Socially Responsible Investing?
Even for a bleeding heart like myself, I've always thought that socially responsible investing was a surefire way to lose money. Not so, it turns out. These funds are doing well and beating the major indices. A new survey by Harris Interactive also indicates that investors put more trust into firms that are socially responsible - this is key for anyone involved with corporate/community relations, CSR, etc...it gives some financial justification (especially when that's what the exec audience wants before they'll bless - and fund - any serious attempt at CSR) to why a company should act as a good citizen. NB: even though Harris did the study, it looks like it was commissioned by the Calvert Group, one of the country's largest socially responsible mutual funds.

Study: Corporate Giving and Community Relations
In largest project of its kind to date, "The Survey of Corporate Community Relations" examines over 3,000 corporations in 50 of the largest U.S. metropolitan areas. The survey explores business decisions and practices in the areas of social responsibility, and especially the ways firms align themselves with and support local governments and non-profit organizations through their community investments. Funded by the Ford Foundation, the study was conducted by Dr. Doug Guthrie of New York University and The Social Science Research Council.

Reebok's Human Rights Awards Winners
Since 1988, Reebok honors activists under the age of 30 who "have made significant contributions to the field of human rights through nonviolent means." Pretty impressive that the company awards these people with $50,000 to help them continue their work. This year, the winners include three women - one from Nigeria, one from Brazil, and an American. More info...

Australia Sets “World’s Toughest” Standards for Socially Responsible Investment Disclosure
Ethical Performance reports that the Australian government has introduced the “world’s toughest disclosure requirements” on socially responsible investments (SRI) by requiring all companies that offer investment products to disclose whether socially responsible factors were considered, and if so, to detail the methodology and systems used to weigh these factors. The article reports that while similar disclosure rules exist in other countries, Australia's standards are the first to require an explanation that applies to a broad range of investment products, including pension funds, life insurance and managed funds. In comparison, U.K. SRI disclosure rules apply only to pension funds. The new Australian guidelines state that the more an investment product is marketed as an SRI product, “the more detail you have to give about the standards of issues you have regard to and how they are employed.” Specifically, companies will need to disclose whether they consider labor standards and environmental, social or ethical factors in making investment decisions and the steps the fund managers take in applying SRI standards. The regulations were developed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
-- From Ethical Performance, March 2004, P.4

U.S. Banks Partner with Community Nonprofit Groups To Reach Lower-Income Customers
The Financial Times reports that several large U.S. banks have formed “unlikely alliances” with nonprofit community activist organizations in order to target potential long-term customers in lower-income areas. These communities have traditionally been overlooked by banks as areas that could potentially yield profitable opportunities. The nonprofit groups, which include the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (Naca), provide credit counseling and personal finance education to prospective immigrant and minority customers, thereby ensuring that the banks have reliable lower-income borrowers. Although it is working with the banks, Naca asks the borrowers it finds to take part in five advocacy “actions and activities” each year, which could include demonstrations against financial institutions. The article reports that Bank of American Corp. (BofA) and Citigroup Inc. are two banks that are working with Naca and other community groups. Bruce Marks, chief executive of Naca, says the organization receives $2,000-$2,500 for each low-cost mortgage that it helps the banks arrange. Marks notes that Naca’s agreements with BofA and Citigroup could bring in tens of millions of dollars for his organization. According to Ajay Banga, Citigroup’s president of retail banking in North America, “I believe this is a new channel for connecting with consumers.”
-- From the Financial Times, March 11, 2004

Do drug companies care about more than profit?
here's a summary of a Financial Times article about how drug companies are gradually doing more to actually deliver cost-effective treatments to developing countries. i dunno...i don't totally buy it:
Trend: Drug Companies and NGOs Join Efforts To Develop Drugs for Developing Nations
The Financial Times reports that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly working together to ensure that more powerful drugs are produced for developing nations to combat treatable diseases. According to the article, pharmaceutical firms lack the financial incentives to produce drugs for the developing world, making these types of partnerships necessary. For example, the Times reports that in the last 30 years, no new drugs have been created to fight tuberculosis (TB) – a treatable disease that killed 2 million people in 2003. The article notes that several nonprofit drug companies – including U.S.-based One World Health – have been formed to develop the new drugs once initial research is completed by for-profit drug companies. One World Health chief medical officer Ahvie Herskowitz says, “As long as someone has done the discovery work, we can do the whole development ourselves.” Several drug firms have responded by increasing their research efforts. AstraZeneca plc and GlaxoSmithKline plc have opened new infectious diseases laboratories and Novartis AG has set up a research institute to analyze TB and dengue fever. Novartis executive Paul Herrling says, “We have realized that we cannot ignore what is going on in the tropics.”

Study: Loans to Low-Income Communities Not Riskier than Conventional Loans
A study by the National Community Capital Association – a U.S.-based trade group for community development financial institutions (CDFIs) – finds that while the average rate of “net charge offs” (or uncollectable debts) for loans from U.S. commercial banks was 0.97 percent in 2002, the rate for CDFI loans was 0.7 percent. According to American Banker, this finding questions the common perception that loans to low-income communities are riskier than conventional loans. The article reports that the trade group conducted the survey in hopes of attracting more community development investors, including traditional financial institutions. The study examined 138 U.S. community development loan funds, venture capital funds and credit unions that together control $3.1 billion in capital. Jane Henderson, director of community development investors at U.S. financial services firm Wachovia Corp., supported the study’s finding, noting that Wachovia uses the same risk parameters to evaluate all of its investments. “Community investing just makes good sense. It strengthens our business and creates economic opportunity for our investors,” says Henderson.