Although the article reflects the evolution towards more sustainable investment practices, it still talks about a ‘somewhat woolly area of investment’. After all these years it remains the curse of sustainable investment that many have a hard time framing the subject. According to Mr Clarke it includes various kinds of investments; some managers exclude certain investments, others select best in class investments, and also rarer projects such as forestry and wind farms are part of this field. Woolly? Not sure. Confusing? Definitely.

 

Despite this confusion the article is clear on the relevance of assessing (previously) non-financial aspects, such as the potential impact of climate change on a portfolio. Mr Clarke rightly emphasizes his preference for sustainable and not ethical investment, since he believes you are not necessarily making a religious or a personal or a moral judgment when you are seeking funds to be invested sustainably. And yet, the mainstream investment business still sees sustainability as an option.

 

What does this mean for 20 year of UKSIF? I would conclude that the glass is half full. Quite daring on a day that Lucy Kellaway in her FT column cheers those with the half empty glass. She concludes that any business should have the right balance of optimists (glass half full) and pessimists (half empty). She is right of course. However, I would add that it all starts with the visionaries, the optimists. Pessimists never dream up a new business idea, that is what optimists do. Pessimists can then shoot down many of those ideas. Sustainable investing, as sustainable entrepreneurship in general, has evolved because of the optimists. And despite pessimists and set-backs it will rapidly evolve further. If you are in sustainability the glass is half full and you keep on working hard to help others see the opportunities that they can go for. So congratulations to UKSIF. Keep up the good work.