Question

Do you think it's reasonable and appropriate for investors to "vote their conscience" on social issues? What if he impact of such a vote is lower profits than might otherwise be possible? How do we resolve disagreements between investor groups who might have opposing, but equally passionate, ethical arguments for or against a particular business decision? (Example: a pharmaceutical manufacturer has developed a new abortifacient that is quick, safe, effective, and inexpensive. It would be prescribed by a physician, but could be administered by any trained pharmacy technician, similar to a flu shot. Pro-choice investors want the company to begin manufacturing and distributing this medication immediately. Pro-life investors not only don't want the medication sold, they want the formula and research notes destroyed so that no other party can make the drug. The company has spent millions of dollars on research and testing; if the product isn't introduced to the market, those research monies would represent a significant loss to the company and a commensurate reduction in stock prices and dividend payments; however, if introduced to the market, the profits would be astounding, stock prices would soar, and dividend payments would skyrocket.)

Answer 1

It is absolutely reasonable and morally correct to vote their conscience on social issues. Introducing a ground shattering innovative product that has the potential to improve the lives of millions will be an evolutionary success for the mankind. Even when it encourages lesser profit it is ethically correct move towards the betterment of the society as a whole.

There is no hard and fast rule to settle the dispute between investors on ethical grounds or against because the biggest concern any investor has is whether his investment is fruitful or not. That is why there comes a concept of ethical investing or social investing. Although it is having a potential of becoming the force for corporate reform, ethical investing is mostly an marketing handle and investment technique. For the ethical investors to wind up a genuine power for transformation, it is imperative to exercise guidelines that stretch beyond the standards. Moral Investing could increase its impact by setting up forceful norms of corporate administration, environmental reporting, and disclosure, consequently turning into a locus for social change far beyond its diret impact.

In the event that financial specialists don't feel sincerely happy with their venture decisions, they are allowed to shop somewhere else. There is each sign that this brand showcasing venture strategy will keep on serving as a lightning bar for social issues and will get outsized media consideration.

The dependence on procedural morals – the conviction that 'each venture decision is moral' – has brought about the production of 'moral' assets with oppositely inverse social objectives and that are not really moral pioneers. As honed today, social contribution just arbitrarily recognizes responsive and dependable organizations. Without clear criteria and quantifiable objectives, it has turned out to be progressively an activity in strategies – coordinating customers with speculations – instead of in empowering corporate change, its indicated objective. Hence devising standards and establishing an anonymous body to look over and supervise the decisions of investors needs to formed which can ensure that the interests of the investors and the society is not under jeopardy.