Is it just me or is SRI being greenwashed?

I am just getting into the latest issue of OnEarth magazine, which has an interesting spread on how high-speed rail is "on its way" to California (by 2020). Our's is supposed to be operable here in Seattle this year, but I'm not holding my breath. Something that is here, and also consistently advertised in OnEarth (to explain my tangent), is socially responsible investing. Over the past few years SRI has really caught on as a viable investment strategy. So much, in fact, that as of 2007, 11% of the professionally managed investments in the U.S. were invested in SRI funds. Maybe I am a bit of an idealist, but to me that should translate to 11% of our professionally managed investments in this country being with companies using a business model that is conscious of its social and environmental impacts.

So, I took a look at three of the more recent additions to this investment arena to see just what they are made of; Goldman Sachs' GS Sustain Portfolio (launched 9/16/08), Northern Funds' Global Sustainability Index Fund (launched 3/5/08), and Wells Fargo's Social Sustainability Fund (launched 9/30/08). Although preliminary, my findings were telling: blatant greenwashing. All 3 funds contain each of the following in their top 10 holdings: a major oil company, Johnson & Johnson, and either Procter & Gamble or Cisco (Northern has both). Not that there is anything wrong with investing in these companies, but I seem to have seen this lineup before, and I believe its called large cap growth. Let me illustrate further. Fidelity's Contrafund, a large cap growth fund (and not a sustainability fund), has its major holdings in P&G, J&J, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Apple, Wells Fargo, etc. On the other hand, Wells Fargo's Social Sustainability Fund has its major holdings in P&G, J&J, Pepsico, Nike, U.S. Bancorp, BP, etc. What am I missing here??

Somehow, I think these SRI fund managers are under the impression that if they throw in an HSBC (the first bank seeking to become carbon neutral) or a Google (founder of google.org) - either of which each of these funds also holds - then they have a fund that is worthy of having sustainability in its name. I'd prefer they call it what it is.