InvestorsChallenge Natural Gas Companies to Increase Transparency, Reduce Risks toPublic Health and the Environment From Fracking Operations    Shareholders file resolutions withChevron*, Exxon Mobil*, and 8 other companies to spur more responsiblemanagement practices   Boston, MA—For a third consecutive year, concerned investors havetargeted energy exploration and production companies that rely heavily onhydraulic fracturing (fracking)and fail to disclose critical information aboutthe ways they are managing the associated risks.     Public concern about the environmentaland social impacts of fracking operations are growing across the country andcan have real business implications for the companies involved.   “Bans and moratoria are denials of companies’ sociallicense to operate and impose a wide range of costs on companies, ranging fromthe costs of delays to complete loss of access to valuable resources where sunkcosts must be written off,” said Larisa Ruoff, Director of ShareholderAdvocacy for Green Century CapitalManagement (Green Century). “Right now, companies are not providinginvestors, or the communities in which the companies operate, sufficientinformation on the steps they are taking to address and mitigate the risksassociated with hydraulic fracturing operations so shareholders are demandingincreased transparency.”   This year, shareholders have filed resolutions with ten companies,including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Chesapeake Energy* calling on the companiesto provide a detailed account of how they are addressing the risks associatedwith community concerns, regulatory impacts, tightened regulations, andmoratoria.    “This year’s effort builds on the remarkable successachieved by investors last year, when similar proposals received an average 40percent** vote.  These high votes send strong messages to companies thatsignificant portions of their shareholders require increased disclosure on thisissue,” said Richard Liroff, Executive Director of the Investor Environmental Health Network(IEHN).  IEHN and Green Century coordinate investors’ engagements withcompanies on fracking.    These resolutions are part of a broader investor initiative challengingcompanies to address climate and sustainability risks.  Thus far in the2012 proxy season, investors working with Ceres, a coalition of investors andpublic interest groups working with companies to address sustainabilitychallenges, have filed 86 resolutions with 69 companies.   “Investors are concerned about the financial risks associatedwith the environmental, health, and social impacts of fracking,” saidMichael Passoff, Senior Strategist for As You Sow, which has filed atExxonMobil and Ultra Petroleum* since 2010.  “Concern about watersources, toxic chemicals, and wastewater has led to new regulations in severalstates and proposed federal legislation. Explosions, contamination incidents, and millions ofdollars in fines demonstrate that things can and do go wrong,” hecontinued.   This season, shareholders have a new tool in theirdialogue with companies.  In December, IEHN and the Interfaith Centeron Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) released “Extracting the Facts: An Investor Guide to DisclosingRisks from Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,” which isintended to help increase disclosure and mitigate the impacts of fracking.    “In order to maintain their social license tooperate, companies must fully disclose the steps they are taking to minimizerisks, to acknowledge their challenges and failures, and to clearly define themethods they will use to continually improve operations,” said LauraBerry, Executive Director of ICCR.  “The Guide offers a road map forcompanies to respond to the heightened concerns around fracking, andarticulates industry best practices that will reduce the risks, andconsequently, the impacts.”     Shareholder proposals were filed at Anadarko*,Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, EOG Resources*,Exxon Mobil, Noble Energy*, Penn Virginia*, RangeResources*, Stone Energy*, and UltraPetroleum.  These proposals have been filed by the following investors and investor advisors:  As You Sow,Green Century Capital Management, Mercy Investment Program, Miller/HowardInvestments, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia,and Trillium Asset Management. 
Shareholders file resolutions with Chevron*, Exxon Mobil*, and 8 other companies to spur more responsiblemanagement practices
 
Boston, MA—For a third consecutive year, concerned investors havetargeted energy exploration and production companies that rely heavily onhydraulic fracturing (fracking) and fail to disclose critical information aboutthe ways they are managing the associated risks.  
 
Public concern about the environmentaland social impacts of fracking operations are growing across the country and can have real business implications for the companies involved.
 
“Bans and moratoria are denials of companies’ sociallicense to operate and impose a wide range of costs on companies, ranging from the costs of delays to complete loss of access to valuable resources where sunkcosts must be written off,” said Larisa Ruoff, Director of ShareholderAdvocacy for Green Century CapitalManagement (Green Century). “Right now, companies are not providinginvestors, or the communities in which the companies operate, sufficientinformation on the steps they are taking to address and mitigate the risksassociated with hydraulic fracturing operations so shareholders are demandingincreased transparency.”
 
This year, shareholders have filed resolutions with ten companies,including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Chesapeake Energy* calling on the companiesto provide a detailed account of how they are addressing the risks associated with community concerns, regulatory impacts, tightened regulations, and moratoria. 
 
“This year’s effort builds on the remarkable success achieved by investors last year, when similar proposals received an average 40 percent** vote.  These high votes send strong messages to companies that significant portions of their shareholders require increased disclosure on this issue,” said Richard Liroff, Executive Director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN).  IEHN and Green Century coordinate investors’ engagements with companies on fracking. 
 
These resolutions are part of a broader investor initiative challenging companies to address climate and sustainability risks.  Thus far in the 2012 proxy season, investors working with Ceres, a coalition of investors and public interest groups working with companies to address sustainability challenges, have filed 86 resolutions with 69 companies.
 
“Investors are concerned about the financial risks associatedwith the environmental, health, and social impacts of fracking,” said Michael Passoff, Senior Strategist for As You Sow, which has filed at ExxonMobil and Ultra Petroleum* since 2010.  “Concern about watersources, toxic chemicals, and wastewater has led to new regulations in several states and proposed federal legislation. Explosions, contamination incidents, and millions of dollars in fines demonstrate that things can and do go wrong,” he continued.
 
This season, shareholders have a new tool in their dialogue with companies.  In December, IEHN and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) released “Extracting the Facts: An Investor Guide to Disclosing Risks from Hydraulic Fracturing Operations,” which is intended to help increase disclosure and mitigate the impacts of fracking.
 
“In order to maintain their social license to operate, companies must fully disclose the steps they are taking to minimize risks, to acknowledge their challenges and failures, and to clearly define the methods they will use to continually improve operations,” said Laura Berry, Executive Director of ICCR.  “The Guide offers a road map for companies to respond to the heightened concerns around fracking, and articulates industry best practices that will reduce the risks, and consequently, the impacts.”  
 
Shareholder proposals were filed at Anadarko*, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, EOG Resources*,Exxon Mobil, Noble Energy*, Penn Virginia*, RangeResources*, Stone Energy*, and UltraPetroleum.  These proposals have been filed by the following investors and investor advisors:  As You Sow, Green Century Capital Management, Mercy Investment Program, Miller/HowardInvestments, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and Trillium Asset Management. 

Sustainability Reporting describing the company’s environmental, social and governance business practices—co-filed with Walden Asset Management

Hydraulic Fracturing: Community Impacts – Risk Assessment -- disclosure on the impacts of fracking on local community and the financial risks of these impacts. This resolution includes both environmental impacts to water quality, health impacts from exposure to water and air, and is broad enough to include social ills documented in fracking towns.

Here is a sampling of the significant press coverage after last year’s votes.

New: Political Spending Resolution – response to Citizens United ruling. Calls on corporations to review policies and oversight processes related to political spending and public policy, both direct and indirect including through trade associations, and present a summary report by September 2012.

WASHINGTON, D.C., Sep. 01 /CSRwire/ - Two leading sustainable business organizations representing 5,000 small businesses today sent a letter calling on President Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and, instead, invest in clean energy technologies.  

The pipeline would deliver oil from the tar sands in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across the United States.

In their letter, Green America’s Green Business Network and The Green Chamber of Commercesaid the pipeline would further United States addiction to oil and risk disastrous new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. Global warming and oil spills have been seen to have an extremely detrimental effect on the economy, which affects the well-being of their businesses.

In addition to these risks, production of the 700,000 barrels of heavy crude that would travel from the tar sands every day creates a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Both the potential for environmentally harmful oils spills and increase in GHG emissions would be harmful to the environment, in addition to the harm to business in the United States.

The text of the letter to President Obama follows:

“We write to you on behalf of thousands of small businesses in the United States that are deeply concerned about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The well-being of our businesses and the economy in the United States are tied to the health of our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline will have an immensely negative impact on the environment. It would bring 700,000 barrels of heavy crude from Canadian tar sands to the US every day, furthering the US addiction to oil, and risking new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. The production of oil from tar sands would generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions, and create greater impacts from global warming.

The impacts of global warming -- from droughts, to floods, to extreme weather -- are bad for business in the United States. As we saw in the Gulf, oil spills also have a devastating impact on the economy. The failure to shift America away from its dependence on oil to cleaner fuels will further imperil our economy and reduce the number of green jobs we need for sustainable economic growth.

Your administration has taken bold and necessary steps to increase the green energy economy in the US. Now, we urge you to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and further invest in clean energy technologies. It is the right decision for the US, and it is the right decision for business.”

By Jerilyn Klein Bier

Whether or not you’ve got environmentally conscious clients, it pays to know the financial and public health risks associated with a corporation’s toxic chemical policies. And one of the better go-to places for that information is the Investor Environmental Health Network (www.iehn.org).

IEHN is a collaborative partnership of different investment organizations that in aggregate manage more than $30 billion in assets. Its goal is to encourage companies to adopt policies that reduce and/or eliminate toxic chemicals in their products and operations.

IEHN’s operating principle is that safer chemical policies can help companies anticipate and avoid “toxic lockout” from the marketplace in the form of government bans or restrictions on products. In turn, that can reduce reputational and legal risks, as well as enhance brands and create greater long-term shareholder value.

“We needed to move beyond the chemical to chemical and look at the larger picture of what companies are doing,” says IEHN executive director Richard Liroff, who founded the network in 2004. “We’re trying to change the underlying ground rules that apply to all companies worldwide.”

IEHN’s members include Calvert Investments, Domini Social Investments, Parnassus Investments, As You Sow Foundation, First Affirmative Financial Network, faith-based institutional investors and other leaders in sustainable and socially responsible investing. The network is advised by scientific, policy and technical experts from roughly a dozen environmental health organizations.

Liroff, who spent more than two decades directing projects on toxic chemicals and other issues at the World Wildlife Fund, serves as a technical resource for IEHN and has helped develop the rationale for resolutions and written letters to companies.

Body Of Work

IEHN, which analyzes corporate, government and scientific data, gets most of its funding through smaller philanthropic organizations concerned about environmental health. In addition to working on environmental issues involving corporations, the organization does outreach and develops tools such as reports and fiduciary guides for pension plans and other investors.

Among its activities, IEHN has pressed regulators to close corporate liability accounting loopholes that enable companies to conceal damaging scientific findings and their full potential liabilities associated with toxic chemicals. It has also provided suggestions to the Global Reporting Initiative on how it can better address toxic chemicals in its upcoming guidelines.

IEHN’s résumé includes tackling issues such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates used in plastic products, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in packaging, pesticides in food, and nanomaterials in cosmetics.

One of the coalition’s pressing tasks of late has been calling out energy companies on the environmental and business risks of hydraulic fracturing technology used in oil and natural gas drilling. And IEHN member Domini filed resolutions with Coca Cola in 2010 and 2011 asking it to disclose how it’s responding to safety concerns about BPA used in its can linings.

IEHN members have been the lead filers on two-thirds of the 103 shareholder resolutions on toxic chemicals filed by investors since 2006. Of the 44 resolutions that were voted on during that period (many others were withdrawn due to favorable company responses), two dozen received more than 20% of shareholder votes.

“That’s a significant enough number to get a company’s attention,” says Larisa Ruoff, the director of shareholder advocacy at Green Century Capital Management in Boston, one of IEHN’s partner organizations.

For broader context, a first-year resolution filed with a company needs to get at least 3% of the vote in order to be refiled the following year.

Solutions, Not Just Talk

Roger McFadden, a senior scientist with Staples Advantage, the business-to-business division of Staples Inc., circulates IEHN information with the office supply retailer’s key decision makers. “I view IEHN as a credible and relevant information resource to identify chemicals of high concern, but more importantly, to identify safer alternatives,” he says
As a result of talks with IEHN, Staples has eliminated endocrine-disrupting nonylphenol ethoxylates from its own brand cleaning supplies; stopped using thermal register receipts coated in BPA; and now uses PVC-free packaging materials for its own brands.

IEHN has helped oil and gas exploration company Apache Corp. identify important questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. “While other people spend time preaching to their own choirs and valuing opinion over fact, Rich spends time crunching numbers, reading footnotes, reaching out to new people from across the spectrum, and forging doable-but-meaningful deals,” says Sarah Teslik, Apache’s senior vice president of policy and governance.

Liroff encourages financial advisors to use information resources on IEHN’s web site, including case studies, reports and articles. IEHN staff also provides fee-based services for people who want to dive deeper into these issues.

In addition, Liroff recommends checking out the SIN (Substitute It Now!) List developed by the nonprofit International Chemical Secretariat, or ChemSec. It includes 378 substances identified as very high concern under REACH, the European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use.

Down the road, Liroff expects companies will talk more about their toxic footprints like they’ve begun to do with their carbon and water footprints. IEHN’s partner organizations believe that’ll help achieve the trifecta of improved corporate operations, public health and shareholder value.

By Dan Bacher

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, in a special hearing in the State Capitol in Sacramento on July 7, passed AB 685, the Human Right to Water bill.

This landmark bill would establish in law a state policy that every Californian has a "human right to clean, affordable, and accessible drinking water for their basic human needs," according to a joint news release from the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water (EJCW) and Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC).

"After hearing moving testimony from safe water advocates and residents of California communities without access to safe drinking water, the committee voted 5-3 in favor," said Debbie Davis, Policy Director of the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water. "A broad-based coalition of faith-based, human rights, environmental, consumer rights and environmental justice groups celebrated the latest legislative victory for the human right to water package moving through the legislature."

The vote was on party lines, with the 5 Democrats present voting for the bill and the 3 Republicans voting against it. Democratic Senators Fran Pavley, Noreen Evans, Christine Kehoe, Joe Simitian and Lois Wolk voted yes, while Republican Senators Doug LaMalfa, Anthony Cannella and Jean Fuller voted no. Democratic Senator Alex Padilla was absent.

"California is one step closer to being the first state in the nation to establish this historic policy which would help everyone have access to clean, affordable water at their tap," stated Davis.

AB 685, introduced by Assemblyman Mike Eng, is the lead policy bill in package of six Human Right to Water bills. Four of the five other bills in the package -- AB 938 (V.M.Perez), AB 983 (Perea), AB 1221 (Alejo) and SB 244 (Wolk) have also won support in their house of origin and received bipartisan support in the latest round of policy committees votes, according to Davis.

"Although this latest vote was on party lines, we hope that the bill proceeds to the Senate Floor and receives bi-partisan support," said Reverend Lindi Ramsden, Executive Director of the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry. "We have collected over 1,000 letters of support from people of a variety of political perspectives across the state from Humboldt County to San Diego County."

"While billions of dollars have been spent on water projects in California, we have still much work to do to make sure that everyone has access to clean water to drink," emphasized Ramsden.

More than 11.5 million Californians rely on water from suppliers that experienced at least one violation of State Drinking Water Standards as reported to the Department of Public Health in 2004, according to Davis. As many as 8.5 million Californians rely on supplies that experienced more than five instances of unsafe levels in a single year.

“The Human Right to Water bill passed the Legislature and was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009,” added Davis. “We are hopeful that with Brown’s experience on California water issues, we’ll have a different outcome this year.”

Co-sponsoring organizations include the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Community Water Center, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, Food and Water Watch, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Southern California Watershed Alliance, Winneman Wintu Tribe, Urban Semillas, Catholic Charities Diocese of Stockton and Clean Water Action.

This bill is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), the Western Growers Association and several other water service providers, who contend the bill "may lead to a requirement that water agencies provide water service without consideration to affordability, thereby increasing water bills and have other unintended consequences," according to the Legislative Analysis.

While the state and federal governments continue to promote the construction of a peripheral canal ("conveyance") through the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to facilitate the export of northern California water to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California water agencies, many rural and urban communities have to rely on surface and groundwater supplies contaminated by fertilizers, toxic chemicals, sewage and other pollutants.

In July 2010, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution recognizing access to clean water and sanitation as a human right. The vote was 122 for and 0 against, with 41 countries, including the United States, abstaining. Over 884 million people throughout the word lack access to safe drinking water.

For more information, contact: Debbie Davis, EJCW, (916) 743-4406, or Shelley Moskowitz, UUSC, (857) 222-8824.