Wall Street’s relation to the horrible events that have been unfolding in Darfur may not be news to some, but for those of you who are unaware of the connection, or of what might be happening in Darfur, check our the following PDF: The Darfur Imperative:Working to End the Crisis.

If it seems like I have been focusing on Calvert a lot lately, it is because I have been. On the one hand, I find Calvert’s socially responsible investment options appealing and promising. On the other hand, I continually wonder if they are not fleshed out enough. For example, why a rating of 3 and above out of 5 to qualify as a potential investment option? Is that too generous (it does equate to a rating of 60% as the minimum bar)? And further, are the ratings according to an absolute measure (say the ideal company receives a 100% rating) vs. a relative rating in comparison to peer companies?

On the latter question, I have thought quite a bit about a more robust rating system and have also had a few interesting conversations regarding the same with friends and colleagues lately. Regardless of the fantastic rating schemes we may or may not have devised, the simple fact is that Calvert is serving a very important role. Here’s an interesting clip from the PDF linked above:

“On February 5, 2007, Calvert announced a new partnership with the Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF) and the Save Darfur Coalition (SDC) to mobilize collective pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the mayhem. Calvert will lend analytical expertise and leverage our advocacy network in support of these two organizations at the forefront of the Sudan divestment movement.”

I was not expecting that level of involvement… Continuing on, you’ll probably reach the content that seemed likely to appear:

“As part of our commitment, Calvert took a close look at our social fund portfolios to be sure we have no current investments in companies that are on the targeted divestment list maintained by SDTF.”

And the result? As expected, but still a result to be celebrated…

“Major multinational corporations are beginning to take notice of the divestment movement. For example, in January 2007, two of the world’s largest multinationals — ABB Ltd. and Siemens — announced their intentions to suspend operations in Sudan, with the exception of those consistent with the human rights and humanitarian objectives of the UN Global Compact.”

Also of note, Calvert has also set up a special report dedicated to the issues in Sudan.

And now the money question: What’s in your 401k? What’s in your IRA, or other investment vehicle? Do the funds or securities in your portfolio fit your values? Do they tie you to a company that is directly or indirectly supporting the atrocities occurring in Sudan? How about elsewhere in the world?

Socially responsible investing is important. It is important to consider your personal values when investing, but also the overall impact your investing choices can have. Here’s to Calvert for making the SRI investing process that much more transparent.

TAGS: Darfur | Sudan | Calvert | SRI

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 15th, 2007 at 12:37 am and is filed under Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Socially Responsible Investing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.