FedEx – Develop & Adopt Human Rights Policies
WHEREAS
Expectations of the global community are growing, such that companies must have policies to promote and protect human rights within their areas of activity and sphere of influence to help promote and protect a company’s reputation as a good corporate citizen.
Corporations operating in countries with civil conflict, weak rule of law, endemic corruption, poor labor and environmental standards face serious risks to reputation and shareholder value when they are seen as responsible for, or complicit in, human rights violations.
FedEx, in its Annual Report 2010, states: “…our company is built around a singular vision: to make it possible for people and businesses to connect and collaborate with each other, no matter where they are in the world. Our networks are critical elements of a global force we call Access, the ability to transform through connectivity. We know…that Access has the power to change millions of lives for the better. We work constantly to expand Access. Every year, we do that more responsibly and resourcefully…” (Frederick W. Smith, Letter from the Chairman, p.6)
While FedEx states: “Our goal is to comply with all local laws and to adhere to the highest standards of integrity and ethics everywhere in the world,” (Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, 7-09 p.7), our company’s Code of Business Conduct does not address major corporate responsibility issues, such as, human rights. Without a human rights policy with key performance indicators, our company faces reputation risks by operating in countries, such as China, where the rule of law is weak and human rights abuses are well documented. (U.S. State Department Advancing Freedom and Democracy Report; www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/afdr/)
We recommend FedEx base its human rights policies on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the collective and individual rights of over 370 million Native peoples worldwide, International Labor Organization’s Core Labor Standards and United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request management to review policies related to human rights to assess areas where FedEx needs to adopt and implement additional policies and to report findings, omitting proprietary information and prepared at reasonable expense, by December 2011.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
We recommend the review include:
1. Risk assessment where FedEx operates to determine potential for human rights abuses in locations, such as Israel and other Middle East countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and other civil strife/war-torn areas, as well as countries where discrimination and abuse based on class, religion, ethnicity are known occurrences, such as India, the United States, Indonesia.
2. A report on current systems in place to ensure that FedEx contractors and suppliers are implementing human rights policies in their operations, including monitoring, training, addressing issues of non-compliance and assurance that trafficking-related concerns have been addressed.
3. The FedEx strategy of engagement with internal and external stakeholders.
We urge your support FOR this proposal.
Investors Call on Equipment Manufacturers to Cease Sourcing from Democratic Republic of the Congo
February 2, 2010 – Trillium Asset Management Corporation has joined a coalition of investors in calling on major electronics, medical device and automobile component manufactures, to ensure that the companies are not aiding conflict and human rights abuses by purchasing supplies from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The investors, who represent almost $200 billion in assets, have issued a statement calling on companies to condemn the use of minerals whose trade promotes the conflict in the DRC and take immediate steps to ensure that these minerals are not used in their products.
The Investor Statement calls on companies to address the role conflict minerals play by implementing a system for determining the origins of materials, creating a non-conflict material policy and working with their suppliers to ensure adherence to it.
The DRC, which has been plagued by a civil war since 1998, continues to lose 45,000 people each month to violence and disease, even though the war officially ended in 2003. In total, more than 5.4 million people have lost their lives and millions more have been displaced. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the widespread sexual violence against women in the eastern Congo “a crime against humanity.”
The militias that are responsible for the conflict use the abundance of coltan, gold, tin and tungsten deposits (which make the DRC one of the most mineral rich countries in the world) to finance their operations. These militias, who control most of the mines in the eastern DRC, demand bribes, unofficial taxes and other payments for the minerals. The minerals are smuggled into neighboring countries including Rwanda and Burundi, smelted and eventually used in making laptops, cell phones, medical devices, airplane engines, and other consumer goods.
Some companies are already addressing this issue, most notably Hewlett Packard, which has implemented a metals traceability project. In addition, the EICC (Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition) and GeSI (Global E-Sustainability Initiative) have recently commissioned the nonprofit organization RESOLVE to map the supply chain of various metals including tin and tantalum, which is made from processing coltan.
For more information:
“Investor Statement Regarding Conflict Minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” January 11, 2010.
“Boundaries of Responsibility,” Investing For a Better World, October 2008.
“Investors Urge Companies to Keep Minerals from War-Torn Congo Out of Supply Chains,” Social Investment Forum press release, January 14, 2010.
Nucor – Report on Modern Slavery
WHEREAS
- Bloomberg Markets Magazine reported in a cover story that “Nucor Corp., the second-largest U.S. steel company, buys pig iron made with charcoal produced by slaves.” The article reported that these suppliers were identified by Brazilian labor officials as using slaves and also discussed the use of illegal logging in charcoal camps. (The Secret World of Modern Slavery, by Michael Smith and David Voreacos, Bloomberg Markets, December 2006)
- The US State Department reports: Brazil “is a source and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of … forced labor” and the government’s efforts to address this “widespread” issue were “insufficient.” (U.S. State Department Trafficking in Persons Report (June 2005))
- The State Department reports: “Internal trafficking of rural workers into forced labor schemes was a serious problem” and “[t]his typically occurred when employers recruited laborers from poor, rural towns and transported them to remote areas where escape was difficult. Workers then were obliged to toil in brutal conditions until they were able to repay inflated debts.” (US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (Released March 6, 2007))
- Nucor’s General Counsel stated: “Any amount [of pig iron] that is sold with the use of slave labor is too much.” (Secret World of Modern Slavery)
- Slavery is an international crime, actionable in the United States under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA). The ATCA has increasingly been used against corporate defendants, including Drummond, Unocal, Coca-Cola and Talisman.
- Amazon deforestation is a significant problem, with implications for indigenous peoples, biodiversity and climate change. Nucor’s pig iron purchases may be exacerbating this problem.
- In our view, Nucor faces significant reputational and legal risk from its Brazilian supply chain, but has published no information about its efforts to mitigate these risks. Nucor refuses to engage in dialogue with proponents about these issues.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request the Board of Directors to review the company’s policies and practices related to its global operations and supply chain to assess areas where the company needs to adopt and implement additional policies to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights and to report its findings to shareholders, omitting proprietary information and at reasonable expense, by October 2008.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
We recommend the review include:
- A risk assessment to determine the potential for human rights abuses at the company’s operations or at the operations of the company’s direct and indirect suppliers, in each country where the company operates or purchases raw materials, with a particular focus on the use of child labor, or forced or trafficked labor, whether in the form of prison labor, indentured labor, bonded labor or labor persuaded by false incentives.
- A report on the current system in place to ensure that the company and its suppliers are implementing human rights policies in their operations, including monitoring, training and addressing issues of non-compliance.
- The company’s strategy of engagement with internal and external stakeholders relating to human rights issues.
Chevron – Global Environmental Standards Report
WHEREAS
The Chevron Business and Ethics Code places the highest priority on the safety of its staff, community members and the environment where it operates. Corporate Policy 530 “commits Chevron to comply with the spirit and letter of all environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, regardless of the degree of enforcement.”
Our company operates in 180 countries, including Africa, Asia and Latin America nations where environmental regimes may be less protective of human health and the environment than in North American and European countries where Chevron operates.
CEO David O’Reilly has recognized the importance of our company’s relationships with oil producing nations in Africa and Latin America. (International Petroleum Finance, 03/09/05, “Chevron Chief Believes the Surplus is Over.”)
Notwithstanding Chevron’s efforts to comply with environmental laws and regulations in developing countries, our company has repeatedly been cited for practices that allegedly have caused environmental damage and harmed the health and welfare of local communities.
- Chevron is accused of polluting land and water resources in its ongoing operations in the Niger Delta. According to observers, these persistent environmental problems have fueled civil unrest, protests against our company and a related lawsuit alleging Chevron’s complicity in security forces’ killing of two protestors. (Nigeria Ten Years On: Injustice and Violence Haunt the Oil Delta, Amnesty International, 11/03/05)
- Kazakhstan authorities have imposed a $609 million fine on the Chevron-led consortium developing the Tengiz oil field, for alleged environmental violations.
- In 2002, the Angolan government fined Chevron $2 million for pipeline oil spills that polluted beaches and damaged fishing in the Cabinda region.
- Chevron is on trial in Ecuador for widespread contamination of Amazonian land and water resources in the 1970s. (“Rain Forest Jekyll and Hyde,” The New York Times, 10/20/05)
- Unocal’s pipeline operations in Burma contributed to the deforestation of the last primary tropical rainforest on mainland Asia, a recognized ‘biodiversity hot spot.’ (“Unocal-Total Oil Pipeline in Burma Threatens Indigenous People, Animals,” Environmental News Network, 4/27/02)
Chevron’s total Environmental, Health and Safety Fines and Settlements has increased from 278 in 2002 to 699 in 2006, according to the company’s latest Corporate Responsibility Report.
Chevron’s three strategic priorities for environmental performance are: “Defining world-class standards, measuring and communicating performance and demonstrating continual performance improvement,” toward the goal of being “recognized and admired everywhere for having a record of environmental excellence.”
RESOLVED
The shareholders request that the Board prepare a report by November 2008, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, on the policies and procedures that guide Chevron’s assessment of host country laws and regulations with respect to their adequacy to protect human health, the environment and our company’s reputation.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
We believe that Chevron’s record to date demonstrates a gap between its international environmental aspirations and its performance, which would be narrowed by a commitment to apply the highest environmental standards wherever the company operates. The requested report would play a role in illuminating and addressing the factors accounting for this gap.
Trillium Files Resolutions on Sudan Genocide
Trillium Asset Management Corporation Files Resolutions on the Sudan Genocide
In December 2007, Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”), working in coalition with human rights organizations and other socially responsible investment firms, filed shareholder resolutions with major banks and financial firms with the goal of engaging Wall Street to push Sudan to end the violence in Darfur and accept full deployment of U.N. peacekeepers. Trillium filed resolutions at JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch.
These Wall Street powerhouses are among the largest shareholders in the “Big 4″ petroleum companies doing business in Sudan, whose royalties to the government have financed the massacres in Darfur. In total, the coalition is calling on more than 40 top firms with holdings in these companies to use their influence as major investors to pressure the Sudanese government to stop obstructing the deployment of the 26,000-member U.N. peacekeeping force. The oil industry in Sudan is dominated by four foreign companies: China National Petroleum Corporation of China, Petronas of Malaysia, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, and Sinopec Corporation of China. While these are all state-owned enterprises, U.S. investors have significant funds invested through various publicly-held affiliates and subsidiaries.
The conflict has left more than 200,000 civilians dead since 2003.
Shelley Alpern, Vice President at Trillium Asset Management, said: “Ideally, we hope to see action from these firms over the next few months, which would allow us to withdraw these resolutions before annual meetings in the spring. The situation in Darfur merits extraordinary and urgent action on all our parts, as individuals, as investors, and as business leaders.”
“Sudan doesn’t need the United States to keep its economy going, but it does need foreign oil companies,” said Denise Bell, Sudan country specialist for Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). “Major financial firms need to engage these oil companies aggressively and push them to use their unique influence with the Sudanese government.”
Ninety percent of Sudan’s export income is derived from oil, with Khartoum funneling the majority of this revenue into military expenditures. Sudan lacks the capital and expertise to efficiently extract its own oil, and relies almost entirely on foreign companies to operate this lucrative industry, which provided the government with over $4 billion in export revenue last year.
The coalition has filed shareholder resolutions with six firms so far: Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, T. Rowe Price, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase. Trillium has also taken part in meetings with Citigroup.
So far, the responses from investment firms to letters and meetings on Darfur have been wide-ranging. Twenty-eight firms–almost half of them American–have not responded at all. Five U.S. firms — JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, T. Rowe Price and Morgan Stanley — agreed to meet with the coalition. A full status report of firms’ responses and the text of the shareholder resolutions is available at www.amnestyusa.org/progress.
Other coalition members filing resolutions include Amnesty International USA, Calvert Group, Ltd., Marianist Province of the United States, Northstar Asset Management, Needmor Fund, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Brighton MA, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, the Vermont State Treasury and Walden Asset Management.
For more information about Trillium’s work on Sudan:
“Putting China on the Spot for Sudan”
“Trillium Asset Management Corporation Adopts Sudan Divestment Policy”
“When do you divest from a Company“
“Sudan Divestment Campaign Begins to Bear Fruit“
Proxy Voting Guidelines (see PetroChina)
Morgan Stanley – Human Rights/Investment Portfolio
WHEREAS
The issue of human rights increasingly impacts investors and companies alike. Company reputations are affected by both direct and indirect involvement in human rights violations. Operating in countries with clear patterns of these violations, such as Sudan and Burma, may heighten reputational and financial risk. Furthermore, companies can face similar risks when they or their suppliers are found to be using forced labor or discriminating against employees, among other abuses.
Proponents believe that institutional investors, including asset management firms such as Morgan Stanley, bear fiduciary and moral responsibilities as owners of stock in companies that may be connected to human rights violations. Thus we are encouraging our company to report on policies and guidelines that address these issues. This report and guidelines can address how our company as a shareholder can most effectively respond to these human rights issues, including strategies for shareowner engagement with the companies and/or divestment of stock as appropriate.
RESOLVED
Shareowners request that the Board of Directors authorize and prepare a report to shareowners which discusses how our investment policies address or could address human rights issues, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, by October 2008.
Such a report should review the current investment policies of the company with a view toward adding appropriate policies and procedures to apply when a company in which we are invested, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, is identified as contributing to human rights violations through their businesses or operations in a country with a clear pattern of mass atrocities or genocide.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Proponents believe one example, clearly demonstrating the need for this report concerns the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, and how certain types of foreign investment contribute to the conflict.
Sudan’s western region, Darfur, continues to experience human rights abuses on an unimaginable scale, including systematic and widespread murder, torture, rape, abduction, looting and forced displacement. Since February 2003, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed by both deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, and 2.5 million civilians in the region have been displaced.
Much of the revenue fueling this conflict is generated by Sudan’s oil industry. Rather than funding social development, the majority of these revenues are funneled into military expenditures.
With little capital or expertise to efficiently extract its own oil, Sudan relies almost entirely on foreign companies for both. The oil industry in Sudan is dominated by four foreign companies: China National Petroleum Corporation of China, Petronas of Malaysia, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, and Sinopec of China.
Over 20 US states and 50 colleges have adopted Sudan investment policies, including engagement, screening and divestment, regarding these and other foreign companies operating in certain sectors in Sudan. A 1997 presidential executive order generally bars American companies and citizens from conducting business in Sudan. In 2007, President Bush reinforced that executive order.
Proponents believe that our company, as an investor, has a responsibility to address this internationally condemned conflict in the Sudan.
Merrill Lynch – Human Rights/Investment Portfolio
WHEREAS
The issue of Human Rights increasingly impacts investors and companies alike. Company reputations are affected by both direct and indirect involvement in human rights violations. Operating in countries with clear patterns of these violations, such as Sudan and Burma, may heighten reputational and financial risk. Furthermore, companies can face similar risks when they or their suppliers are found to be using forced labor or discriminating against employees, among other abuses.
Proponents believe that institutional investors, including asset management firms such as Merrill Lynch & Co., bear fiduciary and moral responsibilities as owners of stock in companies that may be connected to human rights violations. Thus we are encouraging our company to report on policies and guidelines that address these issues. This report and guidelines can address how our company as a shareholder can most effectively respond to these human rights issues, including strategies for shareowner engagement with the companies and/or divestment of stock as appropriate.
RESOLVED
Shareowners request that the Board of Directors authorize and prepare a report to shareowners which discusses how our investment policies address or could address human rights issues, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, by October 2008.
Such a report should review the current investment policies of the company with a view toward adding appropriate policies and procedures to apply when a company in which we are invested, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, is identified as contributing to human rights violations through their businesses or operations in a country with a clear pattern of mass atrocities or genocide.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Proponents believe one example, clearly demonstrating the need for this report concerns the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, and how certain types of foreign investment contribute to the conflict.
Sudan’s western region, Darfur, continues to experience human rights abuses on an unimaginable scale, including systematic and widespread murder, torture, rape, abduction, looting and forced displacement. Since February 2003, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed by both deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, and 2.5 million civilians in the region have been displaced.
Much of the revenue fueling this conflict is generated by Sudan’s oil industry. Rather than funding social development, the majority of these revenues are funneled into military expenditures.
With little capital or expertise to efficiently extract its own oil, Sudan relies almost entirely on foreign companies for both. The oil industry in Sudan is dominated by four foreign companies: China National Petroleum Corporation of China, Petronas of Malaysia, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, and Sinopec of China.
Over 20 US states and 50 colleges have adopted Sudan investment policies, including engagement, screening and divestment, regarding these and other foreign companies operating in certain sectors in Sudan. A 1997 presidential executive order generally bars American companies and citizens from conducting business in Sudan. In 2007, President Bush reinforced that executive order.
Proponents believe that our company, as an investor, has a responsibility to address this internationally condemned conflict in the Sudan.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.- Human Rights/Investment Portfolio
WHEREAS
The issue of Human Rights increasingly impacts investors and companies alike. Company reputations are affected by both direct and indirect involvement in human rights violations. Operating in countries with clear patterns of these violations, such as Sudan and Burma, may heighten reputational and financial risk. Furthermore, companies can face similar risks when they or their suppliers are found to be using forced labor, discriminating against employees, or committing other such abuses.
Proponents believe that institutional investors, including asset management firms such as JPMorgan Chase & Co., bear fiduciary and moral responsibilities as owners of stock in companies that may be connected to human rights violations. Thus we are encouraging the Corporation to report on policies and guidelines that address these issues. This report and guidelines can address how the Corporation as a shareholder can most effectively respond to these human rights issues, including strategies for shareowner engagement with the companies and/or divestment of such stock as appropriate.
RESOLVED
Shareowners request that the Board of Directors authorize and prepare a report to shareowners which discusses how our investment policies address or could address human rights issues, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, by October 2008.
Such a report should review the current investment policies of the Corporation with a view toward adding appropriate policies and procedures to apply when a company in which we are invested, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, is identified as contributing to human rights violations through their businesses or operations in a country with a clear pattern of mass atrocities or genocide.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Proponents believe one example, clearly demonstrating the need for this report, concerns the ongoing atrocities in Sudan, and how certain types of foreign investment contribute to the conflict.
Sudan’s western region, Darfur, continues to experience human rights abuses on an unimaginable scale, including systematic and widespread murder, torture, rape, abduction, looting and forced displacement. Since February 2003, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed by both deliberate and indiscriminate attacks, and 2.5 million civilians in the region have been displaced.
Much of the revenue fueling this conflict is generated by Sudan’s oil industry. Rather than funding social development, the majority of the revenue is funneled into military expenditures.
With little capital or expertise to efficiently extract its own oil, Sudan relies almost entirely on foreign companies for both. The oil industry in Sudan is dominated by four foreign companies: China National Petroleum Corporation, Petronas of Malaysia, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, and Sinopec of China.
Over 20 US states and 50 colleges have adopted Sudan investment policies, including engagement, screening and divestment, regarding these and other foreign companies operating in certain sectors in Sudan. A 1997 presidential executive order generally bars American companies and citizens from conducting business in Sudan. In 2007, President Bush reinforced that executive order.
Proponents believe that JPMorgan Chase & Co., as an investor, has a responsibility to address this internationally condemned conflict in the Sudan.
Social Issues
At any given time, the social research and advocacy staff of Trillium Asset Management Corporation are actively working on numerous social and environmental issues of concern to our clients. (Please visit our Engagement page to read more about the means we use to influence corporations.)
The categories below link to more specific descriptions of our work on various issues. The information is provided in the form of Adobe Acrobat (PDF) files.
Animal Rights
Environmental Advocacy
Equal Employment Opportunity
Human Rights
Indigenous Rights
Media Responsibility
Sexual Orientation
You can view additional information about each issue by clicking on the Social Issues links in the sidebar on the left.
Produce Sustainability Report – YUM! Brands
Whereas the global economy presents corporations with the challenge of creating sustainable business relationships by participating in the sustainable development of communities in which they operate. The World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainable development as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Our Common Future, 1987)
We believe the ability of corporations to continue to provide goods/services in our interdependent world depends on their acceptability to the societies where they do business. Good corporate citizenship goes beyond the traditional functions of creating jobs and paying taxes, to include corporate practices designed to protect human rights, worker rights, land and the environment.
According to Dow Jones Sustainability Group, sustainability includes:”Encouraging long lasting social well being in communities where they operate, interacting with different stakeholders (e.g. clients, suppliers, employees, government, local communities and non-governmental organizations) and responding to their specific and evolving needs thereby securing a long term ‘license to operate,’ superior customer and employee loyalty and ultimately superior financial returns.” (www.sustainability-index.com; March 2000)
Footwear and apparel companies accept their responsibility for working conditions and wages throughout their supply chain. The food service industry must accept its responsibility for sustainability throughout its supply chain, including the agricultural workers who pick the many products that are part of the food sold. Just as these workers through their labor, contribute to the sustainability of the company, so must YUM Brands accept its responsibility for the working conditions, wages and benefits of these workers. These workers then contribute to the sustainability of their home communities from which they come and where their families live.
Concerned investors evaluate companies on their financial, environmental and social performance — the triple bottom line. Some companies have published sustainability reports and are taking a long-term approach to creating shareholder value through embracing opportunities and managing risks derived from economic, environmental and social developments. We believe sustainability reporting should be included in our company’s annual report.
We believe corporate sustainability includes a commitment to pay a sustainable living wage to employees as a means to empowering sustainable economies. Workers need to have the purchasing power to meet their basic needs. We believe paying sustainable wages contributes to community development and employee loyalty to the company.
The sustainability of corporations, we believe, is connected to the economic sustainability of their workers and the communities where corporations operate and sell products. Effective corporate policies can benefit both communities and corporations.
Resolved: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to prepare at reasonable expense a sustainability report. A summary of the report should be provided to shareholders by October 2005.
Supporting Statement
We believe the report should include:1. Yum Brand’s operating definition of sustainability.2. A review of current Yum Brand policies and practices related to social, environmental and economic sustainability throughout the supply chain. 3. A summary of long-term plans to integrate sustainability objectives throughout company operations.
