-
Myrna
Subscribe to your update feed
Updates from
Myrna's
Advocates
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.
ExxonMobil: last year’s toxic chemical disclosure received a 28.2% vote Chevron: last year’s toxic chemical disclosure received a 41% vote
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.
IBM: Review and disclosure of any direct and indirect expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, for issue ads designed to affect political races, including dues and special payments made to trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
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.
The last twelve months have been dispiriting for advocates of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR). First CIR didn't make it onto the 2010 legislative agenda. Then Arizona passed SB 1070, and other states expressed interest in following suit. Then the DREAM Act failed to pass the Senate and the new House of Representatives leadership changed direction in terms of that body's approach to immigration reform. And, through it all, the national conversation kept getting nastier, going as far as proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision.
So, amidst all the gloom, are there any glimmers of hope for pro-immigrant advocates?
Well, the climate still looks very unfriendly, but a recent push from large investors could augur well for the years ahead.
Last week, a group of institutional investors--led by the Comptroller of the City of New York, John Liu, and senior management from Mercy Investment Services, Inc., Boston Common Asset Management, Walden Asset Management (disclosure: I've collaborated with Walden on other shareholder initiatives), and the Unitarian Universalist Association--sent letters to roughly 150 CEOs of large corporations asking them to publicly express their support for sensible immigration reform. The signatories of the letter are no fringe activists--they manage assets in excess of $145 billion, and they have a fiduciary responsibility to manage that money responsibly.
This may make you wonder: why should investors and corporations support immigration reform? The answer comes from the CEOs of American corporations who have signed onto Mayor Mike Bloomberg's Partnership for a New American Economy. The Partnership is an alliance of over 150 business CEOs--leading companies like Microsoft, News Corporation, Disney, JP Morgan, Xerox, and Pricewaterhouse Coopers--and mayors who advocate CIR for several reasons, including:
1. Immigrant innovation--from 1995-2005, over 25 percent of American engineering and technology companies had at least one immigrant founder.
2. Young immigrant talent--educating high-skilled immigrants without creating pathways for them to stay and work here is counter-productive. As the American population ages, we should be embracing talented young people, not showing them the door.
3. Complementary immigrant labor--immigrants mostly do labor that is complementary, rather than substitutive of, non-immigrant labor. Consider agriculture, where each on-farm job (such as picking fruit, mostly done by immigrants) supports over three off-farm jobs, such as processing, shipping, and sales.
In short, contrary to the scare stories coming out of the Republican House leadership, like Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and Steve King (R-IA), immigration helps the economy, and companies rely on immigrant innovation, talent and complementary labor to thrive.
This is why Bloomberg's Partnership and other initiatives--including businesses affiliated with the Americas Society and Council of the Americas' Hispanic Integration Hub--eschew efforts to villify immigrants and instead embrace initiatives for immigrant integration. Our economy needs immigrants' labor and hard work, and efforts like expanding English-language education facilitate economic participation, both as employees and customers. In the words of Brent Warren, VP of Banner Bank of Oregon, "it just makes good business sense."
Moreover, business leaders in the Partnership recognize the financial impossibility of deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants and the massive economic benefit of instead offering them a pathway to citizenship. Already, undocumented people contribute to our economy with their labor, their consumption, and the taxes and Social Security they pay. Bringing workers out of the shadows would make things easier for employers and immigrant employees alike and expand immigrants' economic contributions.
With any luck, last week's letter from institutional investors will help convince more CEOs to publicly acknowledge these simple truths and add more weight to the pro-immigrant side of the debate.
The other interesting piece of this story is the role of religious institutions. Many may recall that religious institutions and investors have been critical in advocating progressive political change--such as getting large corporations to divest from Apartheid South Africa. On immigration, faith leaders can play a similarly positive role.
Last year, a group of Christian Conservatives garnered attention for joining the CIR effort under the mantle of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. And progressive church leaders have been working on immigration for decades--from providing services on the front lines to participating in direct action and advocacy efforts.
But the novelty of this recent effort by over 60 institutional investors, the bulk of which are faith-based, is that it could portend increased collaboration on immigration policy between business and religious groups across the political spectrum.
Of course, none of this will undo the restrictionist rhetoric coming forth from groups like the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), NumbersUSA, and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). FAIR and others on this side of the debate have earned the title "hate group" from the Southern Poverty Law Center due to links to a eugenics foundation and nativists warning of a Latino invasion. These radical voices are not going anywhere. Nor will such a business-religion alliance prompt an about-face from powerful restrictionists in Congress.
But the involvement of faith-based investors in immigration augurs well for pro-immigrant advocates who need to do better at convincing the American public of the economic and moral case for a better legal entry system for new immigrants and a path to citizenship for undocumented people who are already here.
This is not to say that business alone will rally America toward a more humane, economically beneficial immigration policy. Pro-immigrant advocates and grassroots organizations--with the capacity for direct action and Beltway advocacy--will remain the drivers of any national movement. But, to win, they need business firmly on their side. If investor efforts to get more corporations and CEOs on board with initiatives like Mayor Bloomberg's partnership bear fruit, it will certainly represent a step in the right direction.
Read the original article here.
Boston Common Asset Management sells 167K shares after Cisco shuns requests for further transparency on Chinese operations
An investment group sold most of its shares in Cisco due to the company's human rights record in China. According to this story in Reuters and another in Worldwide Faith News, Boston Common Asset Management LLC sold most of its 167,000 shares in Cisco because the firm alleged Cisco was not doing enough to ensure its equipment wasn't being sold or used for, and business practices avoided, suppression of human rights.
According to the announcement from Boston Common:
"Boston Common's decision to divest comes after years of campaigning Cisco for greater transparency and accountability on key human rights and business development concerns," stated Dawn Wolfe, associate director of environmental, social, and governance research at Boston Common Asset Management. "Freedom of expression, privacy, and personal security are all critical elements in maximizing network traffic. Politically and socially repressive policies related to speech and privacy has a chilling effect on users and violates universally recognized human rights. When pressed for details on how Cisco addresses these risks, they come up short."
Cisco's "deceptive"announcement of vote results on proxy items at the 2010 annual shareholder meeting has also "raised further alarm" about the company's commitment to transparency, Boston Common states. Cisco did not answer a repeated request for engagement with shareholders at that meeting; and board member and Stanford President John Hennessy did not respond to a written request on Sept. 30, 2010, to assist in establishing dialogue between Cisco and shareholders on human rights, Boston Common charges.
This comment from Nevin Dulabaum, president of Church of the Brethren Benefit Trust, in the Boston Common release must have stung:
"For all its talk about the 'human network' and adherence to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Cisco has not demonstrated in any concrete way that it fully recognizes its potential impact on human rights around the world."
At the November meeting, Boston Common sponsored a resolution for Cisco to look at steps it could take to reduce the likelihood its business practices might lead to human rights violations, such as freedom of expression and privacy, Reuters reported. Cisco opposed the proposal saying it has already taken similar steps, such as publishing a social responsibility report, the Reuters report states.
And two-thirds of votes cast on the question sided with Cisco, Reuters reports.
In a statement to Reuters, Cisco said:
"We continually evaluate and address human rights issues within our business operations and in communities where we operate. We have various policies, practices and procedures in place relating to human rights around the word, and believe our business practices and our standards-based technology architecture support the benefits of Internet access to information on a global basis."
Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have all come under the human rights microscope before.
Read the original article here.
INVESTORS SPEAK OUT AGAINST FUELING OF CONGO WAR BY CONFLICT MINERALS
Investors call for companies to be responsible with mineral sourcing
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 -- This week a group of investors, including faith-based and global institutional investors with assets close to $200 billion, released a statement calling on companies to be more proactive in ensuring the minerals in their electronics components are not fueling the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which has claimed more than 5 million lives.
“We are asking companies to leverage their economic power to bring about positive change in the Congo,” said Patricia Jurewicz, Director of the Responsible Sourcing Network, a project of As You Sow. “Although brands are several tiers away from where the abuse is happening, these minerals do find their way into consumer products and brands have a responsibility to make sure their products are not inadvertently financing the systemic rape and murder of innocent civilians.”
The 59 signatories are asking companies to take the following actions:
Make public statements and explain what the companies are doing to address the issue; Develop procedures to ensure conflict minerals do not enter their supply chains; Work with suppliers to make sure their policies are being adhered to; Work with stakeholders to support diplomatic, political and economic strategies to end the conflict.
Lauren Compere, Senior Vice President and Director of Shareholder Advocacy at Boston Common Asset Management noted that there is a risk for shareholders who are invested in companies, especially consumer-oriented ones that do not have a good handle on mapping their entire supply chain. “Over the last few years, we have seen supply chain traceability move from a ‘nice to know’ to a necessity as more companies become aware of their exposure to egregious human rights violations taking place at the bottom of their supply chain. A perfect example of this is the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme, an international verification system supported by the United Nations to halt the export of ‘blood diamonds” from Central Africa.”
The DRC is one of the most mineral-rich countries in the world, with sizeable deposits of gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten. The majority of the minerals are smuggled to neighboring countries where they are sold to smelters, and ultimately find their way into products such as cell phones, laptops, and video games, as well as components for automobiles, airplane engines, and medical devices. While the curtailment of the conflict mineral trade alone will not put an end to the conflict, it can play a vital role in a larger, comprehensive strategy for terminating this 12-year-old civil war.
“It is critical that companies responsibly source minerals from regions where conflict will not threaten their supply chain access,” said Aditi Mohapatra of Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc., a sustainable and responsible investment firm with over $14 billion in assets under management. “Further, these companies must publicly condemn conflict mineral use and work with their suppliers to ensure that sourcing policies are being adhered to. This type of long-term planning is at the heart of responsible investing, and investors are eager to see companies show this type of foresight. ”
To read the full statement and a list of signatories, click here
Media Contacts:
Patricia Jurewicz, As You Sow 415.391.3212 X44 patricia@asyousow.org
Lauren Compere, Boston Common Asst. Mgmt. 617.335.9764 lcompere@bostoncommonasset.com
Melinda Lovins, Calvert 301.657.7089 melinda.lovins@calvert.com
About As You Sow
As You Sow is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting corporate social responsibility and shareholder advocacy. www.asyousow.org
About Boston Common Asset Management
An employee-owned social investment firm, Boston Common Asst. Mgmt. is dedicated to the pursuit of financial return and social change. www.bostoncommonasset.com
About Calvert Investments
A leader in Sustainable and Responsible Investments (SRI), Calvert offers investors among the widest choice of SRI strategies of any investment management company in the United States. www.calvert.com
