Investor Engagement by a Novice

By Judy Sinnwell, OSF Dubuque

A year after retiring to Mount St. Francis in July 2015, the president of our congregation asked if I would facilitate the formation of what came to be the Sisters of St. Francis-Dubuque SRI Working Group. My previous ministry experience was elementary education-administration, adult formation, licensed health practitioner and after-school tutoring in the rural south. Saying ‘yes’ acknowledged that the topic would be interesting and that the ‘working’ part of the label would have me personally engaged in a significantly new arena addressing life’s meaning and purpose.

And so it has! Especially in recent years, as active ownership has effectively increased its voice and influence in the investment arena. Belonging to a faith- and values-based investor coalition, Seventh Generation Interfaith based in Milwaukee, provided education, professional resources, and mentoring in this important work, which for the Dubuque Franciscans, is a way of keeping our congregational mission alive.

Sr. Judy Sinnwell, OSF

One thing I became aware of in those first years was the annual general meeting, the AGM, which a company has for shareholders to weigh in on important company matters. Being a co-owner enabled me to file a shareholder resolution, challenging the company to make improvements in its governance, environmental and social practices. It seemed to be the right thing to do when we had the chance; but at times, it felt a bit intimidating. Recently, that was my experience as a co-filer on a resolution presented at the Tyson Food Inc. annual meeting.

The resolution asked for human rights due diligence in Tyson’s meat packing sites across the country. Iowa has several Tyson sites; one is in Waterloo, where Rath Packing Co. once had a positive reputation and provided a level of economic mobility for Blacks who migrated from the South until it was shut down in 1985. Learning about workers’ conditions during the COVID pandemic in Tyson’s Waterloo plant, where our congregation provided staff at two elementary and a central high school, became a concern and made this an obvious focus of our shareholder action.

When the resolution was made public and the AGM date was nearing, Investor Advocacy for Social Justice (a sister coalition to SGI) began to build awareness among the press and all shareholders who would have a proxy vote on the proposal during the meeting. Reporters from the Des Moines Register and Reuters contacted me for comment, specifically interested in the fact that ‘nuns’ were engaged with a national company; and the Iowa connection because of the negative news that had been previously reported about the Iowa Tyson site and COVID. Their news coverage educated readers about the broad impact of shareholder action. Each request also made me very aware that this experience was not something I anticipated when I agreed to facilitate a group investment effort five years previous!

Was it worth it? Definitely! Yes! Taking the chance to be the voice for marginalized sisters and brothers had to be done. It’s who we are as Dubuque Franciscans. And it stretched me. The support of faith-based and value-based organizations like SGI and IASJ made this possible as an investor. It’s what the world needs right now as one way to reclaim the commitment to the common good and the dignity of the individual person in the economic arena.

Essential Workers: COVID-19 and Racial Equity

On February 19th, SGI’s quarterly member webinar examined how the engagement season will be shaped by the pandemic and racial justice issues. We are grateful that Corey Klemmer of Domini Impact Investments and Hanna Lucal of Open MIC joined us to enrich our conversation. We had some great interaction in the question and answer period, and we added some resources that were shared in the webinar’s chat feature to a final slide in the slide deck.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans were shocked at the sight of empty shelves in stores as global supply chains sputtered to keep up with the demand for a variety of products. The fragility of these supply chains has suddenly become evident to a lot of Americans who expect them to always operate seamlessly. Global supply chains connect people worldwide, from garment workers in Bangladesh to consumers in the United States. They are built to be ruthlessly efficient, manufacturing and delivering goods exactly when and where they are needed. The ability to move quickly and seamlessly across the globe also helps companies find cheaper labor or other opportunities to make products more cheaply. While this system may be good for corporate owners and supply chain managers, it takes a toll on workers. In the face of COVID-19, poultry workers literally put their life on the line every time they punch in to work. The opportunity of 2021 is to place worker dignity at the center of supply chain transformation plans.

The Black Lives Matter movement has also created an unprecedented urgency for a more genuinely diverse and inclusive workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted devastating effects on the U.S. economy, with job losses, especially concentrated among women, minorities, and low-wage workers. It illustrates the systemic racism that lives in our financial institutions. Corporations are making statements in support of Black Lives Matter, but statements are easy. Ensuring that People of Color are hired, paid, promoted, and retained equitably is less so. We cannot allow the corporate response to be merely words. Together, we can compel action.

Again, we are very grateful for the presence of Corey and Hannah in this webinar, for their commitment to this work, and their generosity in sharing their wisdom and experience with us. As always, we welcome your feedback via a confidential evaluation found here. Slides are available here.

Shareholder Resolution Timeline

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. 

Writing letters is easy; Will BlackRock act on it?

Today, BlackRock’s Larry Fink issued his 2021 letter to CEOs. As usual, the New York Times devoted significant coverage to it. Again, we at SGI are heartened by Fink’s words. I’ll call your attention to this nugget near the letter’s conclusion:

Questions of racial justice, economic inequality, or community engagement are often classed as an “S” issue in ESG conversations. But it is misguided to draw such stark lines between these categories. For example, climate change is already having a disproportionate impact on low-income communities around the world – is that an E or an S issue? What matters is less the category we place these questions in, but the information we have to understand them and how they interact with each other. Improved data and disclosures will help us better understand the deep interdependence between environmental and social issues.

I loved this line: “And now, business leaders and boards will need to show great courage and commitment to their stakeholders.”

At the same time, I am reminded of the “Peanuts” comic. Time and again, Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she will hold a football while he runs up to kick it. Initially, Charlie Brown usually refuses to kick it, not trusting Lucy. Then, Lucy says something to persuade Charlie Brown to trust her. Charlie Brown runs up to kick the ball, but at the very last moment before he can kick it, Lucy removes the ball. As a consequence, Charlie Brown flies into the air, falls down on his back, and hurts himself.

We’ve seen these letters each year from Fink, and we have written about our reactions to them before. Nonetheless, when it comes to voting their proxies, BlackRock, like Lucy, yanks the ball away (See: BlackRock voted against climate resolutions over 80% of the time in 2020). To be honest, I hope that I am wrong. I pray for an abundance of “great courage and commitment.” Time will tell if 2021 will be any different.

COVID-19 and Racial Justice: Pharmacy Deserts

We know that our healthcare system does not work well for those who are poor. Studies report that socioeconomic disparities in health care are significantly worse in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries. These disparities have daily real-world implications. Over the last ten months, we’ve seen how those who are poor are more likely to be infected with COVID-19 and, ultimately, to die from it, especially people of color.

The pharmaceutical industry deserves praise for producing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines so quickly. However, drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them. Those pharma companies have been pursuing monopolistic deals with the fruits of taxpayer-funded innovation, rather than volunteering to share their know-how to get those vaccines to everyone, everywhere, at the lowest cost possible and as quickly as possible. This is why SGI members joined other investors in asking pharma companies to take into account public financial support for development and manufacture of vaccines or therapeutics for COVID-19 when making decisions on access and prices.

Similar to the term “food deserts,” research has also disclosed a phenomena of “pharmacy deserts” in the journal Health Affairs. Frankly, it is foreign to my experience. I live within ten blocks of four pharmacies: a CVS, two Walgreens, and an independent pharmacy. Meanwhile, neighborhoods in cities like Chicago increasingly are places where people are unable to fill medical prescriptions locally because their drugstores have closed or will not accept Medicaid. A pharmacy desert is the result of basic economics: because pharmacies get the lowest reimbursements for filling Medicaid prescriptions, companies are more likely to close stores in low-income, minority neighborhoods and open them in wealthy ones.

According to new research published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, racial disparities in mortality are not improving despite an increasing awareness of the problem and a focus on social determinants of health. Apart from COVID-19, Black mortality remains far higher than white mortality in America’s 30 largest cities. Add in COVID-19, and Axios reports that, in the U.S., 22,000 Black and Latino Americans would still be alive today if their coronavirus mortality rates were the same as white people.

Systemic racism has found its way into vaccine distribution as well. To address these concerns, Dallas County, Texas aimed to prioritize COVID-19 vaccine doses to “the county’s most vulnerable ZIP codes, primarily in communities of color.” The plan drew the ire of state officials who threatened to cut off the county’s vaccine supply, and county officials quickly retreated. In Dallas, as in other major Texas cities, distribution sites are more commonly located in white neighborhoods, and early data showed that Dallas County had distributed most of its shots to residents of whiter, wealthier neighborhoods.  Black and brown people who are disproportionately affected by the coronavirus are also least likely to get vaccinated. There are lots of reasons why, but access to the internet to sign up for shots, and access to pharmacies and hospitals to receive the shots, are significant issues.

To beat this virus as quickly as possible, the Biden administration, state and local governments, and corporations must work collaboratively to prioritize the distribution of the vaccine to those communities most at-risk, especially people of color. 

SGI Board Elects Officers for 2021

SGI  is pleased to announce the election of board officers for the year 2021. These include:

  • President: Cindy Bohlen, Riverwater Partners
  • Treasurer: Peg Groth, Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother International Finance, Inc.
  • Secretary: Ann Roberts, Dana Investment Advisors

Both Peg and Ann are continuing in their positions as officers. Cindy Bohlen, Chief Mindfulness Officer at Riverwater Partners, leads the firm’s sustainability practice and does primary research for the health care and technology sectors. Cindy has prior research experience at Robert W. Baird and M&I Investment Management. She added a sustainability lens to her investment process while working for another private firm and for a local foundation. Cindy earned a B.B.A. in Finance and a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. In addition, she is a CFA® charterholder. Cindy joined SGI’s board this year.

The outgoing board president is Dan Tretow, Director of Financial Services in the International Office,  School Sisters of St. Francis. Dan, who served as board president from 2018 through 2020 remains on the SGI board and will participate in the development committee.

Frank Sherman, executive director of SGI, said, “I congratulate Cindy on her election as president of the SGI Board of Directors.  Her commitment to ESG issues and her professional experience are great assets to SGI.  We value her leadership at SGI and know that she will help guide us in our work for people and planet.”

The entire team at SGI thanks Dan for his service as president. Under his leadership, we have grown in members, hired staff, expanded our corporate engagements, and commenced our annual conference. We are grateful for Dan’s generous service to our organization since the 1980s and to the School Sisters of St Francis, one of our founding members.

The SGI board is elected by SGI members in staggered three-year terms. Board members elected in the October 11th member meeting were: Caroline Boden (Mercy Investment Services), Ed Fitzpatrick (The Fitzpatrick Group, Wells Fargo), Ann Roberts (Dana Investment Advisors), and Sr. Carmen Schnyder  (Sisters of the Precious Blood). The board officers are elected by the board, as per the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. To learn more about SGI’s board, click here

Supreme Court to weigh in on Child Slavery

Today (December 2nd) is International Day for the Abolition of Slavery.

Yesterday, in a cruel irony, the U.S. Supreme Court heard consolidated oral arguments in Nestlé USA, Inc v. Doe I, Docket number 19-416 and Cargill, Inc v. Doe I, a consolidated case on U.S. corporations and liabilities for alleged child slave labor violations abroad.

The basic facts of what happened are beyond dispute: six Africans were trafficked out of Mali as children, where they were forced to work long hours on Ivory Coast cocoa farms and locked at night into shacks. Attorneys for the six Africans argued that the companies should have better monitored their cocoa suppliers in West Africa and have liability. The countries of the region grow about two-thirds of the world’s cocoa, and child labor is endemic.

Looking at the docket files for the case, one finds amicus briefs from Coca-Cola, Chevron, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a joint filing for three trade associations (National Confectioners Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and the European Cocoa Association), all in support of Cargill. As well, the Washington Legal Foundation and the Cato Institute filed amicus briefs in support of the corporations.

Cargill and Nestle selected a lawyer well-known to MSNBC aficionados to represent them: Neal Katyal, a former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, and the creator of an inspiring TED Talk.  Both companies have strongly worded policies against child labor and human trafficking and the like. All of the amicus briefs stated that they abhor child slavery and the corporations actively take steps to eradicate such practices among their suppliers.

The broad outline of the companies’ argument is found in the second page of Katyal and his team’s brief:

Plaintiffs’ brief confirms that all they have alleged (and can allege) is that Nestlé USA lawfully purchased some cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire and exercised some generalized supervision. The true wrongdoers are the Malian and Ivorian traffickers, farmers, and overseers who injured Plaintiffs in West Africa.

In other words, the practices of Nestlé, Cargill and, by extension, Chevron, Coca-Cola, and all multi-national corporations with dispersed supply chains are sufficient. The terms of their contracts are clear and exclude child labor, human trafficking, and all forms of modern slavery. Occasionally, they do audits of their suppliers. Isn’t that enough? How can a company be responsible for all the actions of their suppliers?

At issue, according to the briefs, is liability under the Alien Tort Statute, a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  It has been enshrined in U.S. law for more than 230 years. To me, the most interesting exchange during the hearing was between Justice Elena Kagan and Katyal (pages 19-21 of the transcript):

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Katyal, is child slavery, not aiding and abetting it but the offense itself, is that a violation of a specific universal and obligatory norm?

KATYAL: We’re — we’re not – yes, I think we’re not challenging that here. It’s just the aiding and abetting.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So, if that’s right, could a former child slave bring a suit against an individual slaveholder under the ATS?

KATYAL: So they — if it were – if it weren’t extraterritorial and it wasn’t a corporate action, yes.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Yeah, no problem extraterritorial, no problem aiding and abetting, just a straight suit.

KATYAL: Correct.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. And could the same child — former child slave in the same circumstances bring a suit against 10 slaveholders?

KATYAL: You know, if they – if they met the — you know, the requirements under the — the law, yeah, sure. I mean, if they —

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So if —

KATYAL: — if it was a plausible allegation.

JUSTICE KAGAN: — if you could bring a suit against 10 slaveholders when those 10 slaveholders form a corporation, why can’t you bring a suit against the corporation?

KATYAL: Because the corporation requires an individual form of liability under a norm, a specific norm, of — of – under international law, which doesn’t exist here. I think Sosa in Footnote —

JUSTICE KAGAN: I — I — I guess what I’m asking is, like, what sense does this make? This goes back to Justice Breyer’s question. What sense does this make? You have a suit against 10 slaveholders, 10 slaveholders decide to form a corporation specifically to remove liability from themselves, and now you’re saying you can’t sue the corporation?

Justice Kagan was pointing toward an amicus brief from the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges filed in support of the six Africans. In the brief, Oona Hathaway sets forth a compelling argument that:

Slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking constitute the worst forms of human exploitation. The law of nations has long prohibited these practices in specific, universal, and obligatory terms. Indeed, these prohibitions are among the most longstanding, deeply rooted prohibitions in international human rights law. Each of these prohibitory norms of international law extends, moreover, to natural and juridical [corporations] persons alike. (p. 33)

Citizens United v FEC decided that corporations are people, when it comes to political spending, but corporations are now arguing that they are not people when it comes to child labor, human trafficking, and modern slavery.

I won’t pretend to know how this court will decide the case, but it should go without saying that aiding and abetting slavery is wrong, whether it is done by an individual or a corporation.

Thanksgiving Blessings and Prayers for Those Without

After reading this morning’s headlines (“Dow Cracks 30,000 for First Time“), I went for a run. I had heard the 1 minute press conference yesterday where President Trump referred to this milestone as a “sacred number”.

In a contrast that has defined this year, I listened to the NYT The Daily podcast: A Day at the Food Pantry during my run. A Times journalist described her visit to a food pantry in Brooklyn a few weeks ago. In pre-Covid days, this pantry served 60 people a week and is now dealing with a line of over a thousand. The journalist interviewed people in line, most of which had never visited a pantry before the pandemic hit. “This is my worst nightmare.” The journalist even shared a bit of her own past, growing up on food stamps and sharing a frozen burrito with her sister. Although painful to listen to, I highly recommend you take the 36 minutes to listen to it. 

The pandemic has exacerbated food insecurity that already existed in the U.S. The crisis has revealed the dysfunction of our food system and how structural inequalities contribute to the growing number of food insecure and hungry across the nation. Job losses from the pandemic overwhelmingly affected women, low-wage earners, and minority workers the most. As a result, one in six adults were food insecure two months into the COVID-19 recession. Feeding America reports that, among children, the projected food insecurity rates for 2020 range from 15% (North Dakota) to 32% (Louisiana and Nevada). You heard that right: one third of the children in the richest country of the world go to bed hungry!

So as I sit down to our Thanksgiving turkey tomorrow, perhaps feeling a little sorry for myself for not being surrounded by our typical family gathering, I will count my blessings and pray for those without.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you… 

Webinar: Fossil Fuels: Engage or Divest

On Monday, November 9th, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank recognized climate as a risk. Investors of all types can no longer afford to be on auto-pilot concerning investments in fossil fuels. This webinar explores two options: active engagement or divestment. We hear from Rob Berridge and Morgan LaManna of Ceres on how the recommendations of the CA 100+ and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) can enhance engagement with companies. We hear from Fr. Peter Bisson, S.J., former provincial of the Canadian Jesuit province. Under his leadership, the province became the first province to divest from fossil fuels shortly after Laudato Si’. Again, we are very grateful for the presence of Rob, Morgan, and Fr. Peter in this webinar, for their commitment to this work, and their generosity in sharing their wisdom and experience with us. As always, we welcome your feedback via a confidential evaluation found here. Slides are available here.

Reflections on the 2020 Election

By Frank Sherman

Like many in this country, I was glued to the TV and cell phone last week waiting to hear the final outcome of the most contentious election in modern history. I volunteered for the first time at a polling location on the south side of Milwaukee to see Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the midst of the worst pandemic in the last century.

Shortly after the race was called for Biden & Harris on Saturday, ICCR issued a statement saying “We have faced many obstacles and headwinds over the last four years… we must turn the page and get back to work.” Ceres said the election results are a “win for our health, our planet, our economy and our future.” The Catholic Climate Covenant added “the work begins anew to heal together and to work together to protect God’s creation.” I must admit, my heart rate lowered… until Monday morning when reality set in.

The cover article of The Wall Street Journal stated that the election looks like it may yield a “dream scenario for business: a moderate Democratic president whose more aggressive plans can’t pass the Senate, but who eschews the unpredictability that has often marked the Trump administration”. As COVID infections and hospitalizations hit new records this week, and unemployment and food bank lines grow ever bigger, the stark realities facing the next Administration…and us…came back into focus.

So what can we take away from this election? Analyst Bruce Mehlman states that, although President Trump lost for failing to competently manage the pandemic and for sowing excessive chaos and division, House Democrats lost because voters feared too-aggressive ‘socialist’ policies from the Left. We learned that the electorate is not monolithic….and the 72 million Trump voters are not all white nationalists. Many fear that globalization and technology threaten their jobs; their voices aren’t heard by the coastal elitist; and they fundamentally disagree with some policies offered by the Left (e.g. defunding the police, decriminalizing the border, ending fossil fuels, higher taxes).

Our nation remains closely and bitterly divided. Both parties face internal battles over future direction and leadership. Biden is viewed as a transitional leader, hired to manage COVID and bring back civility to our politics. A divided Congress will limit his options. He’s already dismissed      Healthcare For All, the Green New Deal, and a Wealth Tax from the progressive wing of his party. He will now have to rely on executive orders and his regulatory authority to even execute his more moderate agenda.

But there are reasons for hope. Biden is a legislator with a history of finding common ground with Congressional opponents. He is an institutionalist with respect for the people, processes, and      protocol that make government work. The business community recognizes the growing expectations of their stakeholders, asking for them to stand for a higher purpose and to speak out for more inclusive and equitable public policy. The global investor community is demanding corporations to address their environmental and social impacts that haven’t yet appeared on their quarterly earnings statement.

I don’t expect the GOP to suddenly take a knee, like the guards in the Wizard of Oz, to say “All hail Dorothy. The wicked witch is dead!”; no more than I expect Senator Bernie Sanders to invite Senator Mitch McConnell over for Thanksgiving dinner. But as we approach the holiday season, we all can learn from the words of that great and powerful Wizard: “A heart is not judged by how much you love; but by how much you are loved by others.”