16 Apr 2009
Documents [pdf] filed to the Charities Commission reveal that The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, Charles’ ‘complementary medicine’ charity, holds investments in oil, gas, pharmaceutical and arms companies.
The latest set of accounts submitted to the Charities Commission show that the Foundation holds long-term investments worth over £1.22 million. These include:
- £112,000 in Artemis UK Special Situations, which includes investments in BP, Shell, GlaxoSmithKline and BAE systems
- £92,000 in Investec Global Energy, 26% of which is invested in ‘Oil and Gas Exploration’
- £65,000 in Jupiter Emerging European Opportunities Fund, whose top ten holdings include LUKOIL (Russia’s largest oil company) and Gazprom (the world’s largest gas company)
Of course this is all perfectly legal. Trustees are entitled to invest their charity’s money and have no obligation to choose ‘ethical’ funds. However, the choice to hold such investments seems contrary to the stated aims of the Foundation.
And we all know how much time Charles spends lecturing the world’s leaders on climate change and renewable energy. At a speech in Brussels last year, Charles asked:
Do we really understand the dynamics of a world in which energy and food security will become real issues for everyone? Can we, hand on heart, say that we are really doing enough to improve energy efficiency? Can we possibly allow twenty years of business as usual before coal power generation becomes clean? Are we truly investing enough in renewable energy technologies?
The answer for Charles is clearly a resounding “no”, so it seems spectacularly hypocritical to preside over such investments. No doubt Charles’ green credentials are an important factor in people’s decision to donate to the Foundation. I’m sure many of them would be horrified to know that their gifts are being invested in this way.
There seem to be only two explanations for this. Either Charles didn’t know about these investments (in which case he is clearly not as involved in his charities as his PR team would like us to think) or he did know and just doesn’t care.
Whatever the explanation, this will no doubt prompt further accusations of hypocrisy and ‘greenwashing’.
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 11:16 am and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
April 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Is it really surprising that a charity that engages in unethical practices such as peddling quack magic water “cures” to people made vulnerable to exploitation by news of a life-threatening illness is itself prepared to invest unethically?
April 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Aren’t we all missing the point? As a “Prince” and future heir to the throne should he even be permitted to make such investments in the first place? Saying that I don’t think Parliament has ever had to contend with this sort of heir to the throne before. It is high time Gordon Brown put his foot down and it make it perfectly clear to Charles that if he wants to be King (a day I sincerely hope never comes) he cannot have business interests, not least in a very contentious arms trade. No doubt Clarence House will be making an official statement, trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Incidentally, wasn’t Charles at the memorial service for the North Sea helicopter-crash victims in Aberdeen, yesterday? I think he was there in an official capicity as the Duke of a region thereabouts. How many titles does the man need? I think it’s about time someone (perhaps the government) collated them all (not just for Charles but the whole extended family) and published them; just to see how many troughs they have their snouts in.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Lets not be fooled here after all its about money charities are business after all .As ever it is do as I say not as I do! Charles should hang his head in shame, but after all the royals have become very very wealthy with all their oil, arms and mining interests from the odd unethical company !So I for one am not surprised at all, disgusted but not surprised.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
I am not absolutely sure where the influential Mr Porrit (Prince Charle’s Green Friend) stands on this particular issue, but I would hope that he (Porrit) will respond with some degree of criticism. We will have to wait and see.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Just what we have come to expect of “Charles the Hypocrite”, he could add that to all his other titles. I am sure he considers being green is for ordinary people and that he is above all that. It is perfectly OK to hire a jet and tour South America.
It is also Ok for him to rubbish GM crops when there is no scientific evidence for fearing them. Farmers have alway tried to improve the quality now they have better tools.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:16 am
There are absolutely no words, no phrases, no epithets capable of politely describing the depravity, the greed, the hypocrisy, the parasitism nor the venality of these vermin the Windsor family nor of their repulsive bag carriers, sworn hirelings, sycophantic retainers and general hangers on.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
It seems to me that Charles Windsor’s primary concern is his own ego. All his activities focus around pleasing himself. He is green when he pleases. He is not green when he pleases. He is a humble gardner when he pleases and yet also gets someone else to squeeze out his toothpaste when he pleases. He wants the status and privilege of being King (that would please him) but not the burdens and duties that accompany it, i.e. staying out of politics and business (that would not please him). Charles Windsor is a law unto himself. Which is why he wants to be King. It would please him. It would not please me.
April 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
[...] was a while ago now. 2 days ago, I came across this blog post from Republic, a campaign group for an elected Head of State (HT Lay Scientist). They point out that The [...]
May 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I put a link to this article onto a forum that I belong to and got this response. Having little knowledge of how the investment companies work, I thought I’d pass it back for your comments.
‘I think a distinction needs to be made here that it is not Prince
Charles or the Prince’s FIH that invests directly in big pharma, it is
the financial investment companies which manage the FIH funds who make
the individual investment decisions. You cannot second guess what a
“special situations” or “emerging opportunities” fund might choose to
invest in.’
Any person ‘who makes pension contributions will be (indirectly)
investing in pharmaceuticals, big banks, oil & Gas, cosmetics, arms
e.t.c These industries have the largest capitalisations globally and
represent the majority of developed nations economies. Hence pension
funds and finance houses invest in these companies. In my experience
even so called “ethical” funds have invested in pharmaceutical
companies.
Of the top 10 U.K. quoted companies (which represent 80% of the
FTSE100 index and 40% of the WHOLE U.K. market) only 3 are not
involved in Pharmaceuticals, Mining, Oil & Gas, or Tobacco.’
May 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Hi Chris
The response you were given is only a partial picture. We are certainly not suggesting that Charles himself holds such investments, but the charity certainly does.
It is perfectly possible to ‘second guess’ what a fund might choose to invest in – all you need to do is have a look at that fund’s factsheet. When a fund is called something like “global energy” it’s even more obvious what it will invest in.
The issue of pensions is not really relevant as workers paying in to a pension are not charity trustees so don’t have the same control over the investment.
But that’s not the key point here. Many charities have ethical investment policies and I fail to see why the FIH doesn’t, especially as the Charities Commission makes it clear it could do so. This is their guidance for Trustees:
“Trustees are able to adopt an ethical investment policy which will involve:
* Avoiding investments in a particular business that would for practical reasons conflict with the aims of the charity; for example, a charity with objects for the protection of the environment and wildlife may decide not to invest in businesses which pollute what the charity is trying to protect.
* Avoiding investments that might hamper a charity’s work, either by making potential beneficiaries unwilling to be helped because of the source of the charity’s money, or by alienating supporters. This requires trustees to strike a balance between the likely cost of lost support, if the charity were to hold the investments, and any risk of financial under-performance if those investments are excluded from its portfolio. “
May 15th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Thanks James, this is pretty much what I would have thought. FIH helped fund the Herbal Medicine Regulatory Working Group back in 2002 I think and this investment news is worrying. Please see http://gopetition.co.uk/online/26781.html . FIH have also recently helped set up a voluntary register for complimentary therapists, which from http://www.psychoanalysis-cpuk.org/HTML/HPCMeeting0209.htm
looks set to be discredited by a large scale advertising campaign from the HPC (Health Professionals Council).