Gates Foundation: Ethically Challenged

The do-gooder reputation of the Gates Foundation has just taken a major hit.

In a major investigative piece, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that the foundation "has holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices."

Here's another excerpt:

The Gates Foundation has poured $218 million into polio andmeasles immunization and research worldwide, including in the NigerDelta. At the same time that the foundation is funding inoculations toprotect health, The Times found, it has invested $423 million in Eni,
Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Total of France— the companies responsible for most of the flares blanketing the deltawith pollution, beyond anything permitted in the United States orEurope.

This quote from a foundation representative suggests a see-no-evilapproach: "Because we want to maintain a focus on the programmaticwork, we have made it a policy to not comment on individual investmentholdings."

Indeed, the foundation reportedly has a "firewall" between investing and services.

Let me play devil's advocate here. Let's say the Gates Foundationonly invested in "good" companies. Would it make as much money? Isethical investing as profitable over the long run as investing in justabout anything? What financial price, if any, might the foundation pay to do the rightthing?

Dark cloud over good works[LAT]