The ACSR is left, then, without any definitive statement of its own responsibilities. Acting responsibly, for now, has simply come to mean giving careful consideration to proxies which other shareholders have submitted.

The proxy resolution has been the chief weapon of advocacy groups so far. The tactic has offered a number of advantages, especially in raising issues of which corporations have seemed to be unaware.

A number of companies appeared to be ignorant of the social implications of Namibian investment, says Interfaith's Timothy Smith. The churches carry on continuing discussions with corporations in order to "sensitize them to socially important issues," Smith says.

In some cases, the proxy statements facilitate productive negotiations. The Church Project on U.S. Investments in southern Africa this year withdrew 7 of 11 disclosure resolutions after the corporations involved voluntarily provided the requested information.

The most obvious advantage of proxy fights is the publicity they attract. A resolution attracting three per cent of a company's stockholders' votes may be resubmitted the following year. By making shareholders aware of social problems in which their companies are involved, proxy statements aim to create pressure for change within institutions.

The three per cent of a company's shares may represent more sizeable portion of a company's shareholders. Management often controls over half the stock regardless of the merits of any shareholder challenge; in addition, banks may control a sizeable percentage--securities held in trust for smaller-scale investors--which they are unlikely to vote in opposition to management.

Farber is deeply involved in helping foundations and other universities to decide their positions on proxy resolutions. He created the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC) this year to provide what Farber says will be "objective, timely, in-depth exposition of the facts and issues involved in public interest shareholder proposals."

Harvard is one of almost 70 institutions which subscribes to IRRC's reports. Though subscribers are entitled to papers on any company in which they're interested, IRRC can provide a regular schedule of reports for general use since colleges and foundations tend to hold similar portfolios. Each IRRC report presents the positions of both the resolution's advocates and of management; an independent analysis of the accuracy of each side's case is included.

Advocates have questioned the "objective" quality of IRRC's paper and the potential effectiveness IRRC can have given its present function it the movement for corporate responsibility.

Since no one can possibly be fully objective in political analysis, representatives of CIC and PCR insist IRRC plays a frustrating role as "middleman" between the advocates and institutional boards of trustees.

Furthermore, advocates object to the money IRRC consumes in a year--a budget of about $200,000--which direly strapped advocate groups could use.

The advocates' objections to IRRC's role are "absurd," Farber said in an interview. "We are not in competition. The excellent feedback we've been getting proves we're performing a service that institutions want and that existing groups simply can't perform," Farber said.

In addition, Farber says he believes that rather than closing trustees' doors to proxy advocates, IRRC has aroused interest in shareholder issues which some voters would otherwise lack the time or interest to study.

And the ACSR makes extensive use of the advocates' documents and other non-IRRC sources, both Farber and several members of the ACSR say.

But the advocates raise a more basic objection to IRRC. By devoting study only to the merits of shareholder resolutions, they argue, IRRC focuses time and attention on a strategy which may miss the point of the advocates' campaigns.