Slashdot Mirror


Gates Foundation Revokes Pledge to Review Portfolio

NewsCloud writes "After the LA Times reported that the Gates Foundation often invests in companies hurting the very communities Bill and Melinda want to help, the Seattle Times reported the foundation planned 'a systematic review of its investments to determine whether it should pull its money out of companies that are doing harm to society'. Shortly after that interview, the Gates Foundation took down their public statement on this and replaced it with a significantly altered version which seems to say that investing responsibly would just be too complex for them and that they need to focus on their core mission: 'There are dozens of factors that could be considered, almost all of which are outside the foundation's areas of expertise. The issues involved are quite complex...Which social and political issues should be on the list? ... Many of the companies mentioned in the Los Angeles Times articles, such as Ford, Kraft, Fannie Mae, Nestle, and General Electric, do a lot of work that some people like, as well as work that some people do not like. Some activities might even be viewed positively by some people and negatively by others.'"

15 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. SRI by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Socially responsible investing is essentially impossible. Public companies are almost always too large and complex to boil down into a single binary good/evil decision matrix, and if one could, if investing in the evil company (for little direct benefit to the company by the way) you could do 25% more really good things (say 25% fewer malria cases or more clean drinking water in Africa, the moral calculus becomes quite complicated.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    1. Re:SRI by daeg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. And as I said in the prior posts, if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will. At least with the Gates foundation, the money is going to treat disease, bring clean and renewable drinking sources, textbooks, etc, whereas if someone else, say, Mr. Trump were to invest, the money would go toward a useless condo tower or crappy TV show.

      It would be a different story if the foundation was using their money as investment capital to evil startup companies or backing radical governments. But they aren't.

    2. Re:SRI by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but come on, that 20% share of Acme Land Mines.

      Well, most of happens to that coyote is his own damn fault.

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:SRI by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's BS. Companies watch their stock, and if more people are willing to buy it it goes up. Socially responsible investment means there is more demand and value for the stocks in the market which are responsible, and less for the companies which aren't. Passive and blind investment means that you are actively assisting in the misanthropic things going on.

      People trying to do good things can make money too, why not invest in them? It will end up helping them out, just a little, and you won't profit from destruction. I am amused by the idea that big companies are just too stupid to see everything they are doing, but it's partially an incentives thing - if you are going to lose a huge investor and the stock takes a 5 point hit because some nimwit dumped oil in a pond, you're more likely to fire him and prosecute to make an example.

    4. Re:SRI by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And as I said in the prior posts, if the Gates foundation isn't making money off of the evil corporations, someone will.

      And note that "evil", as defined in the original article, includes such things as providing high-paying jobs that allow workers to patronize prostitutes, and thereby contributing to teenage pregnancy.

      There's arguably a sane point to be made there, but the article takes it to a ludicrous extreme.

    5. Re:SRI by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, companies discovered something interesting after the anti-pollution laws were passed in the sixties and seventies (I'm not sure when they actually noticed this. When companies reduced pollution, they made greater profit. It turns out that the best way to reduce pollution is to turn "pollution" (i.e. waste) into product. Oftentimes a product that the company didn't make before. The point is pollution is waste, the less you waste the more money you make. I suspect a similar principle applies to behavirs that are truly evil, the less you do them the more profitable you will be (everything else being equal).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. Not surprising at all by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ideologies unable to capture and model complexity of real life -- News at 10.

    Yawn.

    --
    The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
  3. Ethical revision by soundvessel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is a company not allowed to revise their statement? They are, by and large, stating fact here. The world is complex. An investment for a seemingly righteous cause is an investment in a contradictory cause in another area. Which cause do they choose?

    One might say that they have enough money to do both. To invest in all causes and cancel out the 'bad' by fueling all of the good and bad together.

    What level of abstraction is a foundation obligated to operate at? The Higher Goal, the Micromanaged Goal, or some blend in-between?

    1. Re:Ethical revision by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In some cases it is just not possible.

      Lets say the GF is investing in a toxic spewing power plant in a 3rd world country. People could cry foul and demand that GF pull out their money. But if GF pulled their money out of that power plant, the medical center they invested in just 2 miles down the road wouldn't have stable electricity. With out medical care, the quality of life remains abysmal. Also with out the stable electricity that plant produces, local businesses would suffer and close. Unemployement would rise, and the local social situation would deteriorate even more. Many people would cry for a new clean burning power plant. But it could take a decade to get such a plant designed, cleared by the government, built and operational.

      And the PR would be impossible to manage. If you claim to be investing responsibly, and someone wants to take a shot at you, they can say "look at these liars, they claim innocence, yet spew toxic waste from their power plants." It makes a great sound bit, and can be easily spread and widely believed (People will believe anything if they either want it to be true, or fear it to be true). Spreading the truth of the situation would require your audience to take time to rationally think about the situation in a more broad scope. That is something that the 2000 and 2004 US elections have shown us to be a highly unlikely event.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  4. How to really make a difference. Money Talks by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One simple step
    1) Start moving cash to companies that provide audits of their social actions.

    Once the money moves you can bet companies are going to start acting.

    As long as we say "it is not possible" and do not try it remains not done.
    But the only barrier is a lack of will power to commit.

  5. Re:Shock, Amazement by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, it is not a joke.

    I remember a small story in the Bible that goes something like this:

    Jesus (pronounced HAY-ZEUS and means son of Zeus) was lounging around gathering contributions one day. There was a large crowd watching him. Some were donating money. Most were asking each other how a Hebrew could have such pale skin when the only people with pale skin in that region of the world were Romans and Greeks, and Jesus was neither. The long hair on his head was the cause of much speculation as well since, in that time and place, men wore their hair cut short. It was decided that the best way to find an explanation for these things was to ask Michelangelo and Pope Julius II della Rovere.

    Right about the time everyone realized Michelangelo and Pope Julius II della Rovere would not be born for another 1500 years, a loud, proud, rich man pushed through the crowd and stepped up to Jesus. With a large grin beaming across his face the man reached into the pockets of his leather Jordache(TM) jeans and pulled out a thick wad of greenbacks. From this he peeled off ten Benjamins and spread them on the table before Jesus. Jesus accepted the money and said a simple, "Thank you". This startled the man. With a look of surprise on his face he stepped back a bit and watched for a while. It was clear to the crowd that he had expected more.

    Within a few minutes some old, musty smelling broad came through the crowd. She quietly shuffled up to Jesus and gave him a single penny. Jesus smiled at the old woman, blessed her, and wished her well.

    Now the rich bastard that donated the Benjamins became angry...irate...pissed-off you might say. He stormed up to Jesus and got LOUD in Jesus' face. "I gave you a thousand dollars, muthafucka'! How come you blessed that bitch for her penny and didn't say shit to me?"

    The crowd drew back and sang a collective "Oooooh!" in fear of impending violence. A couple of instigators in the crowd shouted out things like, "You gonna' take that?", and "slap that hippy".

    Jesus was quick to his feet.

    He pimp-slapped the punk to the ground, put a foot on his neck and calmly explained to the fool, "You gave me a small portion of your wealth that you will not miss. That kind, gentle woman gave me everything she had in the world."

    I wonder why I think about that story everytime someone talks about the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  6. Re:Some are complex some not so complex by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some companies, like BP, aren't pure evil. Some, like Sony BMG, totally are.

    This view is, like anyones, based on your views and experience. (Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just going to point out another viewpoint).

    The GW groups would probably consider BP pure evil as they pump and sell oil, regardless of anything else they do. Sony BMG, on the other hand, doesn't have any direct say in it so they wouldn't consider them evil.

    On the other hand, most of us on /. are anti-DRM, anti-RIAA and pro-It's MY Computer so we generally consider Sony BMG a negative force with BP being fairly decent with all them investing the oil profits into alternative energy schemes.

    Taking a Nuclear Power Plant can also be good or evil depending on your view. Energy free of CO2 emmissions or a Chernobyl waiting to happen.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  7. Libertarian squared? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First the diehard lib says (btw, I'm a diehard lib) "if a company is harming society, the market will eventually shun that company and it will have to change its ways". Then, when someone suggests a shunning an evil company it's "look, if I don't make money of this, someone will..."

    Just seems like that invisible hand keeps getting more and more invisible..

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  8. Re:Shock, Amazement by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You seriously need to write your own Bible translation/version.

  9. Re:Shock, Amazement by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stow the righteous indignation and try to think for a second.

    The rich man was chastised for giving "only a small amount" because he expected to blessed for his show of philantropy. Hw wasn't showing good will, he was attempting to surreptiously purchase grace.