‘Including investments in arms companies in environmental, social and governance funds would make a mockery of the entire concept.’
There are concerns that the progress President Joe Biden made in gun safety law could be undone now Trump is to return to the White House, this time accompanied by a vice president who has called for disbanding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
Since 2015, 25 Republican states have passed laws allowing residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit, US media said. Both Trump and JD Vance have openly played down gun violence and have proposed increasing the number of school resource officers to avoid mass shootings at schools.
Speaking at the National Rifle Association’s Great American Outdoor in February, Trump boasted about his administration’s inaction on gun violence, claiming: “During my four years, nothing happened. And there was great pressure on me having to do with guns. We did nothing. We didn’t yield.”
Fortunately, gun ownership is one aspect of American culture that the UK has largely avoided. However, weapons have recently gained attention in Britain, where banks and the financial powerhouse of the City of London are attempting to recast investments in arms manufacturers as eco-friendly.
As reported by Politico, our cash-strapped government is looking to private sector funds to strengthen the defense industry. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria may inhibit these funds from reaching such manufacturers.
Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, contends that the war in Ukraine illustrates that weapons now serve a social good by defending democracy, and therefore deserve recognition as sustainable investments.
“We would argue there is a social value in defense that needs to be properly recognised amongst the sustainability community.”
But it’s a topic that risks inflaming tensions across the political spectrum. On the right, ESG has become a contentious term, with US Republicans accusing businesses of prioritising progressive values over profit.
Andrew Griffith, a Conservative MP and former City minister, argued against ‘blanket’ ESG policies.
“As City minister I saw first hand the damage done by ‘blanket’ ESG policies defunding British defense companies because the eco-warriors coming up with the indices happened to also be personally opposed to them.
“Patriotic pensioners and investors who had invested their money in funds were horrified to discover that whilst their freedoms were being defended against Russian invasion, some in the City were sabotaging the companies behind that defense,” he said.
Conversely, the left has criticised the City for channelling funds into harmful and polluting companies.
“Including investments in arms companies in environmental, social and governance funds would make a mockery of the entire concept,” said Emily Apple, media coordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).
“There is nothing sustainable or ethical about arms trade, and we should be encouraging divestment rather than finding loopholes for shareholders to make even more money from devastating people’s lives,” she added.
Curiously, the right-wing press has remained conspicuously silent on the story. Perhaps it’s easier to rally against perceived ‘woke’ excesses than to confront the complexities of redefining what constitutes responsible investment. The silence is particularly striking given the ongoing debates about gun culture in the US.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That’s why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward’s work.
We still need another 117 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
