Author: Natalie Wasek

Fast Food – Slow (but steady) Momentum

Fast Food – Slow (but steady) Momentum

Natalie 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The proposal was withdrawn as Wendy’s has committed to pursue Science Based Targets (SBT) for Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.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

Natalie 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 proxyDeadline 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 requestSEC makes a decision on no-action request 
Any Time before AGMShareholder 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 AGMProponent published or files Proxy Memo / Exempt Solicitation 
~30 days before AGMProponent “builds vote” with Proxy Service companies 
4 days after AGMCompany files 8-K with proposal vote results 

See the SEC Bulletin with more information here. 

Just Transition to Clean Energy: A Virtual Conference

Just Transition to Clean Energy: A Virtual Conference

Natalie 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:

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

Chevron Investors Call for Climate Disclosure

Natalie 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

Earth Day

Natalie 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

Catholic Sisters Week

Natalie 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)

Sisters of the Most Precious Blood (O’Fallon, MO)

Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Aberdeen, SD)

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

Sisters of St. Dominic (Racine, WI)

Sisters of St. Agnes (Fond du Lac, WI)

Sisters of St. Francis (Rochester, MN)

Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi (Milwaukee, WI)

Sisters of St. Francis of Dubuque (Dubuque, IA)

Sisters of St. Francis of the Holy Cross (Green Bay, WI)

Sisters of St Joseph of Carondelet (St. Louis, MO)

Sisters of St. Joseph Congregational Center (St. Louis, MO)

Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondolet (St. Paul, MN)

Sisters of St Joseph –TOSF (Stevens Point, WI)

Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother (Oshkosh, WI)

Ursuline Sisters of the Central Province (St. Louis, MO)

A USDA Christmas

A USDA Christmas

Natalie Wasek

It’s hard to think about fall and winter holidays without thinking of food. Thanksgiving turkeys, Christmas roasts and cookies, and plenty of latkes and chocolate gelt are on everyone’s minds for the last two months of the year.

On December 4th, the USDA changed the Supplemental Nutritional On December 4th, the USDA approved changes to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP). Despite receiving thousands of negative comments, they proceeded with the first three proposed changes to the SNAP, all of which are expected to go into effect before the next presidential election.

Starting April 1, 2020, SNAP benefits will be cut for roughly 700,000 individuals, by reducing waivers and introducing new work requirements for able bodied adults without dependents. NPR Stated, “SNAP statutes already limit adults to three months of benefits in a three-year period unless they meet the 20 hours per week [work] requirement, but many states currently waive that requirement in high unemployment areas.” This rule change will make it more difficult to get this waiver. This initial change is expected to ‘save’ over $5 billion over the course of five years. 

The other two proposed rule changes would:

  • Close a “loophole that allows people with incomes up to 200 percent of the poverty level — about $50,000 for a family of four — to receive food stamps” and “prevent households with more than $2,250 in assets, or $3,500 for a household with a disabled adult, from receiving food stamps.”
  • Cut close to $4.5 billion “from the program over five years, trimming monthly benefits by as much as $75 for one in five struggling families on nutrition assistance.

If all of these proposed rule changes go into effect, approximately 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1 million fewer households would have received SNAP in an average month (Urban Institute).

According to the USDA website, SNAP provides nutrition benefits to supplement the food budget of needy families so they can purchase healthy food and move towards self-sufficiency. These changes are proposed in order to ‘cut costs and help individuals achieve this idea of self-sufficiency’. However, access to SNAP allows individuals to support themselves and provide nutritious food for their families. Many believe these changes affect not only the individual’s ability to pay for other necessities, but will add stress to local food pantries and other non profits (Lohud, Dec 10, 2019). These changes will lead to an increase of food insecurity, devaluing of life, and challenge the idea that dignity belongs to every human being. “In this case, the result is more hunger and hardship for the members of low-income families who are doing their best to make sure everyone is cared for” (The Atlantic, Dec 10, 2019).

As we gather around Christmas dinner with our families, let us pause for those among us who go without.

Wake Up and Smell the Hog Waste?

Wake Up and Smell the Hog Waste?

Natalie Wasek

It’s been nearly a month and I’m still thinking about the Food and Water Session panel I attended at ICCR’s Fall Conference. Panelists Kemp Burdette of Cape Fear River Watch, Elsie Harring of North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, and Martha Salomaa of Sipsey Heritage Commision spoke of the impacts associated with meat processing plants on local farms and how investors can affect change in this area. 

There are the same number of pigs as people in North Carolina. A fact surprising on its own, it bears more weight knowing these pigs produce roughly 10 times the amount of waste as the people. In addition to pigs, North Carolina has over 500 million chickens and turkeys producing even more waste. These factory farms or CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operation) and their respective waste lagoons and spray fields overwhelmed nearby farms and towns, mostly communities of color, with untreated waste which seeps into rivers, streams, and drinking water causing illness. This waste contains high levels of toxic gases including methane, hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia; nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus; and heavy metals such as copper which seeps into waterways causing harm to the health of rivers and communities nearby. Community complaints often go unheard and regulators rarely take any action to address these adverse environmental and health impacts.

Having listened to this panel, it came as no surprise to me that, according to Ceres’ 2019 Feeding Ourselves Thirsty report, the meat industry is the worst performing sector in managing water risks. This report tracked 40 major food, agriculture, and beverage companies and their management of water risks in operations and productions. While the food sector has improved its water risk management, 27 of the 40 companies tracked scored below 50%. In addition to this, “Of the 13 companies that have yet to assess water risks in their agricultural supply chains, six are in the meat industry.” 

Often, company executives claim ignorance of the impacts of their operations on communities near their plants and CAFOs even after communities voice complaints. Faith-based investor groups like ICCR help bring the community voice to the C-suite to demand remediation. However, the problem will continue to exist without comprehensive legislation and regulation to address these impacts on communities in a holistic way.

The Amazon is on Fire

The Amazon is on Fire

Natalie Wasek

The Amazon has been a hot topic this year, which is no surprise considering deforestation, including that of the Amazon, is the second largest contributor to climate change. The IPCC recently published a report on Climate Change and Land which identifies the restoring of landscapes and forests as one of the best, most cost-effective, options available to combat the devastating impacts of changing climates. But deforestation is also a leading driver of biodiversity loss, changing rain patterns and human rights abuses.

I attended the ICCR Fall conference session on deforestation where panelists Maria Lusia Mendonca of Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos, Aditi Sen of Oxfam, and Guarav Madan of Friends of the Earth gave insight on how to address deforestation and its impacts. 

As explained in this National Geographic article on the effects of fires in the Amazon, from earlier this summer, the Amazon absorbs and stores carbon, creates its own rain, provides water for Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay, and will affect climate change drastically if deforestation and these forest fires continue. The Amazon, as well as many other forests, is usually cleared for soybean growth and cattle farming to ultimately supply many of the companies that SGI members are engaging. Each year, illegal fires are set to clear land for more crops. 

This is a human rights issue as well. According to Amazon Watch: Complicity in Destruction, 

Brazil is the world’s deadliest country for those defending human rights and the environment, with agribusiness driving killings more than any other industry. Bolsonaro’s violent rhetoric has already been accompanied by a spike in rural violence, particularly against indigenous people and landless activists, emboldening militias controlled by powerful landowners to carry out attacks. His decree to loosen gun ownership in Brazil will almost assuredly aggravate violence, particularly in rural areas. By endorsing violence from major landowners, Bolsonaro fuels the intimidation of community leaders on the front lines of increasingly brutal land conflicts, including prominent indigenous leaders who now fear for their lives.

The New York Declaration on Forests set 2020 as the deadline for eliminating deforestation in the supply chain for agricultural commodities. While 2020 is around the corner, many companies, which have endorsed this effort as well as others, have not been following through on their commitments. Most will not meet their commitment to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains. Whereas some companies are making a concerted effort, others are greenwashing. They sign pledges without actually doing the work to achieve these goals. To show how some companies avoid honest dialogue around these issues, Frank Sherman participated in a role play at the conference with other ICCR members. This demonstrated how to engage companies on deforestation as well as the business responsibility to respect human rights.

A clear point that was made was there needs to be further action on deforestation outside along along with corporate action. There should be a call on public policy, not just on companies to address this issue.

SGI 2019 Conference Will Make An Impact!

SGI 2019 Conference Will Make An Impact!

Natalie Wasek

As fall begins to make an appearance, we start looking to the weeks and months ahead. While not everyone likes to leave the summer behind, fall brings the excitement of cool air, crisp leaves, spices wafting through the air, and the annual SGI conference, this year on Impact Investing: Social Return on Investment on October 7th.  This transition from summer into fall is the perfect time to evaluate the different impacts our institutions and we personally have on relationships, community, and society. How do we nurture what needs caring for? How do we help ourselves and others continue to grow and thrive? And, can our financial investments reap the same benefits while including this sense of intentionality?

We’re excited about the opportunity to listen to our keynote speaker, Seamus Finn, Missionary Oblate’s Director of Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation and ICCR Board Chair, and our expert panelists, who I’m sure will bring their opinion on the change of seasons, but more importantly will share their unique experiences and stories on impact investing.

The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defines Impact Investing as “investments made with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.” Imagine a world where our investments have an impact outside of solely generating a profit, creating positive change. Amit Bouri of GIIN, in an article geared toward faith based investors, explains:

Simply put, impact investing is investing to achieve both a financial return and positive, measurable social or environmental impact. It differs both from traditional philanthropy, which aims for impact but is unconcerned with financial returns, and from other forms of values-driven investment which aim at the avoidance of harm, but not necessarily the creation of additional, measurable positive benefits.

GIIN’s 2019 survey found that the impact investing industry is diverse, including many types of institutions investing in all asset classes. It continues to grow and mature with over $500 billion invested assets. Over 90% of impact investors report that returns meet or exceed their expectations. GIIN’s Impact Investing Guide provides an excellent background for our members.

We’re lucky to be welcoming George Hinton, Greg Lane, Salli Martyniak, and Ken Vander Weele to the panel, alongside moderator, Sr. Dorothy Pagosa to help us explore this topic. Our speakers and panelists will walk us through the purpose and focus of impact investing and all that it can hold. We’ll learn about their mission, motivations, takeaways, and advice in the growing market.

Born and raised in Milwaukee, George Hinton, CEO of the Social Development Commission (SDC) coordinates programs for Milwaukee County’s low-income residents. The SDC’s mission is to “empower people with the resources to move beyond poverty,” which they have been doing since 1963. Greg Lane, CFO of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, helps the sisters utilize their resources for the benefit of the common good. He has helped developed a mission-aligned impact investment portfolio and repurpose real estate according to need. Salli Martyniak, president of Forward Community Investments support “organizations, initiatives, and coalitions throughout Wisconsin.” They make it a priority to offer their loans and grants at an affordable cost to assist both the small and mid-sized projects and organizations. Co-founder and partner in Creation Investments Capital Management, Ken Vander Weele, will show us the global side of impact investing. Ken has worked in India, South-east Asia, Eastern Europe, and the United States investing in emerging market financial services companies that serve poor clients. His local and global work will show us the social return of impact investing around the planet. Finally, Sr. Dorothy Pagosa, Director for Social Justice for the Sisters of St. Joseph – Third Order of St. Francis and a member of SGI, will moderate the panel. Sr. Dorothy has first hand experience in identifying and managing impact investments in the midwest.

The event will be preceded by a member meeting and followed by a reception. We hope all of our members and friends will attend what is shaping up to be a very exciting conference.