Thanks for asking.

AdultVest has a history of self-insertion in various articles, so when I saw this firm again inserted into inappropriate articles, I presumed it was advertising. If your sincere intention was to improve those articles, then you have my apology.

Your contribution to the Sex industry article seems to describe the company while shedding very little light on that article's topic. As this firm seems to be an investment novelty, neither representing a trend, nor having its own significant influence on the industry, a paragraph in that article gives this business undue weight. It's a gratuitous mention, regardless of the reason for the insertion. This is the reason AdultVest is removed from that article.

The inclusion of AdultVest in Socially responsible investing is even less relevant. Obviously there are many trivial examples of investing that might be considered not socially responsible, and the inclusion of AdultVest is both questionable as an illustration, and violates WP:NPOV in the presumption that the sex industry is particularly opposite of social responsibility. The best examples are ones that need the least amount of argument that they are in fact exemplary.

If you wish to contest the inclusion of "numerous references" to other companies in either of those articles, I would recommend you take it to the article Discussion pages. Your objections to those companies is not a rationale for including AdultVest. I hope this makes sense and seems fair to you. I've linked relevant Wikipedia policies where I think it might make things clear. /  ☺ ☭