Our FCI Forum focused on building a new ecosystem for Catholic investing
- Steven Owen
- Jun 17
- 3 min read
Updated: Jun 19
As we reported on our News page, we had a fascinating and inspiring FCI Forum on Catholic investing on June 5, which offered a wide-ranging analysis of what is needed to develop a fit-for-purpose Catholic investing ecosystem, as well as very practical details of how two congregations reflect Catholic Social Teaching in their investment policies.
See the article for details and click below to access a condensed video recording of the Forum.
Members of FaithInvest's FCI Interest Group who attended the Forum can attest to the lively Q&A with the speakers that took place via the chat. Here's an interesting question that we didn't have time for, which FaithInvest Executive Chair Dave Zellner and our speaker Petra Vujakovic, Investment Manager, Impact Investments at Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart respond to here:
Can you give an example where shareholder engagement is necessary in companies that have passed your screens?
Dave:
First, let's review of some distinctions. Most (but not all) screens relate to the products and/or services sold by a company. If the products and/or services inherently conflict with a faith’s values, then the securities issued by those companies are typically excluded from purchase for ethical reasons.
Shareholder resolutions, on the other hand, relate to companies’ business practices. Although their products and/or services align with a faith’s ethical values, there may be specific business practices that do not. Shareholders engage with companies to influence change in business practices. There are sometimes situations where the business practice is so offensive that the faith asset owner may choose to exclude the company until the business practice changes, though this is rare.
Petra:
I would say that there are many examples of companies that do pass our screens, but where we believe they can improve their business practices, and we look at shareholder engagement in these situations very closely.
First, where we exclude: we screen out all weapons manufacturers, alcohol or tobacco producers or private prison corporations entirely. But then there are other screens that are a little more nuanced. For example, in our case Amazon has been screened out due to their labor practices and conditions of work at their facilities and for the delivery staff. However, we know of Catholic organisations (or advisors) who chose not to screen Amazon out, but rather engage with the company to improve their practices. Of course, engagement like this is more productive with a larger group of investors, and usually that is how it is pursued - if it is more than just an excuse to hold a stock anyway!
Finally, even more nuanced, the service that has been casting our proxy votes generally votes against excessive increases in executive pay (especially when excessive in proportion to the salaries of staff at other levels), and votes for diverse ESG resolutions, such as making “net zero” commitments, etc. And this can be applicable to a large portion of the companies whose stocks we own, even if they passed our negative screens (i.e. the products and services they offer don’t directly conflict with our values).
To summarize:
The conducting of shareholder engagement presents faith-based asset owners with a wide range of sometimes nuanced choices that must be approached with discernment and thoughtful consideration to bring a faith organisation to one decision or another regarding exclusion or engagement.
Once again, a huge "Thank You" to our speakers, and don't forget to register now for the next Quarterly FCI Forum in September - The FCI Journey to Impact!
