Not Quite Right

Link: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,69508,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

The concept of ethical investing has been around for years. It's the notion that an investor looks at more than just the bank statements of companies in which they invest, seeking to find companies that are good citizens of the communities where they operate.
Usually, though, ethical investing is small-scale stuff. Individuals, or family trusts, looking to make sure that they're not supporting a company that shits where it eats. A company that looks after its employees, gives back to the community, and acts in a moral fashion at all times - to paraphrase Google, one that does no evil.

This signifies a change, and a significant one. USD21b is quite a lot of weight to be throwing around, and it would be a foolish corporate board that didn't listen. Not listening to shareholders gets directors fired, or sued, or worse.
It's all the more interesting that this announcement comes this week, at the time that we are told about a US company that will be blocking Skype in China. That's a company seeking to cash in directly on China's oppressive regime, and it would be all the more pleasant for their board to be directed, by shareholders, that that sale is not to go through.

Google's "do no evil" policy is going to have to be carefully considered in light of this agreement. They cannot, on the one hand, have such a policy, and satisfy shareholders who seek an ethical investment, while on the other hand working with red China to tread upon the hapless citizenry of that country. One or the other will have to give. Will it be an image, and an ethos, or will it be money?
There are no illusions as to MS ever acting in an ethical fashion. Money will win, without a doubt, and even if Google withdraws because of moral considerations the Beast of Redmond never will. The Chinese Communist Party will continue to oppress the masses, aided by the biggest names in internet search. Google pulling out would matter not a jot, except to the people who have put in their money in the hope of supporting a company that does not have a purview limited only to the colour of the ink at the bottom of their financial statements.

The buck is not the end of the world, though the fascination with quarterly results does make that difficult to believe at times. A company cannot act solely for financial gain forever. At some point the shareholders will demand a wider view, since fucking over the communities from which you draw staff and sales isn't a good way to make friends and influence people. Some companies - such as Hubbards - behaved morally from the start. Others found out the hard way, and had to clean up their acts to avoid shareholder riots. Still others are bumbling along with tight fists and greedy eyes - Telecom spring to mind - to the detriment of their communities. They will fall eventually, and this movement can only hasten the day.