Last week in this forum, I wrote an open letter to Bill Gates, exhorting him to reassess his foundation's investment methodology so that the investment profits from the foundation do not work against the stated mission of the foundation. The Los Angeles Times wrote a wonderful 2-part feature exposing respiratory illnesses in a region where the Gates Foundation does its good work inoculating citizens against polio. The illnesses are brought about by the refining activities of many oil companies who count the Gates Foundation as one of the largest shareholders.

Considering Green Options is still in beta phase, it is doubtful that the brass at the Foundation actually read my letter, but the very next day, the Foundation issued a statement indicating that they would formalize the process by which social and investment criteria are weighed. The hope among the social investment set was that this move would stimulate other large foundations to identify inconsistencies between corporate behavior and charitable missions.

Then, earlier this week, the Foundation issued another statement (this link should not require registration) stating that they would keep their current methodology. "… it is naive to suggest that an individual stockholder can stop that suffering," said foundation executive Patty Stonesipher. "Changes in our investment practices would have little or no impact on these issues."

Look, if the Gates Foundation just does not want to apply social criteria, that is fine, but this statement is just plain wrong. First of all, a $30 billion foundation is hardly an "individual stockholder". Executives notice when one of the largest shareholders on the planet raises its hand at corporate meetings. Second, the Gates Foundation is not just any foundation. The largest foundation in the world would serve as an example to all other charitable organizations. Together with government pensions and activist investors, the effect on rapacious corporate behavior could be enormous. Third, her statement sounds like she is saying, "well, we can't make a difference, so why try?" We know that can not be the case, or else Bill and Melinda would spend their money elsewhere (like Paul Allen, who buys billion dollar yachts).

I am on your side, Bill and Melinda. Social investing can be just as profitable, if not moreso, than the other way. Without spending a nickel, incorporating these principles can have an amplified effect for good.

Mark Brandon runs First Sustainable Investment Advisers, dedicated to helping people invest responsibly. He also authors the Sustainable Log blog and newsletter.