelled by weaponry. Both domestically and globally those who are subjugated are kept in their place by force. The battle for global hegemony and economic dominance is going to engulf the next generation, if not ours. No longer are The West in the clear blue waters of global dominance. At our current rates of consumption and with no real alternative energy source, the future looks bleak. The next major conflict poses a real danger. We live in a world of game theory where almost every state distrusts another so much they invest in arms so powerful they can obliterate it.

The ease in which those in power can destroy the world is terrifying.

Luckily for our generation the fear of the Cold War has died down. Instead it is terrorists who we fear, not states. However, this will not last and the idea that investing in arms makes us safer is fallacious. Rogue states will emerge and Iran will arm themselves with a nuclear bomb. The reason why such states arm themselves in this way is fear, America and Israel with their ‘shock and awe’ terror tactics only encourage other nations to sufficiently arm themselves. The arms races which we saw recur throughout the 20th century show us two things:

Firstly, the greater your arms pile, the greater your enemy’s arms pile gets.

Secondly, those who win the battle are the richer nations.

Investing in arms does not make us safer. The idea that buying weaponry and making the best military equipment makes one safer has been disproved. High investment in arms by one nation causes an arms race to manifest. It terrifies me that the opposition do not see the lessons of history. Radical change is needed and though you may have good intentions, your ignorance and cynicism are destroying this world.

‘Point is, most companies are unethical in one way or another, and although at the moment your fight is with BAE, in a few years time, someone else will pick a new target.’

Surely this is the whole point: as a student body if we continue to bring to light the ethical dilemmas of investing in particular companies and putting pressure on the university to withdraw from said investments, eventually companies will get the message that we are not prepared to support their actions. I wholeheartedly hope that in a couple of years we will be ‘picking a new target’ and keep on fighting for a greater standard of ethical investment.

Secondly, I’d like to correct you on “Is Nestle ethical? Yes, you’ll say.” – no I wouldn’t. Nestlé were responsible for the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands or more by extremely unethical practise in Africa in the last 30 years. However, they didn’t knowingly sell weapons to dictators so they wouldn’t be excluded by the ethical investment policy.