For years, the members of the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, along with our colleagues at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility have been sounding the alarm regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply. Increased pesticide and energy use, as well as weed resistance, are among our  concerns. In addition to these environmental factors, social injustices such as a disregard for honoring human rights in seed saving communities and a lack of a robust system of monitoring long-term health effect also worry TriCRI members. Furthermore, many citizens feel that GMO-foods should be labeled. According to a 2010 poll conducted by Reuters Thompson, that belief is held by more than 90 percent of Americans.

This year, TriCRI and ICCR members filed resolutions at Abbott, ConAgra, Kraft, Pepsi asking for labeling of any product produced through genetic modification. In addition Dow, Dupont, and Monsanto received resolutions asking for a disclosure of risk in regards to GMOs. Investors have also sent letters to companies that funded opposition of Proposition 37 in California. These letters encouraged corporations to explain that if they do not support the efforts of Prop 37, what actions for consumer's right to know do they encourage.

PepsiCo

In March, PepsiCo responded publicly to investors regarding this shareholder resolution:

"We have appreciated the dialogue ICCR has conducted directly with representatives of PepsiCo’s food safety department to share insights and challenges to the current system." The company also stated that "... it should be noted that PepsiCo does offer certain products which do not utilize GM ingredients to provide consumers with choices, which is the hallmark of PepsiCo’s overall portfolio".

TriCRI and ICCR members look forward to robust conversations with PepsiCo regarding risk, human rights, and protecting our food supply. While we recognize the challenges for corporations, safety of the world's people, planet and food systems are our primary concern.

To keep up-to-date on all of our work regarding genetically modified food, follow us on Facebook.

For the full letter, visit ICCR's website.

Chevron Unresponsive to Calls for Improved Risk Measurement in Fracking Operations, Say Investors

Citing growing impatience with the intractability of fossil fuel companies in addressing environmental and social risks, members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility view 2013 as watershed year for the industry and its investors.

NEW YORK, NY///February 19, 2013///As the fossil fuel industry comes under heightened scrutiny from both politicians and the public, investors from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), who have engaged with fossil fuel companies for decades, insist the sector’s active resistance to progress on operational practices must end.

2013 marks the 4th year that a shareholder proposal will appear on the Chevron proxy statement calling for reporting on the company’s risk management protocols of shale fracking operations including reporting on adverse community impacts.

Sr. Nora Nash of the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and leader of the Chevron engagement indicated that “Our demands are reasonable and in the best interest of the company and its investors. We want to know what the company is doing, beyond regulatory requirements, to minimize the adverse environmental and social impacts from these operations. As shareholders we have a right to know all the risks involved in Chevron’s operations as they will have obvious implications for our investments and for the lives of so many who are living in impacted communities.”

ICCR had similar proposals on the proxy ballot in 2010, 2011 and 2012. These proposals are broadly supported by institutional investors both inside and outside the ICCR coalition and have received extremely high levels of support from Chevron shareholders. In 2011 the resolution was supported by 40% of Chevron shareholders, a result that is viewed as a clear call to management for the implementation of key performance indicators.

According to the proxy resolution: Chevron is one of 11 companies which signed onto “Recommended Standards and Practices for Exploration and Production of Natural Gas and Oil from Appalachian Shales.” By (Chevron’s) own language, these standards describe what companies “should do” rather than what companies currently do or commit to doing.

Further, in response to industry demands for guidance on measurement and reporting frameworks for shale fracking operations, in December of 2011 ICCR, along with the Investor Environmental Health Network, publishedExtracting the Facts: An Investor Guide to Disclosing Risks from Hydraulic Fracturing Operations which was widely endorsed by both investors and environmental groups. Among many recommendations, the guide cited measurement of community impacts as integral to managing risk.

ICCR members have filed a total of 9 resolutions with Chevron this year including proposals calling for improved governance protocols and reporting on lobbying and political spending activities. Said Sonia Kowal of Zevin Asset Management who co-filed on several Chevron proposals on behalf of several clients, “In our dialogues with Chevron and other fossil fuel companies we ask management to consider new business models that will reduce the adverse impacts of their operations and get us to renewables sooner. We are somewhat baffled by the industry’s response. While companies say all the right things in advertising and on websites, they also continue to lobby heavily against the very regulations that are needed to make these advances possible.”

Alluding to heightened anxiety in the wake of new climate change data, President Obama’s promises for tougher GHG reduction goals and a growing movement on college campuses calling for divestment from fossil fuels, Laura Berry, ICCR’s Executive Director observed, “The world is watching these companies closely, and those that show leadership by advancing safer and more sustainable solutions to meeting global energy demands will be in a position to capitalize, thereby generating sustainable revenues for investors. In contrast, those that cannot innovate will succumb to the creative destruction as old models are replaced.

Observed Nash, “By its own admission Chevron knows what it should do, yet continues to drag its feet on implementation putting the health of millions of communities at great risk. How does a company of its size and status justify this position? When they receive their proxy statements in a few weeks, we urge Chevron shareholders and those of other fossil fuel companies to vote their proxies for the planet and for our future before it’s too late.”

###

Contact:
Susana McDermott
Director of Communications, ICCR
212-870-2938
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR):
Currently celebrating its 42nd year, ICCR is the pioneer coalition of active shareholders who view the management of their investments as a catalyst for change.  Its 300 member organizations with over $100 billion in AUM have an enduring record of corporate engagement that has demonstrated influence on policies promoting justice and sustainability in the world.

ICCR Publishes 2013 Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide

From Sustainablity Investment News
by Robert Kropp

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility reports that its members have filed 180 shareowner resolutions and engaged in 225 corporate dialogues this proxy season.

SocialFunds.com -- Last year's Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) represented a significant milestone in the history of corporate engagement by sustainable investors. For the first time, ICCR members—who had, in years past, filed as many as 650 shareowner resolutions in a single proxy season—engaged in more corporate dialogues than the number of resolutions filed; at the time of the Guide's publication, members had filed 160 resolutions and engaged in 170 dialogues. 

"The business case for sustainability has become more specific," ICCR Executive Director Laura Berry explained last year. "It's become more useful for companies, and they're starting to get the point. It no longer requires a belief system, because it's become meaningful for companies' business practices." 


ICCR recently published its 2013 Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide, which indicates that the organization's emphasis on corporate dialogue continues to evolve. Again, ICCR members report more dialogues than resolutions: 225 of the former, and 180 of the latter. "Corporate dialogues…are generally confidential and based on a mutual trust that is frequently the result of decades-long relationships and a shared commitment to sustainable operations and good performance," the Guide states. 

Which is not to report that the more confrontational practice of submitting shareowner resolutions is going away anytime soon. The inadequate global response to climate change, unsustainable overconsumption, and persistent wealth inequality all portray a world in danger of hurtling into crisis, and corporations are complicit in many of the causes. And while many corporations have improved their environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) performance—thanks in large part to the efforts of ICCR and other sustainable investment organizations—the stakes must continuously be raised. Publishing a sustainability report, for instance, is a laudable first step; but it is only a first step on a long path to genuinely sustainable performance. 

And so the task of filing shareowner resolutions continues. It can be a challenging task, requiring considerable time and expense as well as the formation of coalitions to meet Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requirements for filing. 

The Guide states, "While some resolutions represent ongoing requests to management, often re-filed over several years with increasing shareholder support, others are a direct response to a company's 'irresponsibility' on a specific issue, or other emerging events." 

Much of the slight increase in the number of resolutions files thus far this year—ICCR points out that the resolutions included in the Guide were filed before January 10th, and that the texts of resolutions filed afterward can be found on its website—can be attributed to last year's Presidential election, the most expensive in the nation's history. ICCR members have filed 52 resolutions addressing corporate political spending and lobbying expenditures. "In a system where one person, one vote is the supposed rule, American corporations are granted undue influence over our legislative process by virtue of their financial weight and, in the wake of the Citizen United ruling, this balance of power has tilted even further in favor of corporations," the Guide states. 

Resolutions addressing political spending, lobbying expenditures, and payments to trade associations were filed by ICCR members with many of the nation's largest corporations. At the time of the Guide's publication, very few had been withdrawn due to successful engagement. A resolution addressing lobbying expenditures by AT&T, for example, was withdrawn by its filer, the Needmor Fund; however, a resolution on the telecommunications giant's political spending remains of this year's proxy ballot. 

Chevron is another corporation facing separate shareowner resolutions on political spending and lobbying expenditures. The quality of the oil and gas company's corporate governance can be further discerned by the fact that a total of nine resolutions have been filed with it this season. One resolution, filed by the Needmor Fund and Zevin Asset Management, requests that Chevron report on the rationale behind the subpoenas filed by the company's lawyers targeting its own shareowners. The subpoenas were issued to "investors whose only 'sin' was challenging the company regarding its environmental damages in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest and the impact on investors of the $18 billion legal action against Chevron," Daniel Stranahan, Chair of the Finance Committee of the Needmor Fund, said. 

"We believe this is an unprecedented intrusion into investor communications related to an issue that has a distinct and negative impact on shareholder value," the resolution states. "This is seen by many investors as an unwarranted and irresponsible attack on private investor communications and if successful would establish a horrendous precedent opening the door for companies to sue investors who disagreed with them." 

Chevron has requested that the SEC to disallow the resolution from the proxy statement. In a letter to the SEC, Timothy Smith of Walden Asset Management and Sonia Kowal of Zevin urged the Commission to deny Chevron's request. 

"We believe strongly that investors have the right to convene meetings to share ideas and strategies, discuss corporate performance, and, ultimately, to join together to challenge a company if they believe its governance or environmental record raises significant questions about its long-term prospects," the letter states. "Granting Chevron its No Action request could be seen as opening a door to a potential flood of subpoenas by companies that disagree strongly with collaborative investor engagement on topics they oppose." 

Chevron also faces a resolution requesting that it report on the management of risks associated with the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing. Three other oil gas companies face resolutions addressing fugitive methane emissions from natural gas development, and shareowners have requested that Continental Resources reduce natural gas flaring in its operations in North Dakota. In all, ICCR members filed 36 environmental health resolutions on a range of issues. 

Members also filed 14 human rights resolutions, five of which ask companies to develop human rights policies that align with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

An excerpt:

As we prepare to bid 2012 adieu here in Washington, a phalanx of cameras are trained on Congress as they attempt to fulfill one of their old resolutions and to stave off the impending gloom portended by the "fiscal cliff." Unable to come to an agreement on taxes and spending months ago, they thought it best to give themselves a hard end-of-year deadline. The negotiating, we are told, has been nonstop for the last five weeks.

One of my former professors frequently asserted that the federal budget, and for that matter any budget document, is one of the premiere places where moral priorities and choices are most transparent. The struggle of our political leaders to come to an agreement at this late hour is in many ways a clear reflection of the differing values, beliefs and priorities that are found across society.

To view the entire document, please visit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-seamus-p-finn-omi/new-year-resolutions-and-corporate-social-responsibility_b_2392956.html

Through its work in the agricultural sector, ICCR has developed expertise that lead to the release of Principles for Sustainable and Equitable Food Production in November of 2012.

An excerpt:

Food has always played a central role in the world’s cultures and faith traditions. In religious life the spiritual dimensions of food are manifest in rituals such as food offerings,sharing, fasts, taboos and dietary practices. Examples of the sacredness of food from the world’s major religions are the Christian sharing of the Eucharist in Holy Communion, the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan, Jewish Passover and Kosher practices and Prasad offerings in the Hindu faith. The cultural dimensions of food are embodied in the harvest festivals, thanksgiving feasts and countless food ceremonies and traditions that mark rites of passage and milestones for people across the globe.Members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), many with global ministries in food-insecure communities, have long advocated for an equitable, accessible and sustainable food system that nourishes both people and planet.

The Current Food Crisis

There is an urgent need for a food system that will sustain the world’s people both now and for future generations. It is widely cited that agricultural production will need to increase 70% to feed the global population of 9 billion expected by 2050. Moreover, as a result of unfair trade, production and distribution practices, today’s food system fails to provide equitable access to nutrition for nearly one in seven people. Increased demand for biofuels and speculative investments in land are artificially inflating the price of vital natural resources and concentrating them in the hands of multinational corporations and hedge funds. The global economic crisis has driven millions around the world into poverty.We see evidence of the unrest caused by rising food prices in land and water conflicts that are surfacing with increased regularity not only in developing countries, but in wealthier countries long thought immune to the threat of food insecurity. The situation is exacerbated by the impact of climate change, which has produced increased flooding, more frequent and enduring droughts and pollution. How businesses respond to these growing pressures on our world’s food supply will determine whether hunger and poverty are eradicated or soar to new heights.

To read the entire Principles document, visit: http://iccr.org/issues/subpages/pdf/2012ICCRFoodPrinciples-lowrez.pdf