Where SRI (Socially Responsible Investing) Doesn’t Work

The following is part of a series by our friends at CSRHub (a 3p sponsor) – offering free sustainability and corporate social responsibility ratings on over 6,500 of the world’s largest publicly traded companies. 3p readers get 25% off CSRHub’s professional subscriptions with promo code “TP25.″ 

As previously seen on the CSRHub blog.

new and used guns

By Carol Pierson Holding

In December, at Seattle’s Newground Social Investment holiday party, the firm’s Founder Bruce Herbert, a leader in SRI, gave a toast in which he applauded Bill McKibben’s leadership in fossil fuel divestiture. Herbert asked the crowd to support McKibben’s efforts, both in attending events (Herbert attended McKibben’s Do The Math divestiture launch) and in our investment practices.

At first, I was thrilled. I wondered if the Do The Math campaign had already spread beyond college campuses to the broader SRI investment community. If so, the movement was spreading even faster than I could have hoped.

Four days later, in Newtown Connecticut, a 20-year-old gunman trained a semi-automatic gun on a 2nd grade classroom, killing 20 small children and 6 adults. In the midst of writing about fossil fuel divestiture, I realized there was something bigger going on: despite all the successes the SRI industry can claim, it has been a failure when it comes to products that kill.

SRI was first practiced by religious groups who refused to invest their money in companies whose products were harmful to their congregations, mostly alcohol, tobacco and gambling. These “sin” screens have been in place for at least sixty years. Later, other screens were commonly added for harmful industries such as pornography, weapons and the military. But none of these industries has been seriously affected by SRI.

This is not to undercut the work that SRI has done. Over the years, it has played an important role in anti-war, anti-nuclear, environmental movements, civil rights and economic justice, including, most famously, apartheid.

But as Robert Zevin, an early SRI advocate, says in a blog for Huffington Post, SRI’s original moral purpose has been subsumed to profit:

“Many of us are now embarrassed to say that our religious or moral or political views should and do affect our investment selections. We know the gatekeepers don’t want to hear it; and they know that many of their institutional clients definitely don’t want to hear it.”

And investors have even less influence when they simply refuse to invest. The old guard of SRI would hold stocks just to give them a seat at the table – or rather, at the annual corporate meeting. Now, even investors as socially minded as the Gates Foundation are interested in only one thing: returns. That foundation may do worlds of good for global health, but its biggest investments after Berkshire Hathaway are in McDonald’s and Coca Cola, two companies most at odds with children’s health.

At least sixty years of investors boycotting the gun trade has yielded zero results. In fact, SRI activism works best when rewarding companies that care about being good, whose products sustain life rather than take it. For example, CSRHub, the social responsibility data aggregator, created a special issue called “NRA Anti-Gun List” so that CSR executives can support companies that take a stand against guns, rather than providing a list of gun manufacturers and dealers to boycott.

Only new regulations prompted by consumer outrage will restrict guns. I fear the same is true for climate change. Noble a thought as it is – and as much as we all love having an outlet for our outrage ‑ the truth is, divestiture itself will have as little effect as investment screens for guns. But the moral outrage that the campaign is sparking, like the moral outrage sparked by the massacre in Newtown, is a different story. I look forward to restrictions and even bans being enacted at all levels of government on both guns and fossil fuels. Investors and consumers can take care of keeping the responsible companies in line. I am thankful we have other means to handcuff the really bad businesses.

[image credit: Patrick Feller: Flickr cc]

Carol Pierson Holding writes on environmental issues and social responsibility for policy and news publications, including the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovations, Harvard Business Review, San Francisco Chronicle, India Time, The Huffington Post and many other web sites. Her articles on corporate social responsibility can be found on CSRHub.com, a website that provides sustainability ratings data on 6,500 companies worldwide. Carol holds degrees from Smith College and Harvard University.

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on nearly 6,500 companies from 135 industries in 70 countries. By aggregating and normalizing the information from over 185 data sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that linksmillions of rating elements back to their source. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub tobenchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on nearly 5,000 companies from 135 industries in 65 countries. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.CSRHub rates 12 indicators of employee, environment, community and governance performance and flags many special issues. We offer subscribers immediate access to millions of detailed data points from our 140-plus data sources. Our data comes from six socially responsible investing firms, well-known indexes, publications, “best of” or “worst of” lists, NGOs, crowd sources and government agencies. By aggregating and normalizing the information from these sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links each rating point back to its source.

One response

  1. Certainly a thought provoking post.

    I don’t think that the apparent lack of impact should stop people from utilizing negative screens. The same impact argument could be used for consumer recycling. Will recycling the empty bottle next to me move the need on resource sustainability even a little? Of course not. But, we do it because we believe in the growing aggregate value of consumer recycling combined with greater advocacy on reducing consumption and a variety of other initiatives.

    I wonder what ‘sin’ industries would look like if there weren’t large SRI initiatives. We can’t expect negative screening to be the answer, but I think it definitely has its place in the toolbox for social justice.

Leave a Reply