In my many years as a fund manager, I tackled many insightful questions reflecting trustees’ discomfort with a particular company’s behaviour. Such questions spanned issues of executive pay, to global warming, to the habitat of primates and many points between. Usually answers were straightforward, often explaining that the issue was not quite as reported, or outlining how the process of engagement with said company was taking place – because engagement does take place on a large scale, usually privately, constructively and often effectively.

In my new roles as a charity trustee, the focus of my work has changed and now looks more broadly at the legal framework governing charities’ investment portfolios and how a desired investment policy might be enacted. My experience inclines me towards pragmatism; not an easy concept when dealing with moral issues, but a constructive one. In both organisations, we frequently consider our moral/ethical and environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies and find that it is not always an easy process to undertake, partly due to the nature of the moral and ethical discussion, partly due to the need to define the appropriate boundaries of any policy, and partly because sometimes, driven by conscience, we want to do more than the rules might allow.