What it means
Three broad techniques dominate. Negative screening excludes sectors an investor objects to, positive screening seeks out the strongest performers on chosen criteria, and engagement keeps the holding but uses voting rights and direct pressure to change company behaviour.
Definitions are the hard part, because ethical is not a standard that anyone administers. One fund may exclude any company with fossil fuel revenue, another may hold an oil major on the grounds that its transition spending does more good than divesting would, and both can market themselves honestly as ethical.
The financial question is whether screening costs you return. Excluding whole sectors narrows diversification and can cause periods of underperformance when those sectors run hot, though over long horizons the evidence broadly suggests returns are comparable rather than systematically worse.
Costs deserve as much attention as the screens themselves. Specialist funds often charge higher management fees than plain index trackers, and over decades a difference of a few tenths of a per cent compounds into a meaningful sum.
For companies rather than investors, the same trend shows up on the other side of the table. Businesses seeking capital increasingly find that investors ask about emissions, supply chain labour practices and board composition before they ask about the growth plan.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A charity's investment committee excludes tobacco and gambling from its portfolio because holding them would conflict with the health programmes the charity funds. The trustees document the policy so future committees understand why certain sectors are absent.
Example
A pension scheme keeps its holding in a mining company but votes against the remuneration report and files a resolution on water use. Engagement gives the scheme a voice that selling the shares would have surrendered.
Example
A founder choosing a workplace pension provider offers staff an ethical default fund after a survey shows strong demand. Take-up is high among younger employees, and the choice becomes a modest recruitment advantage.
Formula
Calculation
Net annual return = gross return - total fees. Ending value = starting amount x (1 + net return)^number of years.
An investor puts $250,000 into an ethical fund expected to return 7.50% a year gross with a 0.60% annual charge, giving a net return of 7.50% - 0.60% = 6.90%. The alternative is a broad index tracker expected to return 7.40% gross with a 0.15% charge, a net return of 7.40% - 0.15% = 7.25%.
In the first year the fee difference alone is $250,000 x 0.60% = $1,500 against $250,000 x 0.15% = $375, a gap of $1,125. Over ten years the ethical fund grows to $250,000 x 1.069^10 = $487,211 while the tracker reaches $250,000 x 1.0725^10 = $503,400, a difference of $503,400 - $487,211 = $16,189. That figure is the measurable price of the screen in this scenario, and the investor has to decide whether the values alignment is worth roughly 3% of the ending balance.Case study
Seen in the real world.
The Marlowe Trust is a fictional charitable foundation invented to illustrate ethical investing. Holding $250,000 in a general index tracker charging 0.15%, its trustees became uncomfortable that the fund included companies whose products worked directly against the health outcomes the trust existed to improve.
They modelled a switch to a screened fund charging 0.60% with a slightly higher expected gross return of 7.50%. On those assumptions the screened fund would grow to about $487,211 over ten years against about $503,400 for the tracker, a shortfall of roughly $16,189, most of it explained by the fee difference rather than by the screen.
The trustees accepted the cost and wrote it into their investment policy as a deliberate choice with a stated reason. In this illustrative case the value of the exercise was less the switch itself than the discipline of quantifying what the decision cost, so that no future trustee could claim the choice had been made without thinking about the money.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Assuming every fund labelled ethical screens the same way. Criteria vary widely, so the only reliable check is reading the fund's actual exclusion and inclusion policy.
- Ignoring fees because the cause feels worthwhile. Higher annual charges compound relentlessly and can cost more over a decade than the screening decision itself.
- Believing that selling a share punishes the company directly. In the secondary market the shares simply move to a less concerned owner, and the seller loses the vote that came with them.
Questions
People also ask.
Is ethical investing the same as ESG investing?
Not exactly: ethical investing starts from moral exclusions, while ESG analysis treats environmental, social and governance factors mainly as financial risks to be measured.
Does ethical investing mean accepting lower returns?
Not necessarily, since long-run performance has been broadly comparable, though narrower diversification does make periods of underperformance more likely.
How can a small investor apply this?
Through screened index funds or ethical pension defaults, which apply the criteria at low cost without requiring individual share selection.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%Related