[illustration by Elizabeth Prager]

Apparently, the couple thou in the IRA I rolled over to Green Century Funds has been busy with this shareholder activism thing — including getting Apple to offer a free recycling program for old iPods!

For those as new to the issue as I am, shareholder activism basically means trying to change companies by investing in them, then pushing them to, you know, change. I rustled up this article from E/The Environmental Magazine that discusses some of the pros and cons.

Pro: Effecting change from the inside — “To fail to use our leverage as shareholders would be to neglect the most powerful lever at our disposal.”

Con: Putting money into companies you’re not all that happy with, “essentially endorsing the behavior of bad actors through ownership of stock.”

I’m for shareholder activism, within limits. Meaning: I don’t want to own a piece of Exxon, say. GCF has an annual Shareholder Advocacy Program — 2006′s focus is on protecting the Arctic Refuge, among other environmental concerns.

But a question I have now: GCF says it’ll keep putting the pressure on Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon to change their ways — But then states in a footnote that “As of September 30, 2005, neither of the Green Century Funds was invested in ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, Kraft Foods, Wal-Mart, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Clean Harbors, or Southern Company.”

So while I’m glad I don’t “own” any part of Wal-Mart or ExxonMobil, I’m wondering — Does this mean GCF’s planning to buy stock in Wal-Mart? Or that GCF’s saying that they WILL buy stock in these companies IF they shape up?

A lil confused, but somewhat glad my puny IRA’s taking action –

0 Comments