In July 2022, the East Sussex Pension Fund commissioned a report on the relative merits of divestment vs engagement.
Last week a summary of this report – which may have cost the Fund as much as £50k to produce – was finally placed in the public domain.
Judging by this summary, the report appears to have been a significant missed opportunity: re-hashing long-refuted arguments; taking industry claims about engagement at face value; chasing red-herrings; misrepresenting divestment; and ignoring crucial evidence.
Nonetheless, it also appears to have (almost accidentally) shown that fossil fuel divestment – at least when understood in the sense that campaigners have been using it for the last 12 years – would be fairly straightforward for the Fund to implement and would have no significant negative repercussions for the Fund’s overall strategy.
This situation has arisen because, despite a ten-year-long campaign, the Fund and its advisers have consistently failed to take on board: (a) what divestment campaigners have actually been calling for; (b) why they’ve been calling for it; and (c) the time-frame for implementation that campaigners have been demanding.
As Upton Sinclair observed long ago: ‘It is difficult to get a [someone] to understand something when [their] salary depends upon [them] not understanding it.’
We examine some of these points in greater depth below.