Governance of technology and COVID-19

The global response to COVID-19 has been nothing short of a technological revolution in the healthcare sector. Ty Lee from WHEB recently wrote about developments in diagnostics, therapy, and vaccination technologies. Perhaps the most remarkable thing has been the speed with which innovations in these technologies have come about, pointing to the scale of human ingenuity.

These ‘wins’ are important to recognise as we continue to face the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, especially where technological developments have also provided a response to existing global challenges. For example, net-zero carbon commitments now cover more than two-thirds of the global economy as governments look to rebuild national economies. However, significant challenges have also emerged surrounding the governance and ethics in the adoption and use of new technologies.

Global vaccine rollout

With only a few countries are capable of manufacturing vaccines on their own, effective global governance of the equitable distribution of the vaccine has been lacking. Indeed, national self-interests have come to the fore. This means that where you live has become the most important determinant of vaccine accessibility. Ethics aside, certain other consequences are now becoming apparent, such as the emergence of new virus mutations that are hindering efforts to control the pandemic.

Equitable distribution has been a challenge at a national level too. The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that Hispanic and black Americans are receiving vaccinations at a significantly slower rate than white Americans, despite being almost twice as likely to die from COVID-19. Technological advances alone are not expected to overcome these geopolitical factors or structural biases. And so, without good governance, the impact of the vaccine rollout may be undermined with negative impacts exacerbated for those who are already vulnerable.

The ‘infodemic’

The spread of misinformation has also significantly threatened global public health during the pandemic. Social media platforms and messaging apps, such as Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp, have been key enablers of the spread of false information. Despite this obvious governance failure, some have prospered, with Facebook seeing a 39% rise in advertising impressions in Q1 2020.

It is both saddening and frustrating to see the technology that has helped such platforms become so successful has also enabled large negative impacts on society. Especially where the same technology has the potential to help in the fight against infections, as demonstrated by the successful contact-tracing programs in South Korea, Vietnam, Japan, and Taiwan.

Unintended environmental consequences

The sight of discarded facemasks has become commonplace around cities. It is therefore little surprise that the environmental impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) waste is receiving growing attention. Protection is, of course, a priority. However, it is also adding to the carbon burden.

The healthcare sector has been amongst the fastest-growing during the pandemic and PPE is not the only by-product generated. The use of vials, syringes, and cartridges has also increased. Healthcare, alongside fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and e-commerce, has significantly contributed to an increase in the size of the global plastic packaging market which has a projected compound annual growth rate of 5.5%, mostly in response to COVID-19.

Good governance in times of crisis

The thematic nature of WHEB’s positive impact strategy means that we have little or no exposure to certain sectors, including the mega-cap consumer technology names. Our approach also results in overweight in health and industrials. As a result, the strategy is not directly exposed to some of the major governance issues outlined above, such as the infodemic enabled by the social media firms which often find their way into many ‘green’ funds. Nevertheless, we remain acutely aware of the risk that poor governance will significantly undermine progress by positively impactful companies held in the strategy, harming sustainability outcomes, and investors’ returns.

As we have previously written, environmental, social and governance (ESG) research is essential to our understanding of the fundamental quality of a business. We integrate robust sustainability and financial analysis of companies at every stage of our analytical process. Additionally, as long-term investors, we take stewardship seriously, and engagement and voting are both an output of and input into our investment process.

As the pandemic has unfolded, we have scrutinised reactions from companies in the portfolio, particularly focusing on the pharmaceutical sector. WHEB has been pleased to see how companies such as Hikma, which supplies 11 out of the 13 most widely used injectable medicines needed to treat COVID-19 patients, have worked to ensure that resources remained available across the industry.

Beyond this, through our support to industry initiatives such as the Institutional Investors Group on Climate change (IIGCC), WHEB has actively championed public policy issues including urging the UK Government to deliver a clean and just recovery from the pandemic.

There is no doubt that the pandemic has accelerated the deployment of a variety of healthcare technologies that would otherwise have taken many years to achieve scale. The pace of vaccine development and the magnitude of successful vaccinations are perhaps the most remarkable. But for these advances to achieve their full potential, good governance remains an essential foundation.