Natalie Wasek

Happy New Year!

January 9, 2023Natalie Wasek

Happy New Year!

SGI is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Founded in 1973 by Michael Crosby, O.F.M., Cap., Alphonsa Puls and Charlita Foxhoven, S.S.S.F., who were pioneers in corporate shareholder engagement. SGI was the first coalition to join the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) to enhance our shareholder advocacy for systemic change.

Our name was changed to Seventh Generation Interfaith in 2015 in reference to the Great Law of the Iroquois to reflect the Native Americans’ love of mother earth and all creation. The Iroquois leaders considered the impact of their decisions on the current generation as well as for seven generations into the future. And in 2017, SGI became an independent 501(c)3. Now, SGI sits at 35 institutional members including 30 Catholic religious orders, a Catholic diocese, and a Catholic healthcare system, as well as three socially responsible asset management companies.

As we enter this new year, we reflect on the initiatives started by Father Mike and other pioneers:

Midwest Capuchins filed the first resolution with Home Products, followed by Bristol Myers and Nestle, to launch a campaign highlighting the connection between increased formula use and rising infant mortality rates in developing countries (1974).
Midwest Capuchins filed the first resolution supporting indigenous rights with Shell (1975).
Midwest Capuchins filed the first political spending disclosure resolution with ITT (1976).
Midwest Capuchins filed the first resolution on high U.S. drug prices at SmithKline (1976).
Midwest Capuchins filed a resolution with Bankers Trust for its lending to a Latin American military dictatorship (1978).
Midwest Capuchins launched a campaign concerning tobacco with Philip Morris (1981).
Midwest Capuchins filed the first resolution concerning global warming with Exxon (1986).
Grand Rapids Dominicans file first resolution calling for package reduction & recycling with General Mills (1994).
Midwest Capuchins file first resolution raising concerns about human rights violations in China at Boeing (1997).

Our impact continues to grow as more investors support our members’ work to catalyze corporate change. In 2022, SGI member filed or co-filed 59 resolutions where, three won majority votes at annual meetings: a racial justice audit at Johnson & Johnson, a civil rights audit at Altria, and a lobbying alignment report at Gilead, and the percentage of proposals withdrawn due to productive agreements with companies was 30%. Collectively, SGI members are a part of over 130 engagements at over 70 companies on issues ranging from Greenhouse gas reduction targets to lobbying and political spending, to racial justice, and affordability and access to medicines.

With Frank Sherman’s retirement, we celebrate and thank all he has done for the growth of our organization. Frank zealously underscored that SGI is a member-led coalition, and staff now will continue to do the same. Frank worked to involve each member organization, emphasizing the impact that they are making on behalf of people and the planet. He built a culture of active membership. In this, Frank recognized that this work needs to be a whole-of-society effort.

As staff, we are energized in the new year and hope to continue to grow SGI and to advance the mission of our members. We see this year ahead of us full of challenges from those who question the relevance or even the validity of ESG, but we continue to fight for shareholder rights and engage companies on pressing issues. Our coalition is growing stronger, and our message is spreading.

There is the fundamental joy of doing this together. We often ask, “Even if you were big enough to do this alone, who would want to?” We believe that our members have been enriched making this journey together. This year is a celebration of the past 50 years of hard work and a reminder of all of the work left to be done.

Barely Building Back Better

October 25, 2021January 10, 2022Natalie Wasek

All eyes and ears are open to learn what might be cut next from the Biden Administration’s Build Back Better Plan. News reports are fast and furious with the latest hints that come out of the room where it happens. The social policy bill initially set at $3.5 trillion is being cut to under $2 trillion resulting in a debate over what can be cut out and not be missed, and what can be decreased and still make an impact.

This isn’t however, just about the top line cost decision, though it is being presented that way by the media. The impact on real people and society cannot be separated from this price tag. The focus has been on the cost of the bill if it passes rather than the cost to society if this doesn’t pass.

The bill includes policies for child tax credits, paid family and medical leave, lower childcare costs, lower higher ed costs, lower prescription drug prices, clean energy and electricity, forest management, penalties for methane leaks, and programs for the formerly incarcerated, among others. Corporations are actively lobbying against the bill, in opposition to increased corporate taxes, expanded Medicare, and fees for carbon emissions. Yet businesses admit that they will benefit from the childcare, healthcare, education and climate provisions in the bill. One Senator remains firmly against the clean electricity provisions in the bill, despite the fact that his state of West Virginia is the most vulnerable to flooding due to climate change (The Daily, Oct 20, 2021). Another Senator opposes any corporate or income tax rate increase yet voted against those Trump-era tax breaks in 2017 (MSNBC, Oct 21, 2021).

SGI members had an opportunity to discuss the Build Back Better plan at our fall meeting. We discussed how SGI’s priorities align with the proposed plan and asked “if you were in Congress and had to make the decision, what would you cut from the bill?” It is not an easy question to answer, nor were we necessarily looking for our members to have the answer. Rather, we wanted our members to better understand the impact this bill could have on families, society, and the climate crisis.

Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis put it simply when addressing attendees at our annual conference: “we have to restructure our society around the needs of the poor.” If we created this divide and allowed poverty to exist, we can restructure the economy to get rid of it. This bill, if not cut to mere scraps, could have a significant role in doing just this.

SGI members disagree that the U.S. can’t afford the bill, and believe that the positive impact would far outweigh the monetary implications that are being argued over. This seemingly endless debate is a balancing act: weighing the impact of social safety against climate change. Paid family leave and child care, which are ways to address poverty, would make for better employees and thus be good for business. And, at this point in the game, one would think that the climate crisis should speak for itself. However, ironically, the US and 14 other countries are pledging to increase fossil fuel extraction over the next decade.

This is all to say that the challenges the Build Back Better Plan hopes to address are not going to disappear and will only get worse.

As investors, SGI members are engaging companies on many of these issues, stressing the importance of climate action, paid family leave, affordable drug pricing, responsible lobbying, etc. They see the importance of putting dignity to workers and individuals first and are asking companies to do the same. But we also know that these voluntary actions are not enough. It’s time for our elected officials to stand up.

Resilience: Building A Just and Equitable Economy for All – A Virtual Conference

October 5, 2021November 23, 2021Natalie Wasek

The world looks different today than it did ten years ago, than it did five years ago, and even different than it looked just last year. Like many conferences, we were forced to move our 2020 conference to a virtual format as we dealt with the effects of the pandemic. This year is no different.

We are still grappling with the “new normal” and the remnants of an out of date structure which put those who are most vulnerable, last. COVID-19 surfaced other issues that, while crucial, have previously been neglected. The exacerbation of economic and racial inequities demonstrated and accentuated the fragility of our systems, structures, and policies. The pandemic shifted the narrative around “non-essential” employees and raised awareness of the critical importance of frontline workers, such as: grocery clerks, meat processing and farmworkers, delivery drivers, and many more in maintaining business operations and in ensuring the functioning of our global economic system. Many of these workers are women and people of color and this public health crisis has demonstrated their vulnerability and the disproportionate economic and health impacts they experience.

In one week, on October 12, 2021, Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment (SGI-CRI) will hold its annual conference, aptly titled Resilience: Building a Just & Equitable Economy for All, virtually, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

As we begin the recovery process from the COVID-19 pandemic, we see a need and an opportunity to build a resilient society with systems and structures that are just and equitable for all. Our panel of company, investor, and labor representatives will offer their perspectives on how we can implement positive change from the learnings and challenges of 2020, dismantle systems that perpetuate gender and racial inequities, and build an economy that serves all people and ensures the dignity of all workers.

Our keynote address will be from Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, Co-Chair of the Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival. Our panel, moderated by Caroline Boden of Mercy Investment Services, will include lively discussion with a diverse group of experts:

Kevin Williams, Director – Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), American Airlines
Sr. Sue Ernster, F.S.P.A., Vice President, Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration
Edgar Hernandez, Assistant Director, Capital Stewardship Service, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

If you are interested in attending, and haven’t previously registered, please do so here

The webinar link and information will be sent out prior to the conference date. We hope to see you there.

Human Rights Remain a Focus

June 11, 2021July 28, 2021Natalie Wasek

SGI members have been engaging mac & cheese and ketchup producer, Kraft Heinz, on issues including nutrition, deforestation, and human rights for several years. In 2019, Kraft Heinz published a Human Rights Policy after withdrawal of a shareholder resolution filed by The Capuchin Province of St. Joseph. Subsequently, after an ESG materiality assessment, Kraft Heinz ranked human rights as among the issues with the greatest impact on the company and of most importance to its stakeholders.

The Capuchins and other SGI and ICCR members continued to engage the company on the implementation of their new policy. However, their lack of transparency and slow progress on implementing a due diligence process resulted in a low score of 21 out of 100, ranking 27 out of 43 companies on the most recent Know the Chain Benchmark, which has also identified tomatoes, cattle, and coffee being sourced by Kraft Heinz as having a high risk of human rights abuses. This was further confirmed by the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark who scored Kraft Heinz 7.5 out of 26, including 0 points on Human Rights Due Diligence.

Given this lack of progress, SGI members filed a second proposal asking the company to complete a Human Rights Impact Assessment to “mitigate against significant operational, financial, and reputational risks associated with negative human rights impacts throughout its supply chain.” Although the company undertook a global human rights risk assessment last year, they did not publish plans to complete a due diligence process. However, they have committed to undertake third-party due diligence audits prioritizing the most problematic countries and commodities identified in its risk assessment. Kraft Heinz further acknowledged that social audits are not designed to capture sensitive labor and human rights violations such as forced labor and harassment, and their due diligence audits will engage workers in a meaningful way to determine root causes and address remediation and capacity building. Based on this commitment, shareholders withdrew the proposal.

Despite the movement that we are seeing from the company, Kraft Heinz remains one of 106 companies whom ICCR members and allies are engaging on their weak human rights policy implementation. ICCR’s Investor Alliance for Human Rights reached out to those 106 companies, including others engaged by SGI members: Kohl’s, Macy’s, Phillips 66, TJX, and Yum! Brands, about scoring 0 across the human rights due diligence indicators in the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB) 2020 Report.

The statement sent to each company explains that “Companies need to know and show their respect for human rights under the UN Guiding Principles for Human Rights, through public disclosure of the implementation and ongoing results of human rights due diligence processes.” Similar to corporate greenwashing, companies often rely on policies, codes of conduct, and traditional audits which have been shown to be insufficient in addressing and remediating human rights impacts.

While it is important for a company to understand their material financial risks, a holistic human rights policy requires understanding of their salient risks. These salient risks focus on the risks to people rather than the financial performance of the company. Implementing a human rights policy and doing the proper due diligence is required for a social license to operate and should not create an internal dilemma. This is about fair and just treatment of people. It is not a question of if this needs to be done; it is a question of why it has not already been done.

Fast Food – Slow (but steady) Momentum

June 8, 2021July 1, 2021Natalie Wasek

As some of the most recognizable, cultural icons that dot the American (and global) landscape, it’s hard to go without seeing a growing drive-through line or an ad for a new product at a local chain restaurant. SGI members have engaged fast food and other consumer based companies on a variety of issues for years.

In the fast food sector, oftentimes we are urging companies to make improvements that some of their competitors have already made and are now expected. After a resolution is filed, a withdrawal generally means progress. Or at least, movement.

SGI members have been involved in a campaign led by Ceres and FAIRR, targeting fast food companies to improve their meat sourcing. These chosen companies are vulnerable to impacts of climate change, water scarcity, and other threats due to protein production. A FAIRR report states, “agricultural emissions, including those from meat and dairy, are on track to contribute approximately 70% of total allowable GHG emissions by 2050, creating an 11 gigaton mitigation gap required to stay under the 2°C threshold.” Of the six companies engaged in this campaign, SGI members lead on three: Wendy’s, Restaurant Brands International (RBI), and Yum! Brands.

After slow movement from Wendy’s, investors filed a resolution asking for a report on whether and how the Company plans to measure and reduce its total contribution to climate change, including emissions from its supply chain, and align its operations with the Paris Agreement’s goal of maintaining global temperature increases well below 2°C. This increased disclosure and target setting would not only be beneficial in reducing the company’s climate impacts but benefit consumers and shareholders.

The proposal was withdrawn as Wendy’s has committed to pursue Science Based Targets (SBT) for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Yum! Brands has been committed to the SBT process since a shareholder proposal in 2019 and has approved 2030 targets, including reducing GHG emissions by 46%, required to keep global warming to 1.5°C. RBI has also recently committed to the SBT process.

This is just a first step for these companies. As investors increasingly look for climate disclosure and transparency on environmental issues, setting SBT has become a trusted benchmark in addressing the climate crisis. Investors are encouraged by the move towards stronger climate targets and will use this momentum to continue this campaign working with these companies on water impact and water use.

Shareholder Resolution Timeline

February 15, 2021April 16, 2021Natalie Wasek

We often get questions on deadlines associated with the shareholder resolution process. Because SEC rules can be difficult to read, I have outlined the Shareholder Resolution Timeline. This won’t answer all the questions, but will hopefully make the process a little more digestible.

When companies do not engage with their shareholders on salient ESG issues, or they make insufficient progress, shareholders can resort to filing a resolution to be included in the company’s proxy statement and to be voted on at the company’s next annual general meeting (AGM). While the SEC approved several changes to the 14a(8) shareholder resolution process in the final months of the Trump administration, the timeline did not change.

According to the SEC, a proposal “must be received at the company’s principal executive offices not less than 120 calendar days before the release date of the previous year’s annual meeting proxy statement. Both the release date and the deadline for receiving rule 14a-8 proposals for the next annual meeting should be identified in that proxy statement.” Thankfully, a company’s proxy statement is required to state the deadline for resolution submissions for the following year.

After a proposal is filed, the company has 14 days to ask the proponent to fix any procedural requirements (e.g. proof of ownership, word count) if they are not met. The proponent then has 14 days to resolve those issues. If the proponent does not respond or resolve the issues, the company can appeal to the SEC to exclude the proposal. The company cannot omit the resolution without giving the proponent a chance to resolve the issues, or without an appeal to the SEC.

The company has up to 80 days before its proxy is printed to challenge the proposal via a no-action request to the SEC. The company is required to provide a copy of the no-action submission to the proponents and will be published on the SEC website. After a company files a no-action request, such as substantial implementation or micro management (full list for potential exclusion, here), the proponent can appeal this challenge to the SEC. The SEC’s timeline on this decision is usually driven by the company’s proxy printing; however, the SEC does not have to wait for the proponent’s appeal, and can make a decision at any time. Because of this, it is recommended that the proponent inform the SEC on their plans to respond, and submit their appeal to the SEC as soon as possible, generally within 30 days of receiving the no-action.The SEC no longer has to respond to the company’s no-action request in writing, but rather can post their advice to their website on whether the proposal can be omitted from the company’s proxy.

Oftentimes after a no-action request is submitted by the company, the proponents decide to withdraw the proposal, usually after they reach a mutual agreement with the company. While the proponent can withdraw their proposal any time up until the day of the shareholder meeting, we generally try to withdraw before the company’s proxy statement is printed. It is sometimes preferable to withdraw the proposal before the SEC sides with the company allowing it to omit the proposal, if the company’s no action arguments are compelling.

If the proponent does not withdraw the proposal, and the SEC does not rule in favor of the company to omit it from the proxy statement, the company has to send a management statement to the proponent. The statement, typically referred to as the company’s opposition statement, must be sent at least 30 days before the proxy is printed, recommending shareholders vote either for or against the shareholder proposal. If the statement of opposition makes any arguments that are false or misleading, the proponent can ask the company to make the appropriate changes. If the company makes any flagrant errors, the proponent can write to the SEC to challenge the statement, though the SEC does not have to respond to this challenge.

In preparation of the annual general meeting (AGM), the proponent has a few opportunities to “build the vote” by informing other shareholders why they should vote in favor of the proposal.

The proponent can write and publish a Proxy Memo, detailing more information on why they filed the resolution, and why voting for the resolution is necessary. This memo is usually published on the proponent’s website and distributed to other shareholders through partner organizations.
The proponent can also file an Exempt Solicitation. Similar to a proxy memo, it expands on the proposal and argues why other shareholders should vote in favor of the proposal. This document must be reformatted by a third party to be uploaded to the SEC Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR). It is then distributed to all subscribers to SEC filings for that company and is publicly available. This generally reaches more shareholders, and asset management firms.

Leading up to the AGM, to continue to “build the vote,” proponents can also reach out to proxy service companies or firms that prepare company reports and provide proxy voting service on behalf of shareholders. The proponent can also reach out to large asset managers to inform them of their arguments for voting in favor of the resolution, and can promote their proposal through the media to build awareness and support.

After the proposal is voted on at the AGM, the company is required to publish the results of the vote, and other matters discussed, in an 8-K SEC filing within 4 days of the AGM. These filings can be found on the company’s website.

The timeline can be complicated, so you may want to refer to the table below.

Summarized Timeline:

120 Days from release date of previous years company proxy	Deadline to submit shareholder proposal
14 Days (after submission)	Company exclusion based on eligibility or requirements
14 Days (after exclusion)	Proponent can resubmit proposal fixing the issues
80 Days (before proxy is printed)	Company challenge to SEC with a no-action request
ASAP (after No Action request)	Proponent to challenge or appeal the no-action request
Any Time after No Action request	SEC makes a decision on no-action request
Any Time before AGM	Shareholder can withdraw proposal
30 Days before proxy is printed	Company issues Management Statement recommending how to vote on the proposal, to be printed in the proxy
Any Time (usually 6 weeks) before AGM	Proponent published or files Proxy Memo / Exempt Solicitation
~30 days before AGM	Proponent “builds vote” with Proxy Service companies
4 days after AGM	Company files 8-K with proposal vote results

See the SEC Bulletin with more information here.

Just Transition to Clean Energy: A Virtual Conference

September 11, 2020December 2, 2020Natalie Wasek

Seventh Generation’s 2020 Conference will look a little different than years past.

Rather than a member meeting of networking, a panel of speakers on stage, and members, colleagues, educators, investors, advisors, and friends, we’re preparing for a virtual panel discussion, donning the style of a “Brady Bunch” title screen we all have been experiencing these past few months.

The year, 2020, marks 50 years since the first Earth Day, and we are grappling with the effects of the climate crisis. At present, and in years past, SGI members urge utilities, among other companies, to publish decarbonization plans that meet Science-Based Targets (SBT) aiming to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. Without corporate action, this is seemingly impossible. Moving towards a low-carbon economy presents new challenges on technology and the workforce.

This year’s annual conference: Just Transition to Clean Energy will take place virtually on October 12th, 2020.

Joining us to take on the questions of “what is a Just Transition?,” and “what does it mean for energy providers, employees, consumers, and investors?,” are:

Tom Content (Moderator) – Wisconsin Citizen Utility Board
Vonda Brunsting – Director of the Just Transition Project, Initiative for Responsible Investment, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Peggy Kelsey – EVP, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, WEC Energy Group
Cari Anne Renlund – VP & General Counsel, MGE Energy
Christina Herman – Program Director, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
Bob Stone – Assistant Business Manager, IBEW Local 2150

These expert panelists will bring a unique set of experiences and remarks, challenging each other, and us, on the path to achieving a Just Transition. A social issue as much as a technology, climate’s intersection with human work becomes more apparent in the energy sector as the push towards electrification grows. We are lucky to have this great panel lined up for this event, and we look forward to learning all we can from them!

It would be hard to hold this conference and not mention the impacts of COVID-19 on all those affected. While we hope our virtual conference allows for the inclusion of those previously unable to attend, we hope all are staying safe and healthy amid this pandemic.

If you are interested in attending, and haven’t previously registered, please do so here.

The webinar link and information will be sent out via Eventbrite prior to the conference date.

Chevron Investors Call for Climate Disclosure

July 7, 2020January 25, 2021Natalie Wasek

This is the first of a series on the 2020 shareholder meetings

Chevron Corp.’s busy annual shareholder meeting this year featured seven shareholder proposals, on topics ranging from lobbying, climate, and human rights. Cindy Bohlen of Riverwater Investments and Mary Minette of Mercy Investment Services co-filed the human rights proposal led by Sister Nora Nash, OSF, asking the company to provide a report on Chevron’s effectiveness to prevent, mitigate, and remedy human rights impacts of its operations. We were pleased to have received a vote of 17% for a first-year proposal. Other proposals were presented to the company during the AGM by notable figures: Alec Baldwin, Roger Waters, and Jody Williams, which focused on governance issues, and pointed to Chevron’s 50-year involvement (through its acquisition of Texaco) in toxic pollution in Ecuador.

Another resolution focusing on climate lobbying garnered a 53%, majority vote. The proposal asked the Company for a report explaining how it ensures its lobbying activities are aligned with the Paris climate accord and the goal of limiting global warming. This majority vote agrees with the investor push for companies to be more transparent about their lobbying activities, especially through their membership in trade associations.

Recent news highlights why this resolution, and this vote, are critical for the Company. Amid the Black Lives Matter protests, news reports tie Chevron to a public affairs firm urging journalists to examine how green groups were claiming solidarity with black protesters while backing policies which would “hurt” minority communities. Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University history professor and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt” said that it is “remarkable that the Company tried to leverage national unrest about systemic racism and police violence to promote an expansion of oil and gas drilling.” While Chevron has denied the claims of being a part of this campaign, it raises the question of Chevron’s public statements supporting the Paris Agreement, while its lobbying activities send the opposite message.

Additionally, the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against Chevron and other oil and gas companies for “systematically and intentionally misleading” consumers about the role their products play in causing climate change.” This lawsuit is of another way, of many, of which stakeholders are trying to hold the company accountable for its actions.
SGI members are calling on Chevron and other corporations to respect human rights. As a member of the Business Roundtable, Chevron signed on to the new statement of purpose for corporations to serve all stakeholders. It’s time for Chevron to live up to their rhetoric!

Earth Day

April 22, 2020September 23, 2020Natalie Wasek

While the term “climate change” had not been invoked by April 22, 1970, awareness of human involvement changing Earth induced a fear mixed with hope. Scientists could not see the future of our planet, and newspaper headlines at the time captured concern for the environment and for peace as protests surrounding the Vietnam War were met with groups putting cars on trial.

And as most of the United States currently sits in the unknown because of the COVID-19, the Earth keeps turning.

But with EPA rollbacks during a global pandemic, the US withdrawing from the ever-important Paris Agreement, and the impacts of the BP oil spill still being felt ten years later, it can be difficult to find those positives. But they do exist.

Many improvements have been made since that first Earth Day, now 50 years ago. The current National Geographic depicts how life expectancy has increased along with food production, more people have access to clean water and electricity, and pollution levels (overall) have fallen. Even during this crisis, we see renewable energy, like solar and wind, growing in capacity.

Coupled with this uncertainty of the environment, for me comes a feeling of nostalgia: remembering the saplings handed out to us in elementary school, thinking about the recycling program my grandmother started in her town, visualizing the passion Denis Hayes had in organizing the first Earth Day. These individual acts, small notions, and world movements all exude a hope of possibility of positive change. From a young age, environmental activists like Severn Suzuki, Greta Thurnberrg, and Delaney Reynolds witness to a heartfelt passion as vibrant as Hayes’. Students are urging their universities to divest from fossil fuels. Community gardens push back against the concrete that dominates our cities.

On the first Earth Day, 50 years ago, New York City’s Mayor Lindsay put it simply; “Beyond words like ecology, environment, and pollution there is a simple question: Do we want to live or die?”

Catholic Sisters Week

March 11, 2020April 16, 2020Natalie Wasek

Building Relationship

This week, March 8th – 14th, we honor all Catholic Sisters – vowed women who care for the sick and in need; who educate and mentor children; who are concerned for the environment and all of creation; who advocate for the most vulnerable and act against injustices; who stand with those affected by poverty, homelessness, and migration; and who create peace.

Of Seventh Generation Interfaith’s 39 members, 26 are congregations of Catholic Sisters. Each congregation is unique in its’ charism and mission, working with the SGI coalition to manage the impact large corporations have on people, the environment, and society. They approach corporate engagements with a prophetic voice that comes from authentic hands-on experience with impacted communities and first hand knowledge of the environment, which enable them to build relationships with the corporate executives on a human level.

SGI attempts to align our issue priorities with issues of importance to our members. Collectively our Sisters have engaged companies like C.H. Robinson and Yum Brands on Climate Change, Abbvie and Walt Disney on Lobbying, Kroger, Yum Brands, McDonald’s, and Costco on Deforestation, Ameren and Chevron on Water Impacts, Kohls, TJX, Kraft Heinz, Costco, Wendy’s, Amazon, Boeing, Core Civic, Geo Group, JPMC, and Wells Fargo on Human Rights, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Biogen on the Affordability of Medicine, and countless more.

Not surprisingly, our Sisters are actively doing much more in their communities and throughout the world, on top of their work in challenging corporations on environmental, social, and governance issues. The School Sisters of Notre Dame are serving students who are single mothers, nuns, and senior citizens. The Sinsinawa Dominicans are working to confront attacks on the common good in Washington, DC. The Sisters of St. Agnes and other members of UNANIMA International, a U.N.-based coalition of Catholic congregations focused on concerns of women, children, migrants and the environment, brought international homelessness concerns to the forefront during the annual convening of the U.N.’s Commission for Social Development. The Sisters of the Good Shepherd recently joined the Interfaith Immigration Coalition’s (#Faith4Asylum) Nonviolence Campaign Stop the Inhumanity in support to those seeking safety in the U.S. The Ursuline Sisters continue to sponsor five academies across the country educating students rooted in the gospel call to mission lived in the spirit of St. Angela Merici.

These are but a few examples of the work our Sisters do day-to-day. We are thankful for all of the work they do and for their participation in our socially responsible investing work. To learn more about the charism and ministries of each of our members, visit their websites, linked below, and don’t forget to thank a Sister this week!

To all of our members, thank you for your dedication to making this world a better place.

Dominicans of Sinsinawa (Sinsinawa, WI)

Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (LaCrosse, WI)

Little Falls Franciscans (Little Falls, MN)

Mercy Investment Services (Frontenac, MO)

School Sisters of Notre Dame, Central Pacific Province (Elm Grove, WI)

School Sisters of St. Francis, Generalate (Milwaukee, WI)

School Sisters of St. Francis, US Province (Milwaukee, WI)

Servants of Mary (Ladysmith, WI)

Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Dubuque, IA)

Sisters of the Good Shepherd Province of Mid-North America (St. Louis, MO)

Sisters of Mercy of the Holy Cross (Merrill, WI)