Coca-Cola (KO)!

[hendi_alex]

KO probably has quite an array of decent products. But their soft drinks both sweetened and sugar free are a bane against man kind. Most are both physically and psychologically addictive. They also contribute to the obesity epidemic as well as many other possible physical issues. As best I can tell, they have zero beneficial value. That is my main criteria thus far, as relates to ethics in investing. If the primary product is both harmful and has zero beneficial value, then I'll probably avoid it.

Your question did prompt me to glance and holdings for quick litmus test.
AAPL - useful devices
BTU - useful energy source
CCJ - useful energy source
CSCO - useful devices
CSG - useful properties
ECA - useful energy source
HCP - health care benefit
INTC - useful devices
MCY - insurance needs
NAT - delivery/transportation services
O - properties
OB - insurance needs
ORI - insurance needs
PBA - energy infrastructure
POT - fertilizers
RYN - forestry products
SPH - energy delivery
SSL - energy and chemicals benefit
T - communications
TGP - LNG transportation

So while there are some companies which have very nasty aspects to operation, their primary product/service provides a real, useful benefit. IMO that definitely can not be said about the soft drink companies. Their main line products are both harmful and are without any measure of benefit. I'm not advocating such a list for anyone else, but seems like a reasonable stance to me, given both evidence related to the products and my own personal feelings and observations concerning them. Certainly not in the same league with the death business, but still most of the soft drinks themselves are utterly without beneficial value.