Philosophy
Since relatively few companies fail our screens, one might wonder just how comprehensive and thorough our screens are. Though we believe we have anticipated ways an investor’s money might contribute to each issue we screen, an explanation of how we have arrived at our screen definitions is in order.

Our credibility relies on our consistency in all screens such that the convictions of each individual Values-Based Investor ("VBI") are accommodated equally. We acknowledge that the issues we screen will have different relevance from investor to investor. Our task is to ensure that when an individual considers our information with respect to his or her convictions, the credibility of our information from screen to screen does not become an issue.

We believe that the less ambiguity in our screens, the better. A prime example of a potentially problematic "grey area" is pornography. In defining what constitutes a pornography screen violation, we had to define pornography.

The problem arrives when something someone considers to be pornographic does not become identified.  Are the sexually-explicit programs airing on prime-time television pornographic?  Many people think so, but many others do not.  If we were to define our pornography screen broadly enough for the former, our credibility would likely suffer with the latter. Calling anything that is offensive "pornography" reduces the meaning of the word.

This is a good example to illustrate the importance of defining our screens. In the case presented above, we screen out the companies guilty of producing the "grey area" material as failing our "Anti-Family Entertainment" screen. This screen is not simply a "receptacle" for producers of offensive, but not quite pornographic, material. It is a legitimate screen of its own with its own definition.  These examples found a home within the other screen, thereby closing the gap. The bottom line is that when a company fails our pornography screen, there is nothing left to interpretation – the material in question is unquestionably pornographic.

Likewise, abortion screening requires precision. Other organizations rely on outside sources for their definitions & simply refer their definition to that source: "An abortifacient is an agent that causes or produces an abortion according to So-And-So’s Medical and Nursing Dictionary."

We put the definition of what we consider to be an abortifacient where it counts – right up front: "An abortifacient is a chemical agent which terminates a pregnancy. By this, the agent’s action affecting the pregnancy occurs after conception."

Therefore, the former approach to the definition places responsibility elsewhere. If some overlooked "agent" were truly abortifacient, it’s the fault of "So-and-So." We are confident enough in our research to stand behind it.

Similarly, we screen out abortion offenders in ways others do not, including fetal tissue research. There are those who would deem a portfolio absent of abortion involvement while actually owning companies in either health maintenance organizations or insurance providers that cover elective abortions as part of the "health plans" they offer. Hospital companies that actually perform abortions in their facilities may also slip through their screens. We find this wholly unacceptable and our screening criteria reflects it.

[What you need to KNOW] Boycotts vs Investments Responsible Investing A Great Opportunity A Call to Action [What you can DO] Research Companies Screen Investments Find Alternatives [How we can HELP] Save You Time eVALUEator Try it for Free Buy it Now Presentation Tools Marketing Ideas (travel guide) (send an e-mail) (pressroom) (our mission) (screening-criteria)