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.
I wasn't able to bring my TV to the electronics recycling thing, but I was able to cart my stereo and a bunch of smaller things.
Yay for getting rid of stuff!
Haven't a number of socially responsible companies run into the same conflict? Ben & Jerry's and The Body Shop come to mind.
Yeah, that sounds right. The real problem is that every industry fucks with people and/or the earth when you go back far enough. I mean, right?
Yay for getting rid of stuff!
And yay for recycling!
Right now, I need to figure out what to do with my tree. I finally managed to put away all my Christmas decorations last night, but I have no idea when they collect trees here.
Not that I think it's really impossible in invest in a socially responsible manner. I'm no expert, but I think Amy Domini does a good job with the balancing act. [link]
The boy who delivers my eggs just told me he got a BB gun for Christmas.
I told him not to shoot his eye out.
You get egg delivery?!
Yes, every Sunday. And it is made of awesome.
On the downside, I drive an hour across the Chesapeake Bay just to get decent groceries.
