depends on your definition of 'socially responsible

the idea of socially responsible investing is noble. investing guru peter lynch famously established the 'invest in what you know' strategy. socially responsible investing takes a different 'invest in what you believe' approach. often SRI means avoiding 'sin stocks' (alcohol, tobacco, gambling) and/or violence-tinged stocks (guns, military, etc).

however, examination of some SRI portfolios reveal some interesting picks. for example, New Covenant Growth Fund holdings

The divestment list for the most recent fiscal year included 71 companies -- both domestic and foreign -- most of which were connected to either tobacco, alcohol, or gambling. Banned companies include Boeing (BA ), General Dynamics (GD ), Altria Group (MO ), Anheuser-Busch (BUD ), and Harrah's Entertainment (HET ).
[snip]
As of June 30, the fund's top 10 holdings were Citigroup (C ), 1.8%; Exxon Mobil (XOM ), 1.6%; Microsoft (MSFT ), 1.6%; General Electric (GE ), 1.5%; Bank of America (BAC ), 1.5%; Time Warner (TWX ), 1.4%; Intel (INTC ), 1.4%; Procter & Gamble (PG ), 1.2%; Pfizer (PFE ), 1.2%; and CIGNA (CI ), 1.1%.

- bank of america and citigroup were involved in alotta shenanigans in the 90's including enron and worldcom
- microsoft abused its monopoly status
- people always accuse oil companies of profiteering and/or gouging (do i really need a link for that?)
- i could go on, but my point is in the current business landscape of multinational, vertically and/or horizontally structured companies, i think its tough to live up to the 'socially-responsible' label