A first remarkable aspect of the event was the diverse audience that it congregated. Actors ranging from academics to community organizers, professionals in the socially responsible finance industry and those active in the social economy (SE) sector, shared their views on the evolution of socially responsible finance (SRF), globally and in particular contexts. The wealth of the discussions and findings presented in the event was too vast to report in its entirety. We rather prefer to focus on one of the topics under discussion; namely, to which is possible to say that responsible finance reached maturity? And if so, which challenges this newly achieved status brings to actors involved in SRF or in initiatives conceived to channel funds for the social economy sector.

Socially responsible finance, as several participants pointed out, now controls a modest albeit significant part of the financial industry. This participation, moreover, is growing —and pretty fast. In Belgium, according to Bernard Bayot, director of the Réseau financement alternatif (Alternative Financing Network), nearly 3.5% of the funds in the financial system are channelled to the SRF or go to finance projects in the SE sector. More telling is the fact that, according to his calculation, nearly 7.2% of funds managed by mutual funds in Belgium can be labelled as SRF. Moreover, observers of the SRF scene suggest that the current economic and financial downturn has nurtured investors’ appetite for SRF, rather than scare them away from such investments.

Nevertheless, the success of SRF in the Belgian context cannot hide other less pleasant aspects of its recent evolution. Bayot pointed out that in many cases investment vehicles claiming to be SRF (and attracting investors genuinely interested in investing with a social conscience) cannot be distinguished from their conventional investing counterparts. Thus, SRF in many cases become just a label, without any real content whatsoever.

This situation has motivated many actors in the Belgian financial sector to propose legislation to legally regulate the use of the SRF label of financial products. The consultation process among intervening actors has just started and no legislation has yet been enacted. An indication of the maturity achieved by the SRF industry, however, is that most actors that would be affected by the envisaged legislation, including those in mainstream finance, have welcomed the proposed norm, or at least, have expressed their willingness in participating in its design. Such consensus, believes Bayot, would have been impossible several years ago.

Designing appropriate norms, however, can prove a daunting task. For instance, some actors would prefer that the norm includes a “black list” of countries and companies in which legally approved-SRF firms will not be allowed to invest. But which could be those firms and countries banned from SRF portfolios? Some players point out to the existence of international conventions that may settle the question. Any company –or country- disrespecting, for instance, the International Labour Organization conventions can be included in the list. One likely limitation of this approach concerns the difficulty to assess if a company disrespects such conventions. Many multinationals now rely on a global network of suppliers. Scandals may easily arise concerning labour or environmental abuses in the operation of multinationals’ suppliers, in spite of genuine attempts of multinational top management to drastically curb or eliminate such abuses. Another potential limitation is that such a list should be updated regularly, because companies and political regimes change over time, as the South African case illustrates. We can envisage debate among interested parties regarding the removal of a country or company from the black list. Also, it can be interesting to question ourselves if the operation of SRF black lists can help to move ahead socially under-performing firms, or if the operation of black lists can instead led to their management to lock the companies into low-CSR practices.

In spite of potential difficulties, at least one black list has been legally enacted in Belgium. According to the Belgian law, no investor —whether individual or institutional— is allowed to invest in companies active in the production of land mines, because the country has signed an international convention banning this type of weaponry.

Other ways envisaged to expand SRF in Belgium include the social screening of stocks held by funds pensions, which are managed or strongly influenced by the state in Belgium. Some observers have also proposed that insurance companies, which maintain important stock portfolios, can be stimulated by legislation to apply social screens to their stock selection process.

The success —current and potential— of the Belgian experience cannot be automatically transferred to other contexts, with different regulatory environments. Michel Lizée, representative of the Committee on Workers’ Capital (CWC) pointed out that in the North American context the legislation limits considerably the capacity of trade unions and other workers’ organisations to pressure pension funds to socially screen their investments. Because of that, the international labour movement has set up the CWC, intended to serve as a clearing house to share experiences on SRF and shareholder activism and coordinate action. CWC has helped member organizations to back up some initiatives calling targeted firms to divest from Burma, among other issues. One of the resolutions concerning Burma gathered around 20% in a very large company, roughly two times the average vote turnover that social policy resolutions obtain.

Lizée noted that the North American regulatory framework does not forbid social screen of stocks by pension funds. These screens simply cannot forgo the fiduciary duty of maximizing pension fund value. Moreover, it is even possible to say that fiduciary duty implies the appraisal of social and environmental risks faced by firms included in the portfolios of pension funds. A representative of CalPERS —one of North America leading pension funds— stated by videoconference that CalPERS is committed to introduce environmental and social criteria into its investment decision-making. How it will achieve this commitment is still unknown, but the announced commitment is no doubt promising news for actors interested in SRF, and a signal —if it was still needed— that SRF has come of age. .