""Ethical investing" often serves more as a form of virtue signaling than as a mechanism for actual change. It feels good. It sounds good. It gives you the sense that you're doing something. But feeling aligned and making an impact are not the same thing. Socially Responsible Investing has gotten more sophisticated over the years. Known by many names like ESG, Impact Investing, Mission-driven investing, what we're talking about is deliberately excluding companies from your investment strategy"
"that have reportedly done something you don't like, or don't align with your values or dreams for a better future. Today, you can build custom portfolios that exclude gun manufacturers, fossil fuels, private prisons, or whatever else you want removed. If you tell your financial advisor you don't want to own gun companies, that is absolutely doable. For most people , ethical investing is a costly illusion that substitutes"
Believing that one must choose between growing wealth and preserving values is a false and expensive choice. "Ethical investing" often functions as virtue signaling rather than producing measurable change. Socially Responsible Investing, known as ESG, Impact Investing, or mission-driven investing, typically excludes companies deemed objectionable and enables custom portfolios that remove gun manufacturers, fossil fuels, private prisons, and similar industries. For most people, exclusionary ethical investing slows wealth-building, creating a costly illusion that substitutes moral comfort for real impact and limits the capacity to do good. Growing wealth and directing capital to causes, local economies, and communities produces the most practical ethical impact; occasional use of convenient corporations is not morally damning.
Read at Substack
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]