Tragic Anniversary: When Bill Gates Bet on Big Beer

Bill Gates’ Big Beer Bet: Profits vs. Public Health Principles

Movendi International issued a media release on February 24, 2023 with the headline “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Undermines Its Global Health Credibility With Massive Investment in the World’s Second Largest Beer Producer”.

Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist, had long received recognition and fame for supporting global health campaigns and humanitarian causes. But those people, communities, experts, and activists who have long been pointing to the flaws of billionaire philanthropy felt validated in early 2023: Bill Gates and his foundation made headlines for a very harmful and contradictory venture: investing heavily in the world’s two largest beer manufacturers – Heineken and Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev).

This move has raised tough questions. How do these beer bets align with Gates’ public persona as a champion of global health? Are the financial gains worth the ethical trade-offs? And what does this reveal about the broader tensions in billionaire philanthropy?

Bill Gates Bets on the World’s Biggest Brewers

It was an eyebrow-raising investment.

Just months later, Gates (via his investment vehicle) doubled down on the alcohol industry. In the second quarter of 2023, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust quietly snapped up 1.7 million shares of Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev), the world’s largest beer producer and parent company of Budweiser and hundreds of other brands.

To put the scale in perspective, AB InBev and Heineken are ranked number 1 and 2 in worldwide beer sales respectively . AB InBev’s portfolio spans more than 500 brands (Bud Light, Corona, Stella Artois, to name a few) and Heineken’s empire includes its flagship lager plus local brews in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

By investing in these firms, Gates wasn’t just buying into a random sector – he was effectively partnering with Big Alcohol’s most powerful players.

Gates has an investment in Big Alcohol of ca. $ 1 Billion.

These investments did not go unnoticed. Media outlets and industry analysts were quick to highlight the hypocrisy. Gates – a public health philanthropist who has funded studies on disease prevention – was now a beer baron. The news sparked debate about why he would venture into this territory and what it meant for his image.

Chasing Returns: The Financial Motive Behind the Beer Bets

From a pure investment standpoint, Gates’ team saw an opportunity in these beer giants.

According to reports, the Heineken shares became available when a major holder (Mexico’s FEMSA) decided to sell its stake, allowing Gates to scoop up his portion. The timing coincided with a dip in beer industry stocks – Heineken had reported a drop in global beer sales during 2023 and its share price had slid, making it an arguably attractive buy for value hunters . In fact, market analysts still rated Heineken as undervalued despite short-term headwinds: a consensus forecast saw the stock rising by about 18%, and the company’s steady dividend (around 1.8% yield) added to its appeal. In other words, Gates likely bought in expecting a rebound – a classic “buy the dip” strategy.

The AB InBev purchase followed a similar logic. By mid-2023, AB InBev’s U.S. business was reeling from a consumer boycott of Bud Light (after a controversial marketing collaboration), and the brewer’s stock had lagged the broader market.

Sensing a bargain, Gates’ asset managers at Cascade Investment made the call to buy. Cascade, which manages the Gates Foundation Trust’s $69 billion portfolio, publicly stated that it saw “value in the brewer at recent prices,” emphasizing that Gates himself wasn’t personally involved in the day-to-day decision. Indeed, AB InBev’s share price had fallen roughly 9% over six months amid the Bud Light fallout , so the trust effectively bet on a comeback scenario – that the beer giant’s woes would be temporary and the stock was a good deal.

Financially, these moves fit a pattern: Gates (and the Foundation Trust) have never shied away from investing in unethical or controversial sectors if the returns look promising. The Gates Foundation’s endowment managers are tasked with growing the fund to support grant-making, and historically they’ve held stakes in everything from fast food to fossil fuels.

In fact, an analysis of a past Gates Foundation Trust filing showed over a billion dollars invested in unethical companies tied to weapons, alcohol, and other industries that might raise ethical questions . Gates himself once candidly said that he expects the foundation’s money to be managed for maximum growth – in his view, generating more capital ultimately means being able to donate more to charitable causes .

There’s also a portfolio strategy angle: Gates’ personal wealth and his foundation’s assets are heavily concentrated in tech (like Microsoft) and Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Buying into consumer staples like beer diversifies those holdings. Alcohol, while controversial, is a huge global business that can provide steady cash flow (people drink in good times and bad) and has high profit margins.

In short, the financial motivation seems clear: Gates’ investment team identified Big Beer as an undervalued play where short-term controversies had created a buying opportunity. The moves align with a profit-first approach to managing his fortune – even if it means wading into industries that might raise ethical eyebrows. And raise eyebrows it did, because these lucrative prospects come with a catch: they appear to run directly against the grain of the Gates Foundation’s core mission.

Undermining the Mission: Alcohol vs. the Gates Foundation’s Principles

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is famed for its work to “help all people lead healthy, productive lives” – focusing on initiatives like disease prevention, improving maternal and child health, and combating infectious diseases in the world’s poorest regions. With that mandate, the foundation has poured billions into fighting HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and promoting vaccines and better nutrition.

This is why seeing Gates profit from the alcohol industry struck many as outrageous hypocrisy.

The alcohol industry is a well-known foe of global public health. Its products and practices are linked to a spectrum of harms – from liver disease and cancers to accidents and domestic violence.

According to the World Health Organization, alcohol kills nearly 3 million people worldwide each year. In many developing countries (where the Gates Foundation heavily invests in health projects), alcohol has become a growing public health crisis: its consumption is rising, and it exacerbates poverty and illness. Notably, alcohol is identified as the single largest risk factor for disease among adults 25–49 globally, and the second largest for youths 10–24 . It also has knock-on effects on infectious diseases – for example, alcohol is a major risk factor for TB or and HIV/ AIDS.

The conflict of interest is glaring: on one hand, Gates’ foundation is funding vaccines and treatments to prevent deaths and improve health, especially in Africa and Asia; on the other hand, Gates is a major shareholder of companies whose products and practices, by WHO’s assessment, contribute to more deaths annually than HIV, TB, and malaria combined. 

Public health advocates and researchers have been quick to call out this conflict of interest. Movendi International issued a scathing statement after Gates’ Heineken stake became public.

Kristina Sperkova, International President of Movendi International emphasized the “serious harm” Heineken’s products and practices cause to people and communities worldwide, saying the investment “appears to put private wealth ahead of public health” and that “Mr. Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are undermining their credibility in global health.” 

The harms caused by alcohol directly counter development and health goals that Gates claims to champion. For instance, alcohol use is a major risk factor in the very diseases the Gates Foundation fights (like HIV and TB), and it impedes progress on 14 out of 17 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals through its impact on health, poverty, and social stability .

A telling example of this conflict of interest occurred in 2018: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – another leading health charity (which Gates heavily supports) – tried to launch a partnership with Heineken to help with funding. The idea was met with immediate outrage from civil society, community groups, and public health experts who saw it as a dangerous liaison. Given that alcohol use is a significant risk factor for spreading and worsening HIV and TB, critics said the Global Fund teaming up with a beer company was indefensible. Under pressure, the Global Fund scrapped the Heineken partnership within months.

If a mere alliance for a program was deemed too contradictory, how does Gates directly owning part of Heineken look? It’s essentially the same dilemma magnified: a conflict of interest between preventing disease and profiting from a product that contributes to disease and death.

Even within the Gates Foundation’s leadership there have been acknowledgments of such ethical tensions. Past foundation officials have faced internal criticism over investments not aligning with the mission. In the late 2000s, the foundation was revealed to have holdings in companies causing environmental damage and health harms in Africa (like polluting oil firms), prompting public backlash. At that time, Gates held firm that the endowment should maximize returns and not be constrained by ethical screens, though they claimed to consider values in investment choices. The foundation did at least draw a line at tobacco – Bill and Melinda Gates have stated their opposition to tobacco and ensured the foundation holds no tobacco stocks.

However, as one analysis noted, “the foundation’s stake in manufacturers of… alcoholic beverages [then] exceeded $1.2 billion”. In other words, they had quietly been investing in alcohol all along, even as they eschewed tobacco. This nuance has not been widely scrutinized so far.

The Heineken and AB InBev deals bring that contradiction into stark relief. Unlike an index fund quietly holding some beer stocks, these were deliberate, high-profile bets on Big Alcohol by the Gates camp. It sends a message that Gates is willing to set aside the foundation’s health promotion ideals if there’s money to be made. For health activists in countries where alcohol harm is rampant and hindering development, that message lands poorly.

As Pubudu Sumanasekara, Vice President of Movendi International said:

We are shocked that Mr. Gates… would put their own wealth so clearly ahead of the health and wellbeing of millions of people worldwide”.

Pubudu Sumanasekara, International Vice President, Movendi International

Those millions include people in places like Sri Lanka, where Pubudu notes Heineken is aggressively marketing and lobbying to increase alcohol use, derailing government health policies. The optics are troubling: while Gates-funded programs urge Sri Lankans to live healthier lives, Gates-funded dividends depend on Sri Lankans buying more beer.

Billionaire Philanthropy’s Double Standards – Gates and His Peers

Bill Gates is far from the only wealthy philanthropist to face accusations of hypocrisy over where his money comes from versus where it goes. In fact, modern philanthropy is rife with these conflicts of interest, giving rise to the term “philanthrocapitalism” – where the hands that give may also be the hands that take away. Gates’ beer investments have put him under the microscope, but the scenario echoes past controversies involving other do-good billionaires:

Oil Money vs. Climate Activism: The Gates Foundation itself has been called out for investing in oil and gas companies even as it funds climate adaptation and agricultural projects harmed by climate change. A 2014 investigation noted the foundation held at least $1.2 billion in BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel giants, whose operations directly contribute to the climate disruptions hurting poor farmers . While some foundations joined a pledge to divest from fossil fuels, Gates pointedly did not – leading commentators to argue that “the foundation’s investments are undermining its own good works” by supporting industries that worsen the very problems the grants try to solve .

Arms and Defense Profits: In 2015, filings revealed the Gates Foundation Trust had significant holdings in companies like BAE Systems, Airbus, and United Technologies – all major defense contractors producing military weapons . This sat awkwardly with the foundation’s goals of peace and development. Similarly, foundations like the Ford Foundation and Hewlett Foundation have been criticized historically for investments in arms or private prisons that conflict with their social justice aims. The Alliance for Peace and other NGOs often urge large charities to screen out such “blood money”. Gates has since scaled back some of these, but the point stands that they once existed.

Tainted fortunes in philanthropy: Perhaps the most infamous example is the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, who donated generously to arts and education institutions while their company’s opioid marketing fueled a deadly addiction epidemic. The Sacklers’ philanthropy is now seen as a textbook case of reputational whitewashing – virtually every major museum has removed their name due to public outrage. The parallel of Gates’ beer investments is the key: Can funding good works justify or excuse involvement in harmful enterprises?

I say: no.

As philosopher Peter Singer argued regarding the Sacklers, if one’s wealth was built by causing suffering, the morally right course is to redirect that wealth to truly counteract the harm – anything less is ethically suspect. But Gates has an investment and profit interest in governments not raising alcohol taxes and ignoring other lives saving, health promoting alcohol policy solutions.

Other billionaire contradictions: Even celebrated philanthropists have had their double standards. The Rockefeller Foundation, built on oil fortune, only recently pledged to divest from fossil fuels to align with its climate and public health initiatives. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who campaigns against harm caused by the tobacco and sugar-sweetened beverage industries, initially faced questions about how Bloomberg L.P. profited from selling financial terminals to tobacco companies – he later used his personal wealth explicitly to fight Big Tobacco, trying to offset any complicity. The Wellcome Trust, a major health research funder, has been critiqued for investing in Coca-Cola and alcohol industry stocks even as it studies obesity and alcohol-related disease; under pressure, it at least barred direct tobacco industry investments and started more active stewardship in other sectors. And Gates’ own tax practices have been called out – for instance, a 2014 Guardian piece noted that Microsoft’s tax avoidance strategies deprive governments of revenue that could fund health programs, while Gates simultaneously pushes for more aid, leading the author to ask if he was “preaching poverty relief while enabling tax dodging” .

The secrecy and disconnect can maintain systemic harms even as philanthropy claim to tackle them. When philanthropists, such as Gates, invest in harmful industries, they are effectively taking two steps back for every step forward – their charitable impact is canceled out by the damage their capital inflicts elsewhere.

In Gates’ case, the beer investments call into question his ethics and the commitment to making a real difference for people’s health. Gates is monetizing an industry that contributes to death, disease, and destruction globally.

Big Alcohol vs. Public Health: A History of Conflict

The tension between Gates’ beer investments and his foundation’s health goals isn’t happening in a vacuum – it’s part of a much larger struggle between the Big Alcohol and public health policy. For decades, health experts have warned that the alcohol industry’s interests fundamentally clash with efforts to prevent and reduce alcohol-related harm. The industry’s goal is to sell more beer, wine, and spirits; the public health goal is to prevent and reduce the damage those products and practices cause.

Research confirms that the alcohol industry often acts like Big Tobacco when its profits are threatened by health measures. A growing body of evidence shows that companies such as AB InBev, Heineken, Diageo, and other Big Alcohol giants actively lobby against stricter alcohol regulations around the world. They fight policies such as higher excise taxes, limits on advertising, health warning labels, or reduced legal BAC (blood alcohol content) limits for drivers – basically, any policy proven to curb excessive drinking and save lives .

One study summarized it bluntly:

There is now an established body of evidence that the alcohol industry seeks to obstruct public health policies that might affect future alcohol sales.” 

In parallel, these companies fund so-called “responsible drinking” campaigns and corporate-social-responsibility programs, which often serve to burnish the alcohol industry’s image instead of reducing the burden of harm from their own products. This is a fundamental and direct conflict-of-interest maneuver – by promoting “moderate”responsible drinking” messages, the industry tries to stave off evidence-based, high-impact government action while keeping consumers buying their brands.

Take Heineken for example. In many African and Asian countries, Heineken and other brewers have dramatically increased advertising in recent years, targeting new demographics (like women and youth) as emerging markets for growth and profit maximization. In places with no or flawed alcohol laws, they push the envelope with marketing that would be outlawed in Western countries – such as heavy advertising near schools or aggressive sponsorship of sports and music events that appeal to young audiences. Public health advocates in these countries describe it as a cultural onslaught, normalizing alcohol consumption in populations that traditionally did not consume alcohol. The results can be seen in rising alcohol-related hospital admissions and social issues. When local governments attempt to develop ambitious alcohol laws (for instance, banning billboard ads or raising the legal age limit), the alcohol industry frequently mobilizes lobbying campaigns to derail or block such laws .

Why does this matter for Bill Gates’ story? Because by investing in these companies, even indirectly, he is now tied to – and benefiting from – an industry that often fights the very public health goals he supports.

In fact, Olivier van Beemen’s book “Heineken in Africa” documents cases of Heineken’s subsidiaries engaging in highly unethical conduct: from collaborating with dictatorial regimes and rebel militias, to tax avoidance and using “beer girls” (young women hired to push sales in bars, many of whom faced sexual exploitation) . These revelations caused such outrage that Heineken’s CEO had to address them publicly and a bank investor pulled out over it .

By investing after these issues were known, Gates signaled either unawareness or indifference to them. Neither is a good look.

Gates’ Response: Silence, Justifications, and Scrutiny

In the end, it is not only about their investments and profit interests in Big Alcohol increasing consumption – and the harm and costs that come with it for people and societies around the world. It is also about the normalization of one of the most unethical and harmful industries. And it is about the systemic ignorance of the need to advance alcohol policy initiatives. Alcohol policy is one of the most underfunded areas in global health and development.

As of now, Bill Gates himself has said very little publicly about these investments. When Reuters broke the story of the Heineken stake, a query to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for comment was met with no immediate response. The foundation likely considers the Trust’s investment decisions as separate from the foundation’s program work, and thus may have felt it needn’t comment. Likewise, when the AB InBev purchase came to light via SEC filings months later, there was no press statement from Gates directly addressing it.

Instead, the task of responding (in a limited way) fell to Gates’ investment manager, Cascade Investment. Cascade’s brief public statement – noted in the Brauwelt report – insisted that “Bill Gates did not purchase [the AB InBev] shares” personally and did not partake in that decision, which was made by Cascade based on the financial merits . Essentially, they tried to draw a line: this was a Trust investment decision, not Bill acting on a personal passion for Budweiser. Cascade wanted to calm any market speculation that Gates might try to influence AB InBev’s operations (or that AB InBev was seeking out Gates – neither is true; it was purely an arm’s-length stock purchase). They emphasized the value angle – that they see upside in the beaten-down stock.

However, this distancing only goes so far. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust exists to fund the foundation’s philanthropy, and Bill Gates is one of its trustees. Whether or not he clicks “buy” on the stock trades, it’s his money and his ultimate responsibility. 

A Stark Choice Between Wealth and Well-Being

Bill Gates’ plunge into beer investments has inadvertently popped the cap off a deeper debate about how philanthropists manage their money. It spotlights an uncomfortable truth: the sources of a fortune can be at odds with the uses of that fortune. In Gates’ case, a nearly billion-dollar wager on deeply unethical beer giants stands in contrast to the billions he’s spending to promote global health. This gap between principle and practice poses a stark question: Do the ends justify the means? Or more specifically, can funding vaccine drives with beer profits be justified when those very profits are predicated on a product that causes health harm?

From this investigation, a few key insights emerge:

Financially, Gates’ bets on Heineken and AB InBev were motivated by potential returns. He saw a chance to buy world-leading companies at a discount, expecting them to bounce back and provide steady income. In the cold logic of finance, it was an opportunistic move in line with his foundation’s approach to grow its endowment.

Ethically, however, these investments contradict core values that Gates and his foundation espouse. Fighting disease and poverty while profiting (even indirectly) from a major cause of disease and poverty is a contradiction that is hard to reconcile. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s credibility in advocating for healthier societies is called into question when its Trust buys into Big Alcohol.

Contextually, this case is part of a broader issue with billionaire philanthropy. Gates is not unique in facing such criticism – the interplay of immense wealth, investments, and altruistic giving is frequently messy. It exposes the need for clearer ethical guidelines. If even the world’s largest foundation can have these conflicts, industry standards or self-imposed rules should evolve. For instance, more foundations could adopt negative screens (no tobacco, no alcohol, no firearms, etc.) on their investments to avoid exactly this kind of embarrassment and misalignment. It’s notable that some philanthropic entities already avoid investing in alcohol on moral grounds.

For the public, there’s also a takeaway: philanthropists are not infallible moral saints; they are players in business and finance like anyone else, capable of inconsistency. This realization can temper the almost hero-worship that figures like Gates sometimes receive. Perhaps that’s healthy – it’s a reminder that complex problems like global health require systemic solutions and integrity at all levels, not just generous chequebooks.

In the end, the story of Bill Gates and Big Beer is a wake up call: instead of heroising billionaire philanthropists whose actions cause massive harms, it is time for governments to step up and protect people and communities from the harms caused by Big Alcohol and their shareholders.

Sources

Reuters – “Bill Gates buys Heineken stake, despite saying he’s ‘not a big beer drinker’”

Brauwelt International – “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust buys stake in AB-InBev for USD 95 million”(Cascade statement and context) 

Financhill – Analysis on Gates’ Heineken investment rationale 

The Nation – “How the Gates Foundation’s Investments Are Undermining Its Own Good Works” (Charles Piller, 2014) 

WHO Report – Global alcohol mortality and burden statistics 

PubMed (Int. J. Health Policy) – Evidence of alcohol industry obstructing health policies 

Brauwelt – Criticism from Anson Frericks (ex-AB InBev) on Gates’ beer investments