Firstly - thank you AIW for bringing this to my attention - I was not aware of this before.
I'm curious about why its bad that this information was leaked to the public yet you also quote on the whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand. One has leaked information about the hypocrisy of an organisation that has killed members by it's products (printed policies on blood, Malawi/Mexico etc) and the other has killed is customers by it's products. I don't see how one deserves to be protected and other outed?
You bring up the point about materiality (and quite rightly in my opinion). The Church of England clearly defines materiality in terms of it's defence investments:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u3Rbj2v-sIUJ:www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/defence.doc+materiality+as+a+defence&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
The WTS is not transparent about materiality because we would all assume it's investments are "ethical" based on it's own teachings. Have I made a correct assumption about this or does it state anywhere that it wouldn't hold non ethical investements?
Do you think that the society was a) wrong to accept these in the first place, b) should have liquidated the portfolio upon receipt but kept the money c) it's not material so no wrong has been done d) we should not judge our brothers at the WTS and no-one should ever leak any information about them?
I worked for a company that received money from Phillip Morris for it's anti-smoking campaigns. Do you see what Phillip Morris does as hypocritical in any way or simply a good thing (aside from the fact it is a legal requirement)?
Thanks
MMXIV