I’m looking to move from AAMI car insurance to an ethical insurance provider as AAMI is involved in supporting fossil fuel companies via its owner Suncorp. This includes insuring them and via their share portfoli. More info can be here: https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaigns/insurance/
I have found a few ethical alternatives and am wondering if anybody has exeprience with them. These include:
-Huddle
-Bendigo bank car insurance
-Allianz car insurance via bank australia
If anybody is aware of anymore please let me know!
If this is the measure, one wonders how ethical they are insuring fossil fuelled cars (including conventional, electric in Australia or gas) and other vehicles.They are happy to insure the very cars which drive the mining or and investment in the fossil fuel industry. I wonder if I am the only one that sees a major contradiction here.
Their claims may be window dressing to gain potential ‘green’ customers and I believe that it falls into green washing?
These companies claim not to invest premiums in fossil fuel companies, but I suspect from a little searching they invest in companies which use and/or support the fossil fuel industries (such as service industries etc). If they were ethical, they possibly would refuse to insure vehicles of all types and descriptions.
That is indeed a problem phb. I cannot fault your logic. However, I belive that some companies are better than others in every industry and I attempt to pick one that is trying to do some good and not investing in premiums in fossil fuels is one of them. Id be interested to see what other industries these companies are investing in. what sites were you using to find that infromation?
When searching, look who underwrites the insurance they sell (e.g. Huddle is underwritten by Holland Group of South Africa). Then look into the financial/annual reports of the insurer and underwriters to see where their interests lie and who their investors/shareholders/funders are. It is also worth doing searches on the investors to see what they also invest in (as they often invest in things other than the company in question).
These can be done using google searches and looking at financial information posted on the company websites. There are also investment media articles and company announcements particularly where companies are public (listed) companies.
There unfortunately is not one site but many but the above will get you on your way to find out relevant information.
The reason why I am always skeptical about such claims is that it is highly probable that the capital investments from shareholders uses money from the same shareholder’s investment in the same industries which the parent company claims are unethical.
Since the start of the industrial revolution, the fossil fuel (and mining) industry has resulted in a significant proportion of the wealth in the world either from its exploitation or the profits being used to invest in other industries.
If a company was ethical in the pure sense, they would refuse investment from anyone who has gained wealth from the same industries the parent company is avoiding due to its ethical investment rules and potential ethical conflicts. Not doing so just means that the companies claims are potentially making misleading claims.
Using Bendigo Bank as an example since you have listed it above (and assuming that it was a 100% ethical bank…which is not the case as it only potentially meets this for some of its investment funds). It is a publicly listed company and many of its major shareholder are well known (refer to the annual reports). Take their no. 1 major shareholder HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited, which is a fully owned subsidiary of HBBC bank. It’s no. 1 shareholder historically has investments in/with the fossil fuel industry (see its annual reports) and has gained much wealth from these investments. While insuring with Bendigo Bank’s because they have some ethical investment funds may be admirable, in effect its major shareholder invests in companies that their ethical investment funds may avoid.
While the points are well taken that it is rarely straight forward and the webs of intrigue regarding ownership can be difficult to navigate, looking from the top down has merit regarding ethics, but isn’t it a stretch to put (eg) Bendigo’s portfolios on the same plane as its shareholders portfolios? A shareholder of a public company is downstream and unrelated to a company’s ethical standards and a company does not have control over a shareholder’s activities. A company might not be amenable to certain shareholders but has no rights to stop them from their investment.
It is my view that while Allianz might be perceived to be ethical in the ways you desire, they are not ethical in their treatment of customers. The takeover of TIO and subsequent fallout as just one example. A search of this forum for Allianz will find various posts (some mine) - at least for consideration …
This one interested me in terms of customer facing exposures …
No, I’m not a fan - I tend to think ethics and shareholder returns are mutually exclusive in the corporate world, and no, I don’t work for anyone who could be considered ‘the competition’
