I think it's more complicated than that, and way more complicated than the article implies

It's probably safe to say it's always more complicated than the article implies (or far simpler) if it's a mainstream paper.

I got the impression from the article that investing in gas companies and pharma companies is ALWAYS WRONG

That I did not. I was instead caught by the idea of them investing in companies that are pretty directly causing problems they're trying to remove the effects of.

Now, it's pretty clear that if Gates simply neglected to invest in them, the gas companies wouldn't change their behaviour either, and the people suffering related maladies would still need the good works of the other side of the organisation.

I just wonder about power, who has it, and if the Gates Foundation can't wield it, where's the hope?

The LAT didn't report on investing in bauxite companies working in Jamaica-- who's to say that they haven't invested there for a reason?

I just brought up bauxite as an example of companies flouting local law, an example with which I'm more familiar. Got diddly to do with Gates, but fits more into the "who can apply pressure, then?" question. As far as I've been told there's no issue with the local government in the same way as the Nigerian gas companies--but I didn't realise that conflict from reading the article.

I got the impression from the article that investing in gas companies and pharma companies is ALWAYS WRONG-- even though the only organizations that can recapture natural gas and develop AIDS medicine are those, and both are involved in those two activities.

I agree with this, if only because I severely doubt there's a gas or pharma company that doesn't do bad stuff somewhere.

News that they didn't serve gin.

What kind of bar doesn't serve gin? A vodka mill? A vodka joint?

What kind of bar doesn't serve gin?

I wasn't in a bar. I was in a restaurant. Not that the waitress was making much sense--a partial liquor license? Allowed to serve vodka and not gin? No clue. Once we got past the language issues she was a complete doll, so I don't hold her initial misstep against her.

I wonder if it was actual vodka or the kind made out of rice or something similar... with less alcohol content.

Kat! I just got caught up enough in Natter 48 to see your announcement - congratulations!

libkitty -- I know exactly what you mean! I don't want to see that movie with Sean Bean. . . except that Sean Bean looks particularly good in the ads.

It was hard just finding 401k plans that didn't have ridiculously offensive companies on the dole. Today there are purportedly socially responsible investment firms, but it's still pretty tough for the average joe to invest responsibly, let alone someone of that weight of funds.

Yes, not just individuals. As someone that worked in investment consulting for colleges and universities soon after the interest in social investing took off (mostly due to protests about investing in S. Africa), I can say that it is extremely difficult to do. And we advised for 85% of the endowment $ in the US (i.e., lots of money, with lots of investing weight). At the time, I think we had 2 managers in our entire database that did socially responsible investing exclusively. I'm sure there are more now, but interested institutions would still run into the problem that the whole concept of social investing flies in the face of the fiduciary responsibility of the people making investing decisions (whose job is to maximize investment returns). From a business perspective, I would always expect the investment/philanthropy decision-makers to be separated. Of course, the idealist in me would also hope that those investors would not be total wankers.

What puzzled me was that the article did say they explicitly avoided tobacco companies. Unless that's also for sound financial reasons about future expected earnings, that policy seems to contradict the complete separation of the two branches.

I'm sure there are more now, but interested institutions would still run into the problem that the whole concept of social investing flies in the face of the fiduciary responsibility of the people making investing decisions (whose job is to maximize investment returns).

I definitely see that as the key issue -- are you using your investments to maximize returns, or to promote the values you're promoting through your philanthropy? I think the argument could be made either way.

I definitely see that as the key issue -- are you using your investments to maximize returns, or to promote the values you're promoting through your philanthropy? I think the argument could be made either way.

Haven't a number of socially responsible companies run into the same conflict? Ben & Jerry's and The Body Shop come to mind.