Making Change
The debate over socially responsible investing
March / April 2005
Terry Fiedler Utne magazine
So, you've decided the time has come to make some socially
responsible investments. OK. How about a few shares of post-Cheney
Halliburton? Or maybe a supersized helping of McDonald's? And hey,
while you're at it, don't forget there's nothing like a little
ExxonMobil to juice up the ol' portfolio.
RELATED ARTICLES
Political strength begins with people skills...
Steering aviation toward less pollution...
Global Warming May Trigger an Ice Age Soon February 5, 2004 Erica Wetter Utne.com The Big C...
Enforcing climate change law...
Stanford University law professor Lawrence Lessig spoke on September 11, 2008, with Utne Reader sen...
Not what you had in mind? Well, according to entrepreneur Paul
Hawken, if you invest in a socially responsible investment (SRI)
mutual fund, these are exactly the sorts of companies you'll be
doing business with.
At the end of 2003, according to a controversial report
co-authored by Hawken and his Natural Capital Institute -- and
published in October 2004 by a number of monthly publications owned
by the alternative magazine chain Dragonfly Media -- 23 SRI funds
had shares in Halliburton, the subject of multiple federal probes.
The fast-food juggernaut McDonald's, which has been linked to
America's obesity epidemic, was included in 41 funds. And
ExxonMobil, a perennial environmental threat, was represented in
the portfolios of some 40 SRI funds. These are significant numbers,
given that there are only 100 SRI funds managed domestically, and
some 600 worldwide.
In fact, Hawken estimates that more than 90 percent of all
Fortune 500 companies are now included in SRI portfolios. 'The term
socially responsible investing is so broad it is
meaningless,' he writes in the report. 'If a fund doesn't own
companies involved with gambling and pornography, it can be called
socially responsible.'
Part of the progressive lexicon for over 30 years, socially
responsible investing was initially conceived as a way to help
investors subject their portfolios to a 'negative screen,' thus
avoiding funds that included companies mixed up in the
military-industrial complex or profiting from social vices like
alcohol, gambling, and tobacco.
As SRI funds have become more commonplace, Hawken contends, the
pressure for them to perform as well as traditional mutual funds
has increased, leading to what he calls 'portfolio creep' --
'porous and spurious criteria about what is a socially responsible
company.' At the same time, he's troubled by companies that make
false claims in their advertising and clients who are often in the
dark about which investment strategies are chosen or why.
Hawken's allegations have caused quite a stir among progressives
in the financial community, in part because of his reputation as an
author and entrepreneur. He recently co-wrote the influential book
Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial
Revolution, and he co-founded the software firm Groxis and the
boutique home-hardware retailer Smith and Hawken. Mainly, though,
the intense reaction to the critique speaks to just how high the
stakes have become in an industry that started in 1971 with a $1
billion SRI fund managed by Pax World Funds and is now a $2.2
trillion industry.
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
Next >>