The Church of England has vowed to vote against outsized bonuses and short-term incentives as it tries to revive the spirit of last year's shareholder spring at upcoming annual meetings.
In a report which references biblical figures from Jesus to Job, the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group has instructed the managers of its approximately £3bn of equities to reject bonuses that are more than 100 per cent of salaries.
Well, it doesn't come in the category of divine revelation, or even small miracles. And why 100% is OK remains a mystery of faith, I guess.
But let's just think it's a step in the right direction.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think the Church of England has flogged the ‘tranquilizing Gospel’ (as Galbraith referred to it) using variants of ‘the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate.’ Like Labour they have failed to speak out when needed but I agree, this IS something. the Bishop (suffragan) of Grantham should be congratulated for speaking out about Thatcher’s funeral and the public purse – given his location he took a risk!
Simon,considering
a) the way in which Archbishop Runcie’s “Faith in the City” report of 1985 was labelled “Marxist” by Tebbitt, and furiously dismissed by Thatcher, who hated its clear analysis of the effects on inner city communities of her poisonous politics; considering further that the fruit of the report was the Church Urban Fund which still operates to alleviate poverty and disadvantage in Urban Priority Areas;
b) considering further Bishop David Jenkins and his “Market Whys and Wherefores”;
c) Bishop Peter Selby with his close scrutiny of prison and penal policy and his active Presidency of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice;
d) even Archbishop John Sentamu, who, while still Bishop of Birmingham, launched a ferocious attack on David Blunkett’s malign oversight of the Home Office in his Longford Lecture in Church House in 2003,
I cannot help feeling that dismissing the C of E in the way you do is anything but rather lazy following of the herd. The C of E has been far more critical than you give it credit for.
Andrew
There are beacons of light in the CoE without doubt
And some dark places too, I am afraid
Best
Richard
I accept what you say, Andrew but how did we end up with Carey? The overall feel of the C of E is one of compromise in more recent years. The new archbishop admitted he hated conflict and was excessively conciliatory to Duncan Smith in my view. They have not unequivocally condemned Osborne’s vilification of benefit claimants – that task has been left to the non-conformist churches.
Simon: George Carey was appointed by Margaret Thatcher. The Queen appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, in theory, but it is always on the recommendation of the government of the day.
Richard – agreed on both judgements as to light and dark in the C of E.
Simon we ‘ended up with Carey’ because Mrs Thatcher felt he was an evangelical not a liberal. She had a say (C of E is established church and regulated by Parliament)
and chose him over the other name on the list. Sorry don’t know who he was.
John Stapylton Habgood
Just a thought – I was under the impression a Trustee of a pension fund had a duty to act in certain way e.g. not to be overly risky but to maximise returns. I wonder how the CoE fund managers cope with that duty while being told….”don’t invest in those areas….they’re nice returns but naughty ….ignore them…..invest in this low return but nice area instead….”
After all presumably the CoE wouldn’t want taxpayers cash to make up any deficits caused by low returns would they…..
You are wrong
Trustees have broad fiduciary duties
Sustainability is one of them
Reckless businesses may not be sustainable