Animal cruelty tops ‘no-go’ KiwiSaver list

Animal cruelty tops the list of things KiwiSaver investors don’t want their money invested in, research to be unveiled by former Green MP Barry Coates shows.

It ranks even more highly in savers’ hate list than military weapons and tobacco, both of which KiwiSaver providers have moved to exclude, following a public outcry after media reports.

And yet, Coates said, there had been no discussion of KiwiSaver’s animal cruelty record.

‘‘Isn’t that amazing? It’s such a touchstone to many New Zealanders, and I just don’t think it has had enough attention paid to it.’’

In all, 93 per cent of people rated it as somewhat important, important or very important for them to know their KiwiSaver money was not invested with companies involved in cruelty to animals.

Only human rights abuses were ranked as highly for importance to KiwiSavers, but more Kiwis felt animal cruelty was very important to them not to invest in.

That compared with 83 per cent who wanted KiwiSaver to avoid tobacco makers, 82 per cent who were antigambling, and 78 per cent who did not want money invested in companies involved with military weaponry.

‘‘This is very positive news from our perspective,’’ said Hans Kriek, from Safe, which campaigns against animal cruelty. ‘‘But I am not surprised. I have been doing this work in

New Zealand for over 30 years, and I have seen how people react to animal cruelty in this country.’’

People did not wish to support businesses that are cruel to animals, he said.

‘‘If KiwiSaver is there to reflect the wishes of New Zealanders . . . it’s important to try to respect those wishes and avoid companies that have a bad record on animal welfare,’’ Kriek said.

International not-for-profit Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) publishes a list of big international companies that still do product testing on animals.

It includes some United States and UK stockmarket-listed companies common to many large KiwiSaver funds, including Johnson & Johnson, Estee Lauder, Proctor & Gamble, Unilever, GlaxoSmithKline, Reckitt Benckiser, and 3M, all of which, for example, are in ASB’s KiwiSaver growth fund.

It was pharmaceuticals and cosmetics companies that were of most concern, according to Coates.

Overseas, there were animal cruelty-free funds, but KiwiSaver didn’t offer any, as far as he knew.

He expected his research to kick off discussion that would eventually lead KiwiSaver scheme providers to respond to savers’ desires, just as they had to the outcry over cluster munitions, landmines, nuclear weapons and tobacco.

But some companies feel obliged to continue testing, as there are countries, such as China, which require animal testing on cosmetics.

For example, Johnson & Johnson, which is one of the giant international companies KiwiSaver funds often invest in, says: ‘‘The Johnson & Johnson family of consumer companies does not test cosmetic or personal care products on animals anywhere in the world except in the rare situation where it is required by law or governments.’’

Estee Lauder said: ‘‘The Este´ e Lauder companies does not test on animals and we never ask others to do so on our behalf. If a regulatory body demands it for its safety or regulatory assessment, an exception can be made.’’

The research shows not everyone who feels strongly needs their KiwiSaver to be completely clear of troubling behaviour.

Many people want KiwiSaver providers to avoid the worst companies, or to invest in those companies, but ‘‘engage’’ with them in a bid to influence them into doing better. More than 750 New Zealanders responded to the survey.

‘‘It’s such a touchstone to many [Kiwis], and I just don’t think it has had enough attention paid to it.’’ Barry Coates