Yes, We Can, Too

Everyone, from the progressive Left to “Obamican” crossovers, has high hopes for the new administration. Social investors are no exception. We share the expectation that the Obama administration will take a hands-on approach to many of the problems we’ve addressed for years, including climate change and other environmental priorities, predatory lending, inadequate regulation of the financial markets and much more. There’s a subset of policy reforms, however, that are being championed more or less exclusively by the social investing community, and those are the subject of this article. What follows is a brief summary of some of the policy reforms we’re audaciously hoping (and lobbying) for to remove specific barriers to the advancement of social investing.

Risky Business

On December 11, more than 60 social investors (including Trillium Asset Management Corporation) wrote to President-elect Barack Obama seeking the restoration of the right of investors “to propose and vote upon resolutions asking a company to evaluate how specific risks may affect the company’s business…. These include the kind of credit risks associated with the mortgage crisis, as well as an array of environmental and social issues which we believe may have large financial implications, e.g., climate change and product toxicity.” The appeal stems from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Bush-era stand against shareholder resolutions requesting that a company evaluate the risk related to a line of business or an emerging social or environmental trend. (The SEC arbitrates between companies and shareholder resolution filers when companies challenge the submission of resolutions based on any of 14 technical and substantive rules. Corporations have been arguing that proposals that address risk violate the “ordinary business” exclusion.)

For example, in 2006 the SEC disallowed, on “evaluation of risk” grounds, a resolution at Ryland Group that was virtually identical to a proposal that had passed muster at Ryland the year before. Another example of the use of the head scratch-inducing “evaluation of risk” exclusion was the dismissal of a proposal at Washington Mutual earlier this year asking the company to discuss its potential financial exposure as a result of the mortgage securities crisis. The number of such exclusions as violations of the “ordinary business” rule has increased significantly in the last several years, as have inconsistent applications of the rule.

Making the World Safe for Pension Fund Activism

In October, the Department of Labor (DoL) issued two interpretive bulletins at the prodding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. One modified its longstanding view that pension plans may engage in shareholder advocacy without violating their fiduciary duties as defined by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Because the letter is confusingly written, the extent to which the DoL is seeking to impose stricter constraints on shareholder advocacy by pension funds is unclear. One thing is clear, though: the bulletin is inconsistent with prior DoL regulations. The Social Investment Forum is calling upon the new administration to discard the bulletin and clarify that existing practice has not changed.

The second bulletin declared that DoL would not, from now on, consider environmental or “so-called ‘green’ companies” to be acceptable economically targeted investments (ETIs). But why? In a letter to the DoL sent in December, the Social Investment Forum asks, “Why did the Department include an example that seems so out of place, arguably irrelevant, in a discussion of ETIs? Is it, as contemplated by one commentator, a suggestion of a broader intent behind the ETI bulletin? Or is it so far afield that it should be regarded as an error?” The bulletins are a parting shot from an administration beholden to business interests whose ideology recognizes no value in the consideration of extra-financial factors.

Not Too Much Information

Last summer, the SEC announced the “21st Century Disclosure Initiative,” inviting investors’ comments on the creation of “a comprehensive high-level plan for overhauling the Commission’s current forms-based disclosure system.” A report is due by year-end. While the Initiative is mostly concerned with modernizing the technology of disclosure, Trillium took the opportunity to respond to the SEC’s invitation to comment on any other types of information it should be seeking from companies. We put in a plug for requiring corporate reporting on sustainability issues such as the environment (e.g., risks to business from water scarcity and climate change) and political contributions. Rather than reinvent the wheel, we suggested, the SEC should look at integrating Global Reporting Initiative reports into its filing requirements. (The French, Danish and British governments, as well as the South African stock exchange, already require sustainability reporting from major companies.)

This is consistent with positions we have supported as a member of the $7 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), which promotes better understanding of the financial risks and opportunities posed by climate change. In September 2007, the INCR petitioned the SEC to address the obligations of publicly-traded companies to assess and fully disclose the material economic opportunities and risks from climate change. Senate Banking Committee leaders, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Jack Reed (D-RI) also supported the petition in a letter sent to the SEC in December 2007, and language urging the SEC to require companies to disclose their climate risks is included in the Senate Committee on Appropriations report accompanying the 2009 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill.

Along these lines, as we wrote about in the Fall 2008 issue of Investing For A Better World, Trillium has also lobbied the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)to enhance disclosures about loss contingencies by expanding the population of potential liabilities that must be disclosed, requiring more specific information about those potential liabilities, and mandating clear and transparent disclosure formats. (While FASB is not a governmental body, the SEC has designated it as the organization responsible for setting accounting standards for public companies.)

Why Vote? It Only Encourages Them

Why can’t shareholders nominate the board directors who nominally represent them in the governance structure of the corporation? If you answered, “because only the Red Queen could defend the logic of corporate board elections,” that is partially correct. But the root cause is that the SEC says we can’t.

At the end of 2007, in a vote described by former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt as “probably the most important vote the commission has taken in nearly 15 years,” the SEC Commissioners voted 3 to 1 against allowing shareholders access to management’s proxy statement to nominate corporate directors, the most recent defeat for an idea with strong support from shareholders but fierce opposition from the corporate community. But with such strong backing and a friendlier administration in place, the issue is not dead yet. If the SEC doesn’t reconsider, Congress may do it for them. Richard Ferlauto, director of corporate governance and pension investment at the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, told RiskMetrics recently that a proxy access provision may be included in compensation legislation or a broader bill to overhaul the SEC.

Yes, We Can Provide Mutual Fund Products

And finally, what does one have to do to get a good set of socially responsible mutual fund options around here? Some federal workers have been asking that question for years because the Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement plan for all federal civilian and armed services employees, currently contains no socially responsible investing options. Thankfully, Congressman Jim Langevin (D-RI) introduced the Federal Employees Responsible Investment Act at the urging of these workers. Now to pry it out of committee.

A Shareholder Bill of Rights?

With new leadership in Washington, the conditions may be right for shareholders to win, and in some cases win back, their rights. Prior to this fall’s stock market meltdown, some were even predicting the passage of a “shareholder bill of rights” – covering executive pay and the right to nominate directors – within the first 100 days of the new Administration. Given the ongoing financial and economic crisis, this is less likely but not out of the realm of possibility. After all, as an investor who personally divested his stock in a company doing business in the Sudan, our new president is certainly sympathetic to at least some of the fundamental ideals of social investing. It’s a new day.

Trillium Asset Management Corporation Celebrates 25 Years

We’re 25!

This year marks the 25th anniversary of Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”). We’ve done a lot of learning and experimenting, had some adventures and even birthed some offspring (spinoff organizations, that is). As part of our ongoing celebration, in this issue we’ve pulled together excerpts from the last 25 years of Investing for a Better World® and its earlier incarnation, Franklin’s Insight, from the days when we were known as Franklin Research & Development Corporation. We hope you enjoy this trip down the memory lane of both Trillium and the social investment industry. We extend our deep thanks to the many writers who contributed over the years, including columnists Milt Moskowitz and Elliot Sclar, and former co-workers Steve Lippman, Simon Billenness and Patrick McVeigh.

Editor’s Notes: Some of the material has been edited from the original version. Dates indicate when we reported on events, not necessarily when they occurred. Due to space limitations, authors are credited only when the first person voice is used.

In our first issue (Winter 1983), in “Our Intent,” we wrote:

There is a growing need to rethink the process of investment in this country. We are in an age of jet-propelled, satellite-transferred, and computerized legal tender. Light years removed from the barter system, employers, producers and owners conduct business immersed in a glowing avalanche of statistics and CRTs. Efficient as this system might be, human it is not. The question we pose is this: In these times of electronic transfers and VisiCalc, who protects the people? In a multi-billion dollar company whose shares are bought and sold with lightening speed for numerical reasons by proxies in the names of “owners” who never see their stock, what motivation is there for the company to care whether it intrudes or destroys in the name of profit? To divest or not to divest is a question to be answered by the investor, but to fail to make a statement is to allow the power of ownership to lie untapped.

August 1989

As far back as 1989, ESG (environment, social and governance) analysis, a now-popular version of social investing in which social advocacy is entirely optional, was an emerging trend. We were wary. Social investing argues for something more than opportunistically profiting from social ills. As social analysis increasingly enters the mainstream of money management, it is increasingly important to reclaim the movement’s roots in social change. To invest in a firm simply because it will profit from a particular social issue is not enough. Corporations have the ability and the resources to respond to major social ills. Those that respond with creative positive solutions to these problems will help to bring about a healthy future from which all can benefit.

December 1989

The unthinkable has happened. The Wall has come down. The Cold War is over. History has changed. And the party in Europe has begun. Change in Eastern Europe strikes us as the most bullish of all possible events for our society and financial markets. We’re ready to party if our defense budget is cut. July 1990 And they’re still in business. Only read this if you need to. In what is surely a first, the clothing manufacturer Esprit (ESH) has begun to run ads and attach labels to its apparel asking consumers not to buy these products unless it is something they really need. The company believes that unless we become more responsible consumers and stop over-buying, we will exhaust the resources of the Earth.

December 1993

I had the honor of attending a reception for Marland Mold in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. We helped the company’s employees to purchase the company. About 40 jobs were saved in the short run and it is hoped that many more will be created. The investment made by a union pension fund and other parties is groundbreaking, risky, and very unconventional. But last night I looked into the faces of the workers, mostly over 40, whose jobs had been saved. It was everything to them; the pride of ownership and hope of the future success was palpable. Directly in back of this decision to invest money were families, human dignity, self-sufficiency, hope, and last, but by no means least, a Happy Holiday Season with bread on the table. ~Joan Bavaria

April 1993

It was a public relations nightmare for Wal-Mart Stores (WMT). Shown a videotape of children working in a Bangladesh factory that made Wal-Mart shirts, CEO David Glass appeared dumbfounded. These allegations made by Dateline NBC illustrated dramatically the fact that corporate responsibility includes not just a company’s own operations but also the operations of its suppliers. One U.S. company has already shown the Dateline NBC story to its Asian buyers and suppliers.

May 1995

I was falling asleep with the news on when my husband shook me and said, “It’s that kid, that kid you wrote about.” In the morning I thought I had been dreaming until I saw the news. Iqbal Masih had been shot and killed. Iqbal was last year’s recipient of the Reebok Human Rights Youth in Action Award. Iqbal was fighting for the rights of children held in bonded labor in Pakistan. Millions of Pakistani children are chained to looms in carpet factories, as Iqbal was from the age of four until he escaped at age 10. Their small hands are prized for their ability to tie tiny tight knots in the carpets they export to the West.

We all feel sadness at the loss of human life. When a child dies somehow the sadness is magnified. When a child is murdered it is almost incomprehensible. Iqbal has left his mark. He helped to open the eyes of the world to the appalling conditions in which some children are forced to live. He died with a fire in his belly and the belief in his heart that children have a right to a childhood, a right to education, a right to be free. ~Holly Davenport

April 1996

In the midst of frenetically filing last-minute resolutions to address corporate complicity in the death of the Nigerian dissident Ken Saro-Wiwa, I discovered that the pension funds of the three trade unions were also filing similar resolutions. Initial efforts to coordinate proved difficult. A Teamsters official cut short our initial conversation with the comment: “Sorry, I have to leave now for a demonstration outside the Nigerian embassy. I will try to call you back this afternoon if I don’t get arrested.” ~Simon Billenness

July 1998

Years before 9/11, Trillium protested Unocal’s courtship of the Taliban as the oil company pursued a contract to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. At the mic at Unocal’s annual meeting, I noted its pledge “not [to] conduct business with any party in Afghanistan until peace is achieved and a government recognized by international lending agencies is in place.” The Chairman tried to cut me off (actually addressing me as “young lady”), but I entreated him to pledge right then and there that Unocal wouldn’t lay the pipeline until women’s rights were fully restored in addition to the advent of something that passes for peace. My request was not honored. ~ Shelley Alpern [Unocal dropped its plans in January 1999, citing the need to cut costs. We observed that "the real story is that feminists and human rights advocates have made Afghanistan too hot to touch for American companies."]

November 1999

In a conference room overlooking Lake Louise in the Canadian Rockies, Cherokee leader Rebecca Adamson made a desperate appeal to a conference of socially responsible investors. “You are our last hope,” she said. Governments and businesses had betrayed the world’s indigenous peoples time and again, and if concerned investors couldn’t make a difference, she explained, they and their lands were doomed to extinction sometime in the next century. Her maps displayed clearly how the lands nurturing the world’s remaining fossil fuel, timber and mineral resources are one and the same with the lands that nurture the last of the world’s First Peoples. Her words moved the attendees deeply.

December 1999

The hot ticket in London last March was the first conference of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an offspring of the U.S.-based CERES environmental coalition. As the name suggests, the enthusiastically embraced draft guidelines aim to do internationally what CERES has done so effectively in the U.S. – promote a widely recognized standard framework for corporate environmental reporting. The GRI Guidelines extend this concept to include social and economic elements of sustainability.

Spring 2001

The memory of warrior and spiritual leader Tasunke Witko – Crazy Horse to most of us – is so sacred to the Lakota Nation that his descendants and admirers wouldn’t even think about naming one of their children after him. That commercial enterprises appropriate his name for profit is galling. Wrote his descendant Seth Big Crow about Crazy Horse Malt Liquor: “The ploy here is to romanticize the life and death struggle of a Lakota Warrior, as a macho-myth appealing primarily to young urban men. The message is DRINK THIS PRODUCT AND BECOME ‘CRAZY HORSE.’ In reality, this strategy promotes both stereotyping and alcohol abuse. Our young people can be particularly vulnerable.” [In April 2002, Stroh Brewery settled with the estate of Crazy Horse and offered a public apology; two years later, a settlement was reached with Hornell Brewing.]

Fall 2001

In 2001, our columnists reflected on American resilience in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks. Milt Moskowitz wrote: In many cases within the workforce, the impetus to do something – to help the victims of families – was so strong that individuals came forward with actions on their own, not prompted by any corporate directive. The best example is probably the drive at Southwest Airlines (LUV) for employees to donate part of their pay to the New York relief effort. This was a campaign that originated in the employee ranks – and in the end every single Southwest employee participated. …Farnum Brown wrote: Sadly, it seems our country is at its best in times of crisis. Stranded in Tucson after 9/11, I spent the last few days driving back home to Durham. I ate in a lot of truck stops and stayed in a lot of motels. I found civility, diversity, humor, helpfulness and an expansiveness of spirit you have to call “heart.” I hope that spirit guides our leaders in their awesome deliberations. I hope they show the world that we as a nation are not only strong, but also wise.

Summer 2007

What is the social responsibility of media? Is there a civic dimension of social responsibility distinctive to media companies? And does a media company’s social or civic performance have any systematic impact on its bottom line? Trillium Asset Management has created a special research and advocacy vehicle to explore these questions. It’s called the Open Media and Information Companies Initiative (Open MIC). Before the internet, one could argue that what was good for the business of media was bad for democracy: consolidation of ownership and a corollary loss of diversity in media. Going forward, what’s good for the business of media appears to be just what democracy requires: the expansion and amplification of individuals’ ability to create and share information – our ability, in a word, to communicate.

****

Scenes from a Shareholder Meeting

May 2001

In Indonesia, ExxonMobil has security arrangements with the military and police, a relationship blamed for civilian massacres and other human rights abuses. In May 2001, Radhi Darmansyah traveled from Aceh, Indonesia to confront ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond directly at the stockholder meeting. We printed excerpts from the transcript.

RD: While you made $26 million last year Mr. Raymond, more than one thousand six hundred of my people were killed, maimed, or tortured around your facilities in Aceh. I am here to ask for your help. We, the Acehnese, are asking that ExxonMobil stop working with the Indonesian military for its security forces, because the Indonesia military is murdering its citizens in Aceh. They are murdering my brothers and sisters. They are raping and keeping schoolgirls as sexual slaves. I ask you today to please issue a public statement that you will not return to Aceh until my land is free of human rights abuses, and until my people are free….

LR: I believe your time is up. (Radhi continues.) I’m sorry you’ll have to come back another time. Sister Pat, I think we’re about to move on to the next item. You have three minutes. (Radhi continues.) Sister Pat, he’s using your time….I think you should turn off the light of Number 1, please. You understand you’re out of order? (Radhi still continues.) Sister Pat, please! I’m getting ready to move on to the next item. (Deliberately not calling on Bianca Jagger, who is at the microphone.) Sister Pat has the floor for three minutes [to continue her remarks concerning her shareholder resolution]. Thank you.

****

South Africa

How to leverage the influence of corporations to bring about the end of apartheid was the main preoccupation of the social investing movement in the 1970s, 80s, and into the early ‘90s.

April 1984

Au contraire! On March 23, 1984 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial, “Playing with Africa.” The writer insinuated that the divestment movement is improper strategically and self-righteous morally. Au contraire! Divestment is one of the three major strategies currently used by investors to oppose one of the great moral blots on western civilization. (The other strategies are shareholder action and the Sullivan Principles.) The divestment movement in legislatures represents a grassroots concern. It has emerged in part due to the ineffective policies of our current administration towards the Afrikaaner power structure. Feeling blocked by the administration, Americans are turning to the legislative branches. It must be time to become optimistic about the investment movement. To earn such negative notice in America’s largest business daily’s lead editorial is a fairly solid indicator that success is being scored.

June 1985

It is heartening to note that over the past month the South African divestment movement has garnered

an equal share of the headlines. Public leaders, organizations, college students and investors have raised a tumultuous outcry over the immoral nature of apartheid and corporate participation in its continuance. It is important to note that what divestment advocates are fighting for is not only the establishment of human rights in South Africa, but also an acceptable level of morality from American corporations.

August 1986

The first shareholder resolution ever regarding South Africa passed. With the support of 68% of shareholders, Pizza Inn has been told to sign the Sullivan Principles.

June 1987

Reverend Leon Sullivan called for all American firms to pull out of South Africa within the next nine months. Sullivan is the author of the Sullivan Principles, a code of conduct that has directed the employment practices of U.S. firms in South Africa since 1977. In announcing his decision to abandon the doctrine that bears his name, Sullivan noted the increasing atrocities within South Africa.

March 1990

Let freedom sing! We, along with the rest of the world, rejoice in Nelson Mandela’s release from prison after 28 years of captivity. Now is not the time to consider slowing divestment pressures or easing economic sanctions lest the apartheid forces in South Africa think they have gone far enough already. When political democracy comes to South Africa, the time for divestment to end will be at hand.

June 1993

The African National Congress is now encouraging investment in South Africa, asking companies to support the “Platform of Guiding Principles for Foreign Investors.”

June 1994

The miracle is not the overthrow of the white supremacist rule. That, we have agreed for years, was inevitable. But many of us used to think that the only way it would happen would be through bloody black revolt, poorly armed and kamikaze-like, with massive numbers of deaths, as the disenfranchised youth of the black tribes, with nothing left to lose, simply overwhelmed their elders and acted out a primal scream. History and the forces of justice seem to have had another end in mind. If the current of today’s events continues on course, black South African leaders have written an amazing, miraculous story of human dignity, forgiveness and heroic tenacity. ~Joan Bavaria

March 1998

In Robert K. Massie’s new book, Loosing the Bonds, a blow-by-blow account of the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, he concludes that “the most striking aspect of this story is that our seemingly rigid and material world is so influenced by ideas.” It was certainly the force of ideas that got corporations to change the way they did business in South Africa. Or, as Massie put it so eloquently: “We have control over our ideas, our ideas have material consequences, and, in the end, as a people, we become what we believe.”

****

Burma

April 1994

Advocates for corporate withdrawal from Burma recently scored a major victory. In March, Amoco announced its exit from the country before mid-year. Although Amoco states that it withdrew for “economic” reasons, there is little doubt that the continual public pressure from activists and shareholders was also a factor in the firm’s final decision to withdraw from Burma.

August 1996

In a recently smuggled video, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader whose election victory six years ago was annulled by the military, called for international sanctions to be imposed on Burma.

June 1999

The Free Burma Coalition announced a boycott of Suzuki and targeted the San Diego marathon and a post-marathon concert, both sponsored by Suzuki. Quite by chance, the band scheduled to headline the concert was Hootie & The Blowfish, a money management client of ours. We approached the band to brief them on Suzuki’s involvement in Burma and see if they were interested in working with us to apply leverage on the company. For the concert, the band invited Free Burma Coalition activists to distribute information. Many of Hootie’s band and crew sported stickers and T-shirts that proclaimed “Suzuki Out of Burma.” Before they would play, the band had the organizers remove the giant Suzuki banner at the back of the stage. To cap the evening, Hootie gave an interview to VH-1 denouncing Suzuki’s ties to the Burmese military.

December 2000

In March, I sat in the public section of the U.S. Supreme Court to watch the justices hear oral arguments in the case of the Massachusetts Burma Law. It is not every day that you witness the Supreme Court debate the constitutionality of a law you helped write and enact. Three months later, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. While unanimous, the Supreme Court’s ruling was very narrow in its scope. The Free Burma movement faces a new challenge: how to re-launch the campaign to enact local Burma laws despite the political and legal obstacles thrown up by the Supreme Court ruling. ~Simon Billenness

****

Championing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Rights

Starting in the 1990s, Trillium played a leading role in organizing shareholders to press corporations to implement more progressive policies for their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employees, resulting in numerous policy changes.

May 1988 An anonymous corporate respondent to the National Gay Rights Advocates survey on AIDS in the workplace illustrates [homophobic] hostility all too well. In response to the question “Does your company have a policy that forbids employment discrimination against workers with AIDS?”, the company replied: “We shoot gays – much less gays with AIDS.” The question “Does your company’s employee medical plan cover AIDS-related medical expenses?” elicited the reply, “Just enough to cover the cost of the bullet.”

June 1991

In a press release, Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores (CBRL) crowed that “it is inconsistent with our concept and values… to continue to employ individuals whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values which have been the foundation of values in our society.” We have written that the company recently eliminated this policy and chose to have no policy at all. Actually, decisions about hiring gays and lesbians are now made on a store by store basis. Such persons are not hired in areas where it would “disrupt” business. [In November 2002, a shareholder resolution calling for a nondiscrimination policy received 58% of the vote - the first social issue shareholder proposal to win a majority vote since the anti-apartheid campaigns of the 1980s.]

September 1991

In what is the first such move by a major U.S. company, Lotus Development announced that it has begun to offer a full range of family benefits to the “spousal equivalents” of gay and lesbian employees.

April 1996

Kudos from Johnson & Johnson Employee. I want to thank you for influencing my employer to adopt a written policy which bans workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Such a policy has been a long time coming. Here’s to the power of socially responsible stockholders! ~Name withheld.

March 1997

Chrysler’s CEO Bob Eaton released a simple statement declaring that the company would not tolerate harassment or discrimination on any basis, including sexual orientation. It took a full-blown national protest campaign, the lobbying of the United Auto Workers, internal lobbying from employees, pressure from shareholders such as ourselves, considerable media coverage, and scores of letters from concerned consumers who’d decided now was not the time to buy a Jeep Eagle.

July 1996

We testified before the U.S. House Committee on Small Business Subcommittee on Government Programs in support of a federal bill to ban sexual orientation-based discrimination in the workplace. The fairness and simplicity of this bill is one of its most compelling features. Affirmative action is not mandated by this bill. It contains no reporting requirements, and imposes no regulation. It does not compel employers to grant spousal benefits. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) simply embodies the principle of nondiscrimination that already enjoys the wide support of the American people. Americans have mixed feelings about homosexuality, but there is little confusion about where the public stands when it comes to job discrimination. In repeated surveys, Americans support laws protecting gay men and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace. [ENDA has yet to pass.]

****

Climate Change Blues

December 1990

If we only knew then what we…oh wait, we did. You do not wait for unemployment to reach 10% before you adjust portfolios for a recessionary environment. Similarly, it makes little sense for the government to wait for the greenhouse effect to be causing massive problems before reacting to it. We continue to ignore early warning signs rather than aggressively promote energy conservation… as our government stays committed to allowing the “market” to find the answers.

April 2000

How long ago it seems… At some point, however, the overwhelming evidence and public concern about global warming will reach critical mass. When this happens, only the companies that diversified into alternative energy sources and worked with the scientific and environmental community to mitigate environmental problems will survive.

Summer 2004

Ten years ago, members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility began serving companies with shareholder proposals calling for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the science of global climate change has become more certain, support for these resolutions has steadily increased. The average level of support in 2001 was 9.3%. This year, a new high was reached at 37.1%. Resolutions at Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) received only single-digit votes of support. Somehow the automakers have managed to convince investors that dragging out the life of the internal combustion engine for as long as possible is sound environmental policy.

Spring 2008

The Investor Network on Climate Risk is a coalition of 60 institutional investors (including many state pension plans and Trillium) with a combined $5 trillion in assets. It has partnered with major corporations to call for federal legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and also asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee corporate disclosure on climate change. This is a rare situation indeed, where both corporations and investors are calling for more government regulation, not less.

****

Ceres

September 1989

At a press conference in New York City began another major campaign to alter corporate behavior. Under the banner of the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (the acronym is CERES – the Roman goddess of agriculture), co-chairs Joan Bavaria and Denis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, announced a new coalition of environmentalists and social investors. Ceres’s goals are multifold. To begin, the coalition has issued a set of environmental standards called the “Valdez Principles.” [On March 24, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez spilled 10.7 million gallons of oil, which, while not the world's largest spill, appears to be the most significant in terms of environmental damage. More than 1,100 miles of beach have been contaminated and more than 90,000 birds and 1,000 sea otters have already died. Delays on the part of Exxon and the Alyeska Pipeline Company allowed the damage to intensify. Emergency crews did not even reach the Valdez for ten hours.] A shareholder campaign, led by the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility and the New York State Controller’s Office, will ask corporations to become signatories to the principles.

January 1990

Exxon (XOM) has received nine shareholder proposals dealing with environmental issues, including a proposal to sign the Valdez Principles.

April 1990

I will never forget the experience of touring Prince William Sound. Emotions ran high in Alaska last week. Captain Hazelwood’s verdict was handed down days before the anniversary, and since he was staying in our hotel, the press was omnipresent. Third World organizers pleaded for compassion, progressive companies urged cooperation, old institutions defended archaic policies, and environmentalist choked with emotions when describing animal rescue operations and serious economic and cultural chaos that followed the spill. Above it all, the majestic and awe-inspiring beauty of Alaska gave us a sense of our place.

July 1991

An unexpected benefit so far of the Valdez Principles is the large number of companies that have drafted environmental policy statements or conducted environmental audits as a way to halt the groundswell of support for the Principles. General Motors (GM), for example, wrote and introduced its first environmental policy statement in time for its annual meeting. While deficient in comparison to the Valdez principles, it is still an improvement for the company. Waste Management (WM) issued a 160-page environmental audit that largely reflected the goals of Valdez Principles.

May 1992

Two days ago, Ceres sponsored the first conference for the 42 companies who have signed the Valdez Principles. I was privileged to be the person to introduce Senator Al Gore. I am a real neophyte at Washington politics, so I was hyper-aware of all that happened. What struck me the most about the experience was intensely personal, though, since I relate on a very small scale to a quasi-political life by traveling and meeting with lots of people. When Senator Gore entered the room, with all the usual charisma, poise, and flawless grooming, I recognized in his eyes the effort to focus (“Where am I?”), the veneer of calm (which may in this case be real), and the aura of impermanence (he was only passing through). But he was gracious, appropriate, eloquent, and very much in the moment. I was impressed, as I have been in earlier meetings with him. ~Joan Bavaria

February 1993

Corporate America is beginning to see the light. Sun Company (Sunoco – SUN) has just become the first major corporation to become a signatory to the Ceres Principles.