Responsible investing is often discussed as if investors share a single set of values. In reality, preferences vary widely by age and gender – and those differences are becoming more pronounced as the world grows more uncertain.
Insights drawn from Hargreaves Lansdown’s annual responsible investing client survey, conducted in December 2025, suggest three quarters of respondents believe it is important their investments reflect their values. Investors aren’t turning away from responsible investing, they’re interpreting it through the lens of their own experiences.
See also: Industry diversity shows little improvements but firms step up on data collection
Morals shaped by experience
One of the most striking shifts is growing comfort with sectors once seen as incompatible with responsible investment, particularly defence, military contracting, oil and gas, and nuclear energy. But this shift is not uniform – it’s shaped by age and gender.
Older investors, particularly those aged 65 and over, are typically more comfortable with defence and energy-related investments. For these investors, defence is increasingly framed as national security rather than ethical controversy, and nuclear energy as a necessary component of energy resilience.
Oil and gas appears to be viewed as unavoidable during a long and uneven transition. When asked which ESG issues they feel are most important, they are more likely to prioritise governance, cyber security, water and food security over more politicised ESG issues.
This group has lived through oil shocks, the Cold War and multiple economic crises, and their responses suggest a pragmatic assessment of what underpins economic stability. Responsible investing, for this cohort, is less about exclusion and more about ensuring these sectors are well governed and managed.
Younger investors, by contrast, place greater emphasis on environmental and social risks. Biodiversity loss, deforestation and climate change rank far higher for those under 30. At the same time, younger respondents tend to be more tolerant of certain ‘sin’ sectors such as cannabis, gambling and tobacco, reflecting shifting social norms and lower perceived stigma.
Morals are shaped by generational experience. Younger investors have grown up with climate change as a defining narrative, while older investors have experienced instability driven by energy scarcity and geopolitical conflict. Their attitudes to responsible investing reflect those realities.
The gender gap
Gender differences add another layer of complexity. Women are significantly more likely than men to say it is very or extremely important that their investments reflect their values and count supporting positive change, and avoiding harmful practices as key aims in investing responsibly.
This is particularly evident in defence-related sectors. A third of women would prefer to exclude companies involved in military contracting altogether, compared to 13% of men. The gap is even wider for firearms – nearly half of women report discomfort with exposure to firearms, compared with fewer than one in five men.
Men, by contrast, are less likely to require exclusions, and are generally more comfortable investing in areas like defence, nuclear energy and oil and gas. They are also more likely to frame responsible investing in terms of long-term financial returns, rather than a values-based decision. This divergence suggests different thresholds for reputational risk and moral trade-offs, as well as different interpretations of what constitutes necessity versus choice.
See also: Culture as a risk lens: Evolving the art and science of fund research
Issues that unite investors
Across age and gender, climate change emerges as the leading priority for engagement, even among groups who do not rank it as a top personal concern. This indicates broad recognition that climate risk is systemic and cannot be addressed simply by avoiding certain companies. Investors expect institutions to engage, push for better disclosure and influence transition pathways on their behalf.
Deforestation also stands out as a near-universal red line. It is the activity investors are least comfortable being exposed to, regardless of age or gender, yet it does not feature prominently as an engagement priority. This suggests it is seen less as a behaviour that can be improved and more as a business model risk that should be avoided altogether.
What does this mean for investment professionals?
Investment propositions and stewardship policies need to reflect the fact that ‘responsible’ does not mean the same thing to everyone. Engagement priorities should focus on systemic risks where influence is credible, while exclusions should be clearly justified and transparent. Communication matters too – different cohorts respond to different framings, whether that is long-term resilience and performance potential, moral boundaries
