Century Link – Privacy and Freedom of Expression on the Internet

The Internet is becoming the defining infrastructure of our economy and society in the 21^st century. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like our company forge rules that shape, enable and limit Internet use.

As such, ISPs have a weighty responsibility in devising network management practices. ISPs must give far-ranging thought to how these practices serve to promote–or inhibit– public participation in the economy and in civil society.

Of fundamental concern is the effect ISPs’ network management practices have on public expectations of privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet.

WHEREAS

The Internet serves as an engine of opportunity for social, cultural and civic participation in society;

Network neutrality rules are needed to “facilitate the growth of the Internet and give private companies the correct incentives to continue investing in this significantly valuable good,” according to a January 2010 report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University.  The report finds that an open Internet accounts for billions of dollars of economic value for Americans.

The Internet plays a critical role in addressing societal challenges such as provision of health care, with over 8 million Americans looking for health information online daily;

There is abundant evidence that Americans are alarmed about Internet privacy. A study of online advertising by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley, found that “most adult Americans (66%) do not want marketers to tailor advertisements to their interests. Moreover, when Americans are informed of three common ways that marketers gather data about people in order to tailor ads, even higher percentages — between 73% and 86% — say they would not want such advertising;”

Internet network management is a significant public policy issue; failure to fully and publicly address this issue poses potential competitive, legal and reputational harm to our Company;

Any perceived compromise by ISPs of public expectations of privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet could have a chilling effect on the use of the Internet and detrimental effects on society;

In 2008, CenturyLink’s practices became the subject of national controversy and the target of a major Congressional investigation. The company had entered into partnerships with an online advertising company, NebuAd, which allowed for targeted advertising to customers based on which web sites the customers liked to visit. Importantly, customers were required to “opt-out” of a program in which many were not aware they were enrolled;

In 2009 and 2010, this proposal attracted an average of 29% of the vote – a clear indication of significant shareholder concern. Since then CenturyLink has not taken any steps to address these issues.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request the board issue a report by October 2011, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, examining the effects of the company’s Internet network management practices in the context of the significant public policy concerns regarding the public’s expectations of privacy and freedom of expression on the Internet.

Duke Energy – Financial Risks of Continued Reliance on Coal

WHEREAS

Electric utility companies that rely on coal face numerous challenges and uncertainty regarding environmental compliance costs, and the cost of carbon capture and storage for coal plants. Declining reserves of high quality central Appalachian coal, unprecedented price increases and coal price-volatility, versus abundant supplies and record low-prices for cleaner burning natural gas, and declining costs for wind and solar energy, make continued reliance on coal increasingly problematic.

Coal combustion for electricity is a major contributor to air pollution, accounting for one third of nitrous oxides (NOx), 50% of mercury, a hazardous air pollutant, and over 36% of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitted in the U.S.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving, in some cases pursuant to court order, to tighten regulation of the air, water and waste impacts of coal plants.  Pending EPA regulations governing storage and disposal of coal combustion wastes will likely increase operating costs for coal plants.  Industry analysts (Bernstein Research, Jeffries & Company, Standard & Poor’s, Wood Mackenzie) have concluded that the cost of environmental control equipment may make it uneconomic to retrofit some coal plants.

This unprecedented combination of forces has led Duke Energy, which relies on coal for 62% of its electricity production, to replace some of its older coal plants. The $1.8 billion, 825-megawatt (MW) unit Duke is building in Cliffside, NC, will help replace about 1,000 MW of older, higher-emitting coal units.  Nevertheless, even with these and other coal plant closures, by 2030 Duke will still depend on coal for 28% of its energy.

EPA is also developing regulations for CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions.  However, the lack of national climate policy setting limits on CO₂ emissions further adds to the economic uncertainty for coal plants.

Duke’s 630-MW coal gasification plant under construction in Edwardsport, IN, could capture 18 percent of its CO₂ within four or five years. Capturing the CO₂ created when coal is turned into a fuel gas, could add 5 percent to 15 percent to the pant’s initial $2.35 billion cost and Duke has sought regulatory approval to study a second step that could capture an additional 40% of the CO₂ at a later stage.

According to some experts, however, “before new methods can be commercialized, projects need three to five years of planning and construction, followed by eight to 10 years of actual pumping of carbon dioxide into the ground.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/energy-environment/17coal.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=edwardsport&st=cse) A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states that commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage technology for coal plants, is 10 to 15 years away and “would increase electricity costs by about 30 to 80 percent.”

RESOLVED

Shareowners request that Duke Energy’s Board of Directors, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, issue a report by November 2011 on the financial risks of continued reliance on coal contrasted with increased investments in efficiency and cleaner energy, including assessment of the cumulative costs of environmental compliance for coal plants compared to alternative generating sources.

Home Depot – Equal Employment Opportunity Disclosure

WHEREAS

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is a fair employment practice and an investment issue. We believe that companies with a good EEO record have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees. Moreover, we believe Home Depot customers are increasingly diverse; therefore a similarly diverse work force is more likely to anticipate and respond effectively to consumer demand. EEO reporting has economic relevance.

Home Depot shareholder votes in favor of a diversity report surpassed 27%, 22%, and 25% in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively – sending a consistent signal to management that shareowners desire increased accountability.

The Company annually files an EEO-1 report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hence, this information could be made available to shareholders at a minimal additional cost.

Allegations of discrimination in the workplace burden shareholders with costly litigation that can damage a company’s reputation.

Home Depot has paid out more than $100 million to settle discrimination lawsuits in the last 14 years.  The most significant EEOC settlement of $87 million was in 1997. In 2004, Home Depot agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle charges of class-wide gender, race and national origin discrimination at more than 30 Colorado stores. In 2009, Home Depot paid $84,750 to settle  retaliation charges related to a 2004 discrimination suit.

RESOLVED

The shareholders request that Home Depot prepare a diversity report, at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information, available to investors by September 2011, including the following:

1. A chart identifying employees according to their gender and race in each of the nine major EEOC-defined job categories for the last three years, listing numbers or percentages in each category;
2. A summary description of any affirmative action policies and programs to improve performance, including job categories where women and minorities are underutilized; and
3. A description of any policies and programs oriented specifically toward increasing the number of managers who are qualified females or minorities.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

In 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported racial minorities comprised 34% of private industry, but just 12% of executives and managers.  Likewise, women represented 48% of the workforce, but just 29% of executives and managers. Employment and advancement barriers persist.

Several major U.S. corporations provide diversity reports with detailed EEO information including Wal-Mart, Hewlett-Packard, Nike, Costco, Intel, and AllState.

In 2001, Home Depot began providing EEO information to investors upon request.  Since then Home Depot reversed its policy on disclosure of this information.

We agree with a recommendation of the 1995 bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission that “public disclosure of diversity data—specifically data on the most senior positions—is an effective incentive to develop and maintain innovative, effective programs to break the glass ceiling barriers.”

The Social Investment Forum and RiskMetrics concluded in a 2008 study of corporate disclosure of EEO data that corporate transparency on EEO progress is necessary to assess investment risk.

Home Depot has demonstrated leadership on many corporate social responsibility issues.  We ask the company to again demonstrate leadership in diversity by committing to EEO disclosure.

3M – Political Contributions

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in January 2010 legalized the use of corporate funds to directly pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates and to contribute to state or local elections.

3M contributed at least $1.4 million in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ:  http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)

In September 2010, 3M donated $100,000 to MN Forward, a group created in the wake of the Supreme Court decision to collect donations by corporations (Wall Street Journal (8/7/10) to influence the outcome of 2010 state races. MN Forward focuses on economic policies and appears to ignore a candidate’s other positions in making endorsements and contributions. MN Forward made campaign contributions to a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who is a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage and full parenting rights for same-sex households. This triggered demonstrations, petitions, boycotts and considerable negative publicity for Target and Best Buy, which also made significant contributions to MN Forward.

The shareholders believe this example illustrates the risks posed by corporate political expenditures, whether made directly or indirectly, and the serious reputational consequences that could negatively affect the company and shareholder value.

Corporate political spending is of increasing concern to investors and corporations. Over 75 S&P 500 companies now disclose political expenditures on their website, including half of the S&P 100. Shareholder resolutions urging such disclosure averaged more than 30% in favor in 2010, indicating strong concern. As long-term shareholders of 3M, we support transparency and accountability regarding direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, political organizations or ballot referenda; independent expenditures; and electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.

In the aftermath of Citizens United, we believe the Board should review 3M’s policies and practices regarding political spending and report results to shareowners, with particular attention to the potential risk of such contributions to our company’s reputation and competitiveness.

RESOLVED

The shareholders request that the independent members of the Board of Directors provide a comprehensive report on 3M’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) made with corporate funds, and the process for assessing their potential impacts on the company’s public image, sales and profitability;
2. Monetary and non-monetary contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used to participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and used in any attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, with respect to elections or referenda. The report shall include the following:
   1. An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above; and
   2. The title of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure.

The report shall be disclosed to shareholders by Sept 2011.

Verizon – Network Neutrality

WHEREAS

A free and open Internet is critical to our nation’s economy and society.

To maintain its many benefits, broad non-discrimination principles must be vigorously applied to the fastest-growing segment of the Internet – wireless broadband networks.

These non-discrimination principles are commonly referred to as “network neutrality.”  According to the Congressional Research Service, network neutrality seeks “to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment” for all content.

Network neutrality rules are needed to “facilitate the growth of the Internet and give private companies the correct incentives to continue investing in this significantly valuable good,” according to a 2010 report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, which finds that an open Internet accounts for billions of dollars of economic value for Americans.

The principle of non-discrimination has been an engine for economic growth, empowering millions of America’s small and medium-sized businesses through direct access to the Internet. Musicians and creative artists rely on open Internet principles, for access to audiences.

Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Genachowski has said that a free and open Internet must play a critical role in solving the “great challenges [we face] as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety.”

Widespread support of network neutrality is demonstrated by letters to the FCC from thousands of organizations including the American Library Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Consumer Federation of America.

Open Internet policies on wireless networks have particular importance for minority and economically disadvantaged communities.  People of color access the Internet via cell phones at a much greater rate than their white counterparts, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2010, Pew reported, only 33% of whites accessed the Internet on cell phones compared to 51% of English-speaking Latinos and 46% of African Americans; 30% of whites sent or received e-mail on cell phones compared to 47% of Latinos and 41% of African-Americans.

“The digital freedoms at stake are a 21st century civil rights issue,” says Colorofchange.org, an organization representing black Americans.  Network neutrality on wireless networks is essential “to avoid unintentionally treating communities of color, people living in rural areas, and the poor as second-class digital citizens,” according to an FCC filing by Latinos for Internet Freedom and a coalition of over 150 organizations representing the poor and communities of color.

Our Company has operated with de facto network neutrality policies for many years.  With network neutrality, we believe content innovation will prosper, furthering demand for ubiquitous high-speed Internet access on wireless networks.  Conversely, failure to embrace non-discrimination principles will open our Company to potential competitive, legal and reputational risk.

RESOVLED

Shareholders request the company publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with Internet network neutrality principles – i.e., operate a neutral network with neutral routing along the company’s wireless infrastructure such that the company does not privilege, degrade or prioritize any packet transmitted over its wireless infrastructure based on its source, ownership or destination.

IBM – Political Contributions

WHEREAS

Political spending by companies is increasingly controversial, heightened by the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allows companies to make independent expenditures in favor of or in opposition to, a candidate’s election campaign.

Corporate expenditures supporting a contentious 2010 ballot initiative suspending California’s Global Warming Solutions Act added fuel to the controversy, as did Target and Best Buy contributions for a controversial candidate for Governor in Minnesota.

Over the last five years, corporate political spending has become a major investor concern. Investors asked hundreds of companies to disclose their policies establish board oversight and disclose all direct and indirect expenditures for political purposes. More than seventy-five S&P 500 companies now disclose their political expenditures and policies on their website. Shareowner proposals urging such disclosure averaged more than 30 percent of votes in 2010, indicating strong investor support.

Many companies are updating their political spending policies. For example, Morgan Stanley stated it will not make direct or indirect independent political expenditures.

Left out of many company commitments, however, is transparency around payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups for political purposes.

IBM is on the board of the US Chamber of Commerce, which announced it will spend $75 million in political campaigns in 2010. The Chamber, allegedly on behalf of the business community, lobbies, speaks publicly and puts political dollars to work which effectively challenge IBM’s positions on environmental issues. IBM has strong environmental policies and urges companies in its supply chain to follow suit.

Yet as a Chamber board member, it is our understanding that IBM does not seek to influence or challenge the Chamber’s environmental positions.

IBM also has clear policies prohibiting political spending, but does not challenge the Chamber on its partisan political activities. These inconsistencies could be harmful to IBM’s reputation.

The Chamber’s website states: “Directors determine the U.S. Chamber’s policy positions on business issues and advise the U.S. Chamber on appropriate strategies to pursue. Through their participation in meetings and activities held across the nation, Directors help implement and promote U.S. Chamber policies and objectives.” As a Chamber board member IBM certainly may be perceived as supporting its policies.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that the independent Board members institute a comprehensive review of IBM’s political spending policies and oversight processes, both direct and indirect, including through trade associations, and present a summary report by September 2011. The report may omit confidential information and limit costs. Items for review include:

1. Review and disclosure of any direct and indirect expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, or 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, or political and other organizations that can hide any contributions.
2. Risks and responsibilities associated with serving on boards of and paying dues to trade organizations when positions of the trade association contradict the company’s own positions.
3. Management and board oversight processes for all political spending, direct or indirect.

St. Jude Medical – Sustainability Report

WHEREAS

Internationally recognized index leader Dow Jones defines sustainable business as “encouraging long lasting social well being in communities where [companies] 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.”

We believe reporting on significant environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors makes a company more responsive to the global business environment, characterized by finite natural resources, changing legislation, and heightened public expectations for corporate accountability. Reporting helps companies better integrate and gain strategic value from existing sustainability efforts, identify gaps and opportunities in products and processes, develop company-wide communications, publicize innovative practices, and receive constructive feedback.

Companies such as Bloomberg provide information on ESG performance that others including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley utilize to assist in investment decisions. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), representing 534 institutional investors globally with $64 trillion in assets, requests greater disclosure from companies on their climate change management programs. The 2010 company response rate to the CDP for the S&P 500 was more than 70% and at least 82% for the FTSE Global Equity Index Series.

Furthermore, disclosure of ESG-related factors is on the rise. According to a 2008 KPMG report on sustainability reporting, 79% of the 250 Global Fortune companies produce reports compared to 52% in 2005. Of the 100 top U.S. companies by revenue, 73% produced reports compared to 32% in 2005.

Industry peers like Baxter International, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific have identified relevant ESG factors and address them through sustainability reports.

In contrast, St. Jude Medical (St. Jude) does not report details on its sustainability efforts and declined to participate in the CDP. Transparency on climate change abatement goals is one of the most financially significant environmental issues currently facing investors.

Moreover, last year this resolution received a shareholder vote of 44%, indicating strong support for sustainability reporting.

Occupational safety and health, vendor standards, and product-related environmental impacts are particularly important ESG considerations for St. Jude and can pose significant regulatory, legal, reputational and financial risks. Investors currently have no way to assess performance in these areas. Already, large healthcare providers such as Kaiser Permanente require suppliers to provide environmental data on medical equipment and products purchased.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that St. Jude Medical issue a sustainability report describing the company’s ESG performance including GHG reduction targets and goals. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost, omitting proprietary information, by September 1, 2011.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

We recommend that the report include a company-wide review of policies, practices, and metrics related to ESG performance and that St. Jude commit to continuous improvement in reporting. We encourage using the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (G3). The GRI (www.globalreporting.org) is a globally accepted reporting framework considered the gold standard of reporting. The G3 provide a flexible reporting system that promotes incremental improvement over time.

Royal Bank of Canada – Tar Sands Financing

WHEREAS

RBC’s 2009 Environmental Blueprint believes that “preservation of the environment is fundamental to the sustainability of our communities, our clients and our company.”

This document recognizes that “it is of vital importance that we all contribute to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and that “the identity, cultural beliefs and economies of some indigenous peoples are intrinsically tied to their region’s history, biodiversity and natural landscapes” and that “financial institutions should play a role in supporting efforts to address global water issues.”

Notwithstanding these policy commitments, RBC is among the largest financiers of companies engaged in oil sands operations in the Canadian boreal forest region. Oil sands extraction presents a unique set of resource-intensive environmental challenges, including heavy water use, land disturbance, toxic waste storage, and emission of air pollutants. These impacts, along with their implications for local residents and wildlife, can introduce market risks and legal, regulatory and reputational problems to bank clients.

These impacts and risks include:

• Alberta’s oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing contributor to global warming emissions, and the largest emitter of industrial pollutants. Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from Alberta’s oil sands are increasing fast. They more than doubled between 1990 and 2008, and if growth proceeds as planned, will triple from 2008 levels by 2020.

• Volatile oil prices and changing oil demand can impact operational costs, income and overall financial health.

• Industrial logging and oil sands have reduced the boreal to less than 40% of its original size; the remaining forest is fragmented, with harmful impacts on many species. According to the Canadian Parks and Wildness Association, it will take more than 300 years before reclaimed areas become functioning forest again.

• The industry has not proven that full reclamation of toxic tailing ponds is possible. The long-term presence of these ponds, which have been shown to leak toxic pollutants into local water sources, presents additional challenges.

• Extracting one barrel of bitumen requires 2-5 barrels of fresh water and enough natural gas to heat a Canadian home for 1.5-5.5 days; four tons of earth are removed. While processed sand must be replaced and the site reclaimed, in 40+ years of oil sands operations, just one acre has received a reclamation certificate from the Canadian government.

• Litigation from First Nations presents possible problems to clients engaged in oil sands extraction and related infrastructure, which may result in increased costs and restrictions on development. Even after approved, a project can be subject to lawsuits.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that an independent committee of the Board prepare a report (at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information) on the financial risks associated with RBC’s financial exposure to expanding oil sands operations in the Canadian boreal forest. The report should consider the implications of a policy of discontinuing these relationships and should be available to investors by October 1, 2011.

Heading into Corporate Annual Meeting Season, Trillium Announces Four Shareholder Proposals Withdrawn

Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”) is pleased to announce the withdrawal of four shareholder 2010 resolutions as we head into the annual meeting season.  Resolutions filed with Plum Creek Timber, Lincoln Electric, State Street Bank and Whole Foods Market have resulted in changes to corporate policies that will have a positive impact on transparency, corporate governance and workplace diversity.

Plum Creek Timber Company (PCL): Say on Pay

Our “say on pay” proposal called upon management to submit an advisory resolution on executive compensation for shareholder approval at annual meetings. After evaluating the resolution, for which Trillium was the lead filer, Plum Creek Timber’s Board of Directors deemed it to be “consistent with evolving best practices” and agreed to begin putting the compensation to a vote beginning in 2011.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (LECO): Inclusive LGBT Workplace Policies

Trillium was a co-filer with Calvert Group Ltd. on a proposal to add the categories “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression” in the Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment policies of Lincoln Electric. In the fall of 2009, Lincoln Electric amended their Code of Corporate Conduct and Ethics to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on both categories.

State Street Bank (STT): Political Contributions

Trillium’s resolution requested a semi-annual report detailing the policies and procedures related to political contributions and the monetary and non-monetary contributions and expenditures.  After some initial dialogue, State Street has acknowledged that political contributions are “an issue of increasing interest to corporate shareholders particularly in light of efforts at financial reform,” and has agreed to further dialogue with Trillium and the Center for Political Accountability to explore expanded disclosure options.

Whole Foods Market: Separate Chair and CEO Positions

Trillium co-filed a resolution sponsored by Change to Win Investment Group calling on Whole Foods Market to separate the positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO.  Since the resolution was filed, CEO John Mackey stepped down as Chairman of the Board.

Some of Trillium’s other engagement initiatives this season include resolutions that will be going to a vote at Ford Motor Company (political contributions transparency), Home Depot (disclosure of workforce diversity data), Chipotle (reduction of pesticide use in supply chain), Google (sustainability reporting), J.M. Smucker (sustainability reporting), CenturyLink (freedom of expression and privacy), Coca-cola (bisphenol-A co-file) and Gardner Denver (workplace policies regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees). More information about these resolutions can be found at our web site.*

A resolution sponsored at Bank of America (BAC) concerning the company’s financing of coal companies engaged in mountaintop removal was deemed excludable from the proxy ballot by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In discussions with the Bank, however, we learned that its relatively new coal policy, has led it to decline deals with companies whose predominant method of extraction involves mountaintop removal.

For the second year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has concluded that net neutrality is not an important enough issue to allow AT&T and Verizon shareholders to consider our shareholder proposals concerning net neutrality. Given that President Obama and over one hundred members of Congress, as well as hundreds of civil rights organizations, have all spoken up on the importance of a free and open Internet, we consider this conclusion deeply flawed. We will continue to press the SEC to reverse its censorship of this critically important shareholder issue.

_________________________________________________________________________

* http://trilliuminvest.com/our-approach-to-sri/advocacy/resolutions-page/.

For more information, please contact:

Shelley Alpern at salpern[at]trilliuminvest.com
(617) 292-8026, x 248

or

Jonas Kron at jkron[at]trilliuminvest.com
(503) 592-0864

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)

Lisa Leff, Vice President and Boise Branch Manager of Trillium Asset Management Corporation, on Idaho Public Television discussing Sudan divestment in public retirement accounts.