Criticisms We Accept

This project is intentionally selective.

That means there are reasonable criticisms of what we include, what we leave out, and what we claim equity investing can do. We’d rather spell those out than pretend they don’t exist.

“You focus on some sectors and downplay others”

We systematically underweight large parts of consumer technology, advertising-driven platforms, lifestyle services, and some areas of finance.

That doesn’t mean these sectors haven’t created value. Smartphones, online services, and modern finance have changed how people live and work.

Our judgement is narrower: many of these areas no longer sit at today’s most obvious system bottlenecks.

For example:

• Power grids that can’t connect new generation are a binding constraint.
• Antibiotic resistance is a known and growing risk.
• Supply chains that rely on a single country or input fail badly under stress.

By contrast, another consumer app, marketplace, or content platform may improve convenience or margins without changing how these systems function. That’s a judgement call, not a claim that one sector is “good” and another is “bad”.

“Some of your baskets rely on contested ideas”

Yes. Consensus is not uniform across everything we include, and we don’t treat it as if it is.

Examples where agreement is weaker or more conditional include:

• Hydrogen
  There is broad agreement that hydrogen has a role in specific areas like industrial heat, shipping, and aviation fuels. There is much less agreement on widespread use in cars, home heating, or as a general energy carrier. We include it narrowly, not as a catch-all solution.
• Alternative proteins
  There is strong evidence around land use, emissions, and resource efficiency. There is less agreement on long-term consumer adoption, cultural durability, and health effects at scale. We treat this as diversification and risk reduction, not as a guaranteed transition.
• Platform-mediated work
  There is wide agreement that extreme precarity and unstable income are a problem. There is no agreement on the “right” business model or regulatory approach. Inclusion here is about resilience and worker stability, not endorsement of any single labour framework.
• Soil health and regenerative practices
  There is consensus that soil structure, nutrient retention, and water efficiency matter for long-term productivity. There is much less agreement around labels, certification schemes, and ideological packaging. We focus on productivity and resilience, not branding.
• Concentration of economic and informational power
  Many economists agree that extreme concentration can reduce competition and increase fragility. There is far less agreement on remedies, thresholds, or the role of markets versus regulation. We frame this as a risk to system function, not a policy prescription.

In all of these cases, we include cautiously and expect disagreement.

“This sounds neutral, but it’s still value-laden”

That’s fair.

We’re not neutral in the sense of pretending outcomes don’t matter. We care about systems continuing to work: electricity, health, food, transport, and institutions that coordinate economic activity.

Our framing is economic rather than moral. Systems with slack, redundancy, and maintenance fail less often than systems optimised for short-term efficiency. That principle shows up in grids, supply chains, public health, and finance alike.

People will still disagree with where we draw the line. That’s unavoidable.

“Public markets don’t actually build things”

Also fair — and this is where a lot of impact investing goes wrong.

Buying shares does not directly build a power line, open a mine, or train a nurse. In many cases, regulation and public spending matter far more.

Our narrower claim is this:
in some sectors, access to capital still affects what gets built, expanded, maintained, or shut down at the margin.

This is more likely to be true when:

• Projects are capital-intensive and long-lived.
• Balance-sheet strength affects whether firms can invest or refinance.
• Equity markets influence cost of capital, risk tolerance, or strategic direction.

It is much less true for:

• Very large, cash-rich firms already flush with capital.
• Activities where outcomes are almost entirely policy-driven.
• Sectors where ownership changes nothing about operations.

Where we think capital is unlikely to matter, we exclude the area — even if the cause itself is important.

“You haven’t named specific companies yet”

Correct, and deliberately so.

At this stage, we’re testing the framework and criteria, not publishing a finished list. Locking in companies too early would create false confidence and shut down useful feedback.

Once the criteria have been pressure-tested and revised, we’ll publish concrete baskets and show exactly what’s in them.