WHAT THE MEDIA SAY: Reaction to FTSE4Good is sceptical

Organisation: FTSE4Good



Issue: Launch



The launch of FTSE4Good on 10 July made major headlines because of the

'perfectly respectable firms' (The Economist, 12/7) that were excluded,

rather than those who made it into the 'ethical' index.



Further surprise was expressed at the seemingly back-to-front notion of

including petroleum companies in a socially-responsible initiative, but

excluding some banks and retailers.



Broadsheet coverage of the launch - which naturally failed to tickle the

tabloids' interest - was predominantly sceptical, as most commentators

remained to be convinced that the notion of ethical investment per se

was not something of an oxymoron.



While the tone of most coverage was negative, there were some positive

messages. The fact that fund managers' licence fees are going to support

the United Nations' children's fund UNICEF was widely reported - though

there was some feeling that this was a bit of a gimmick.



It was also felt that FTSE4Good was the next stage in an evolving

process: 'the movement for ethical, or "socially responsible" investing

(SRI) has been gathering steam' (Financial Times, 11/7)



But the general flavour of the coverage was that this venture had been

ill-thought out by FTSE and the Ethical Investment Research Service. In

an atmosphere in which it would seem hard to please either camp, it was

hard to say who was more critical, the pressure groups, or potential

investors.



'The new ethical stock indices have come under fire from trade unions,

charities and environmentalists,' (ananova.com, 12/7) was a common

thread as activists criticised the index for using questionable

parameters.



Some articles took the launch as a 'naming and shaming' exercise, but

most merely scoffed. The holier-than-thou stance of the index was a

source of much amusement, as was the exclusion of four 'sinful'

industries: arms, tobacco, gambling and nuclear power.



Ian Cowie in The Daily Telegraph (14/7) mischievously turned the launch

on its head and developed his own 'sin-index' showing that banned

companies such as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Tesco provided larger

profits.



This theme was taken up by the usually-sober Lloyd's List (14/7): 'Drink

and drugs are allowed, but there's no smoking' was the paper's take on

the new index's constituents.



- Analysis and commentary by Echo Research. More information can be

found at: www.echoResearch.com.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in

Would you like to post a comment?

Please Sign in or register.