The petitioners had in mind Fidelity’s investments in PetroChina. Said the petitioners, “We believe PetroChina’s closely related parent, the China National Petroleum Company, is providing funding [for] the Government of Sudan’s military needs to conduct genocide in Darfur.”

I don’t know about this, and probably most of the people at Fidelity don’t, either. They are in the investment business, not the world-saving business. They don’t want to go down this social-investment road—not even to start down it. But genocide is in a class of its own; as an individual you might want to make sure your portfolio did not have the odor of it. Even though the money you spend to buy a share of a company on the open market does not go to the company, but to the previous owner of the share, still your purchase is a kind of public validation.

So what did Fidelity say? It said:

“United States laws prohibits investments in companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan. FMR is committed to complying fully with these investment sanctions and any additional investment sanctions that the United States government might enact…”

In other words, Fidelity is leaving the moral decision up to the government. Then it says:

“The Fidelity Funds Board of Trustees recognizes and respects that investors, including those investing in this Fund, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries. Shareholders of the Fund, however, have chosen to invest in this Fund based on its specific stated investment policies. If adopted, this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States. For this reason the Board of Trustees recommends that you vote ‘AGAINST’ this proposal.”

In other words, if you don’t like our fund, put your money somewhere else.

I have been skeptical of how far you can go with social investing, but I don’t think Fidelity’s response was much of an answer.