Climate Change is now a Climate Crisis

By Frank Sherman

Recently, we took time to reflect on another eventful engagement season and to chart the strategic direction for the coming year.

Looking back at the 2019 engagement season and more than one-hundred climate engagements by ICCR members, we observe:

  • In a notable exception, the electricity generation sector is at a decarbonization tipping point driven by cheaper renewable energy, growing industrial and public demand, and changing public opinion. Securitization laws, distributed energy resources (e.g. rooftop solar) and community solar projects are growing in popularity. The “electrification of everything” shows promise of demand growth, energy savings and environmental sustainability. A growing number of utility companies (nine, according to NRDC) have followed Xcel’s lead by committing to carbon-neutral electricity production by 2050 or sooner.
  • In the face of regulatory rollbacks, natural gas production and distribution companies are committing to voluntary methane leakage reduction targets to salvage the ‘bridge-fuel’ story. With 6000 mid- and small-scale producers, the majors are now advocating for a stronger regulatory regime! Investors have been successful in tying support for meaningful regulation to reputational risk.
  • As investors shifted from demanding scenario assessments to Paris-compliant business plans, U.S. oil & gas companies continued to defend their business-as-usual business model while their European counterparts broke rank. A BP supported climate resolution obtained a 99+% vote while Shell agreed to set GHG reduction targets for their products as well as their operations. In contrast, CA100+ investors at Exxon Mobil recommended voting against the Board after the company omitted their GHG reduction target proposal.
  • With noted exceptions (Wells Fargo and Goldman), large financial companies are starting to assess climate risk in their portfolios. Mid-cap companies were slower to respond to our letter campaign, largely it seems, due to limited capacity to conduct broad risk assessment. Investors will connect them with tools they can use to do a straightforward climate footprint analysis.
  • Political spending and lobbying resolution votes, several of which emphasized climate change, increased to 31%.
  • Engagements calling for science based (GHG reduction) targets made slow progress in contrast to the scientific community call for more urgent action.

Impacting the climate science and changing political landscape, 2018 was the wettest year on record while wildfires in California resulted in the first climate change bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric. Global carbon emissions reached a record, and the U.S. power sector reversed its’ multi-year decline.  The IPCC special report warned that countries’ pledges to reduce their emissions are not in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Some are responding to the crisis – 80 countries are planning to increase their climate pledges ahead of schedule. The UK is the first member of the G7 to legislate net zero emissions, joining Finland and Costa Rica.

The 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment Report starkly warns of risks to the U.S. economy while the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks are poised to increase GHG emissions significantly. Public opinion is finally shifting with over 70% of Americans saying climate change is a reality, with most believing human activity is primarily responsible. Republican millennials support a carbon tax 7-to-1 with 85% stating that the Republican position on climate change is hurting the party. The Midterm elections flipped the House of Representatives and 7 state governorships to Democrats. Twenty-one states have now joined the U.S. Climate Alliance committed to the Paris Climate Agreement. Four states (CA, WA, HI, NM) and Puerto Rico have targeted 100% clean energy by 2050 or sooner, with nine additional states (IL, MA, MI, MN, MS, NC, NY, PA, WI) proposing similar legislation. The Green New Deal resolution changed the conversation on Capitol Hill and the Climate Action Now Act put the House on record as supporting the Paris Accord.    

Financial markets are not immune to this crisis. Munich Re predicts climate change will price regions out of insurance. The broad acceptance of the TCFD guidelines increases pressure on companies to improve disclosure.

Considering the broader investor landscape and NGO campaigns, the CA100+ global initiative focused on large emitters and led by large asset managers, pension funds, and sovereign funds. Some ICCR members participate in the CA100+ teams while others continue parallel engagements to reinforce the message. Still others are shifting focus to mid-cap companies. We believe that more coordination is needed to increase effectiveness.

Efforts to make methane emissions reduction targets the norm have been limited to the oil & gas majors and larger natural gas producers. The EPA’s proposed rollback of the New Source Performance Standards regulating oil and gas emissions will further erode the regulatory floor, especially as the EPA now proposes to deregulate methane. We look forward to publication of an EDF study on methane measurement and mitigation and Union of Concerned Scientists has formed a working group to study CCS.  

Efforts towards a Just Transition have born fruit as investors and companies have a growing awareness of the unintended, negative consequences that decarbonization has on people. We made a good start with last October’s investor statement, representing $3.7 trillion in assets, and the CA100+ framework, which includes just transition questions; however, most companies lack the policies and practices to address these issues. Addressing the needs of employees, customers and local communities will accelerate transition rather than deter it.

Recalling Fr. Mike Crosby’s prophetic statement, “We are at a Kairos moment,” we look forward to developing with our allies a new strategy statement regarding future engagement of the oil & gas sector to help investors differentiate between fossil fuel companies making progress and those protecting business-as-usual models. Rollout will be stepwise with more guidance forthcoming. Finally, alongside our allies, we have reviewed a draft climate change principles which reflect an increased urgency and stepped up action.

Finally, let us turn to our 2020 engagement strategy. Given our progress in recent years within the electric utility sector, we expect to expand engagements further into mid-cap companies and push for net-zero carbon targets. We will collaborate with NGO’s and other partners to engage the state utility commissions and give input on the Green New Deal. ICCR is planning a multi-stakeholder Roundtable in December to discuss the challenges of decarbonization and promote a just transition.

Investors engaging the financial sector are promoting a shift from simply assessing climate change risk to their own operations to assessing the climate-related risk they facilitate through their lending and underwriting. Coordinating with the Climate Safe Lending Initiative, they plan to engage the top five U.S. banks and some regional banks in 2020 on climate risk. Investors will ask banks to follow the TCFD recommendations, complete a climate impact assessment, pledge no new fossil fuel investments, and ultimately, decarbonize their portfolio (Banking on Climate Change: Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card 2019). Planned for early September, an investor brief and webinar will educate interested investors. As well, we will ask smaller banks to join the Platform Carbon Accounting Framework to calculate their carbon footprint.

Our methane work will continue to promote best practices in measurement and management to minimize methane leakage. We plan to engage companies on including their “non-operated assets” (i.e. joint ventures) in their methane targets, and step up engagement of distributors and retailers to source “sustainably produced” natural gas. At the same time, we recognize that natural gas can no longer be viewed as a “bridge fuel” to clean energy and agree that no new gas power plants can be justified given the climate crisis. On the other hand, replacing industrial and residential uses of natural gas remains a challenge.

It is clear that we recognize the increased urgency and need to step-up our demands. Within ICCR, we reflect this by the change to our Program name from Climate Change to Climate Crisis. This can no longer be considered a gradual change. We are in crisis mode so we need to respond differently!

ICCR Conference Highlights

By Ann Roberts, Dana Investment Advisors

As always, the ICCR March Conference was an energetic gathering of investors and allies, and attendance was record-breaking. One noticeable change from past conferences was a movement toward a more holistic approach to addressing shareholder concerns, echoing the overarching theme of Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ that everything is connected. For instance, impact on human rights—the S in ESG–is threaded through all the issues we work on, and it is vital to consider this when advocating for specific changes in environmental and governance issues, as well as social.

Vonda Brunsting, Program Manager, The Just Transition Project, Harvard University

Some highlights include discussion of the Just Transition, which concerns the consequences of transitioning from fossil fuels on stakeholders (loss of jobs in the switch to renewables, loss of tax base for communities, etc.)—merging the E and the S. Worker-driven social responsibility (WSR) efforts such as the Fair Food Program and Milk with Dignity were also discussed. We are asking companies to switch from a mindset of company risk to worker risk. If something is bad for the worker, it is bad for the company. The final session on racial justice was particularly impactful as it reminded us that wealth is created by ownership of assets. Contrary to what politicians and others try to tell us, jobs are not the answer to closing the racial wealth divide. Our tax policies favor capital over labor, which disproportionately helps white people and penalizes minorities.

Most of all, this conference once again confirmed for us that there is strength in numbers. We are better together—and we are all connected.

“E Pluribus Unum”

By Bro. Robert Wotypka, OFM, Cap.

Nothing like a splash of Latin to capture the attention of many a Catholic. Has it worked? Good. This phrase is not from the Bible. As far as I can tell, Saint Jerome, who crafted the Vulgate Latin version of the Scriptures, and who was, by many accounts, not a lot of laughs, did not need or use it. Anyone know the Latin for “From one, three?” Now that would be elegant – and theologically correct.

“Out of many, one” was the motto of these United States of America (and a hearty “Hello!” to all our international readers) until 1957, when it was replaced by “In God We Trust.” Is either motto descriptive? Or aspirational? Or both? Or neither? The phrases come to mind in the context of today’s readings, for Wednesday of the Third Week of Lent (March 27, 2019), and in the context of my attending, as the province’s Corporate Responsibility agent, the twice-yearly conference of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility, which the Province of Saint Joseph participates in through its membership in the Seventh Generation Coalition for Responsible Investing.

The revelation of God to our ancestors in the Book of Deuteronomy, as proclaimed today, is this:

‘This great nation is truly a wise and intelligent people.’
For what great nation is there
that has gods so close to it as the LORD, our God, is to us
whenever we call upon him?
Or what great nation has statutes and decrees
that are as just as this whole law
which I am setting before you today? (Dt: 4: 6-8)

Jesus engages the law, too, in Matthew’s Gospel, underscoring that it will endure, that it is binding on all generations, even in the bright and wonderful light of the Incarnation. How so? Long story short: because the covenant is enduring, the law is likewise enduring.

Scripture is speaking of the Mosaic law. But it is not so with us, not so, with regard to our relationship with the state. We change laws, and we must. Or we take what was once custom or tradition and codify it. This was the case in the transition of the national motto, which was unofficially “E Pluribus Unum” from 1782 until the official law was passed in 1957 and “In God We Trust” was adopted.

Being a nation of ever-changing laws aligns with the wisdom of the Church, which speaks of itself in the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes as being ever in need of reform Franciscan spirituality begins from the necessity of being ever open to conversion, aka reform. And this aligns with my work as the Corporate Responsibility agent, which asks companies to be ever open to reform, to turn away from doing harm when harms are identified, and to embrace doing good: good for your customers, good for your employees, good for our common home, and good for your shareholders. And long will the company prosper that finds no contradiction in this.

May I then propose a reform? It comes from “the cry of the earth,” to use Pope Francis’ image from Laudato Sí. All but a fringe-y few acknowledge the need to mitigate the harms from catastrophic climate change that’s occurring as a result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial Age. Power generation accounts for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions. Moving away from energy generated from the burning of fossil fuels must therefore be among the first reforms wrought in the economy and the culture.

But it won’t be easy. Every utility has the ability to source its energy as it sees fit, that is, there are few obstacles preventing a power company from choosing a coal-fired power plant over, say, a wind farm or a solar array. Whatever is built will be regulated, but there are few laws specifying what is to be built, or none in many locales. Every utility is accountable to a public utility commission – and each PUC has its own laws, across all 50 states. Oh, and then there’s the rest of the world. Some nations have laws in place to oblige utilities to move toward renewable energy sources, and some do not.

Lord, give me the wisdom to ever trust you. I do. And I discern, and I invite and welcome your discernment, that it is now time as well for E pluribus unum, with regard to energy production. Out of the many companies and utilities and nations must emerge one set of laws, grounded in care for creation and love of our common home, that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the hope that future generations will not suffer needlessly as a result of our choices.

Pope Francis also wrote in Laudato Sí that realities are more important than ideas. Would you like to see what a just transition to sustainable energy looks like? Please, go here: https://www.powermag.com/indiana-utility-will-close-coal-units-transition-to-renewables/

And let us go in peace.

Investing in firearm safety

Last week, some SGI members (Sr. Ruth Battaglia, C.S.A., Sr. Reg McKillip, O.P., Mark Peters, and Dan Tretow) and I found ourselves in a rather unusual meeting amid law enforcement, retailers, medical professionals, advocates, public officials, media, investors and philanthropists. Hosted by Common Ground, the Industrial Areas Foundation, and Do Not Stand Idly By (DNSIB), the Gun Safety Expo offered a forum for leading developers showcased products that can prevent gun theft and unauthorized or accidental shootings.

SGI and ICCR have been collaborating with Do Not Stand Idly By on gun safety issues. You may recall Sr. Judy Byron’s wins with Sturm Ruger and American Outdoor Brands

DNSIB and ICCR are working on a coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence via a market strategy. As DNSIB puts it, “Our tax dollars buy about 40 percent of the guns in America. The military buys about 25%, and law enforcement 15%. This is enormous market power.” At this time, our cell phones have better safety features than any gun on the market. If law enforcement demand smart guns (e.g., those that require fingerprint recognition or other technologies), suspects could not use their guns against them. As well, it creates a market demand for more secure devices. Homeowners with guns are more likely to have them used against them (or by their kids) than used in self-defense. A new study shows that household gun ownership can pave the way for a high suicide rate among young people. Smart weapons would reduce senseless deaths. Gun manufacturers can take steps, without any change in laws, to make guns safer so that lives may be saved.

SGI members offered the following reactions:

While I have never been around guns, have no desire be introduced to them, and fail to comprehend some people’s need to have ready access to a gun, attending the Firearm Safety Expo nudged me to accept, if not fully embrace, a non-polarized way of addressing the deadly impact of guns. Innovative safety technologies offer some hope in reducing the number of gun-related suicides, deaths, and injuries. We, as socially responsible investors, can join our voices with public officials, law enforcement, and legal services in asking gun manufacturers to develop and use gun safety technologies that make their product child-proof, useless to thieves, and able to save the lives of police and civilians alike.

Sr. Ruth Battaglia, C.S.A.

I guess I was hit with the irony of it all….The more we make guns safe, the more attractive it would be for people to purchase them. We also can use that same logic with gun manufacturers who are not wanting to invest in safety measures…the safer you make the gun, the more people will feel comfortable purchasing a gun.

Sr. Reg McKillip, O.P.

It was very well-planned like all IAF and CG [Common Ground] events, and I was impressed with all the partners they’d brought into the campaign, like the Medical College of WI, and all the elected officials who were present. It is definitely not the whole answer as far as gun control, but it may be the only approach that has a chance in the current political climate. I’m not a gun owner or user, but if I was I think I would have been very interested in some of the products that were either in development or already on the market.

Mark Peters

[The event] was very interesting. I think they had the right players in attendance. The law enforcement presence was especially impressive (WI, IL and OH). The trigger locks make a lot of sense for the existing guns. I think the Biofire presentation and his fingerprint stock was the best idea at the show. I hope his smart gun technology turns into the new standard for weaponry in home safety/security and law enforcement/military application. I hope the gun manufacturers take this into consideration going forward. I agree with the speaker that said incentives will help promote the use of these devices. Government (local/state/federal) use and demand for smart guns by law makers will hopefully cause less accidental shootings and suicides.

Dan Tretow
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett

Among the public officials present were: Tom Barrett (mayor of Milwaukee), Chris Abele (Milwaukee County Executive), John Chisholm (Milwaukee District Attorney), and Barry Weber (Wauwatosa Chief of Police). Vendors included: Biofire, Everwatch, Gun Guardian, Identilock, Ignis Kinetics, SAAR, Safety First Arms, and Vara. These represent companies demonstrating user authenticating guns, personalized locks and gun tracking products. The Oak Creek campus of Milwaukee Area Technical College hosted the event. As home to the Regional Police Training Center, a shooting range was available to allow for live demonstrations.

Some additional coverage of the event:

ICCR provides an excellent, detailed list of coverage of investor action around gun safety here.

Externalities vs. Solidarity

By Brother Robert Wotypka, O.F.M. Cap., Corporate Responsibility agent for the Capuchin Province of St. Joseph

Writing from the twice-year meeting of the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility in New York, I apologize to any of our readers who have MBAs. My MBA sisters and brothers likely could discuss this topic more thoroughly and competently, and of course your comments are welcome.

But a term and its meaning arose yesterday at a panel convened by ICCR, “When No One is Watching: Corporate Responsibility in an Age of Deregulation.” The term is “externalize.” A for-profit enterprise seeks to “externalize” to the fullest extent possible the costs of operating its business. For example, if a manufacturing or mining process produces an undesired aftereffect or element – airborne mercury from burning coal, or PCBs from industrial output – an enterprise, in the absence of regulation, will simply dump these residuals untreated into the air, into the water, into the ground. And this externality will become a matter of concern for residents local, national, global. And governments and elected officials will or will not respond to the harms caused by these externalities, these unregulated outputs, as history reveals.

Externalizing also occurs in a service economy. An enterprise can pay wages so low that its employees are eligible for SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which means the state in part pays for the care of feeding of the employees, and not the enterprise. Or an enterprise can so limit the hours its employees are allowed to work that they are not eligible for or cannot afford health care, which rules out preventative care, which means the employees end up using emergency rooms. And these costs have to be subsided by fundraising in the case of non-profit hospitals, or subsidies in the case of for-profit health care entities. Either way, the enterprise increases its profits by lowering its costs.

Externalizing costs is analogous to “othering,” the mindset that says that some of our brothers and sisters are unequal or lesser and can be discharged, can be discriminated against. Where is God in this? Today’s Gospel acclamation is taken from Philippians, “I consider all things so much rubbish that I may gain Christ and be found in him” (Phil 3: 8-9). Talk about externalities! But Paul is not wrong, rather, this understanding is redemptively inverted. Reverence for creation requires that all be gathered together, all be invited, all be saved. We take this from Paul, too, who teaches elsewhere, “When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will [also] be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15: 28). So, again – where is God in this? Only in all.

The Christian vision and the Franciscan movement aims toward no externalities: no one and nothing goes without notice, and compassionate care is brought to those locked in material suffering and disenfranchisement. And the suffering that comes to some of our brothers and sisters from externalities belongs to and is the responsibility of all. Faith-based shareholder activism brings this vision to the corporate world. Please join in this work wherever you can.

ICCR Climate Change Strategic Review

By Frank Sherman

The ICCR Climate Change Workgroup met in mid-June, hosted by the Nathan Cummings Foundation, an ICCR member in NYC, to evaluate the progress over the past year and chart out a path forward for the 2018-19 corporate engagement season. We took time to reflect on the social and faith trends; review the political and economic landscape; and map the growing investor actions on climate. We then evaluated our progress over the past couple years before developing a SWOT analysis, mission and vision. In the afternoon, we discussed the path forward by re-directing the existing programs and discussing some new areas to pursue.

Jake Barnett (Morgan Stanley Graystone), together with Mary Beth Gallagher (Tri-State CRI), presented the climate justice perspective by describing the disproportionate adverse impacts climate change has on vulnerable communities. These include decreased agricultural production due to drought resulting in increased migration, disproportionate impacts on women, increased disease burdens due to intensified heat and insect-borne diseases, and displacement from intensified storms due to lack of resilience (e.g. Hurricane Harvey and Maria). In addition, roughly 1.1 billion people lack access to electricity, making the provision of clean, affordable energy essential for communities trying to escape poverty. Unlike secular asset managers, the faith community can elevate climate change from a partisan political discourse to a moral issue that we are all called to address. We need to be bold and exhibit urgency by leveraging partner organizations (Human Rights Watch, Earth Justice, Sierra Club, etc.), and put a human face on the climate change impacts.

Aaron Ziulkowski (Walden Asset) provided the political and economic overview noting that, despite growing awareness, global GHG emissions continue to rise, although they have leveled off in OECD (developed) countries. The national commitments made in Paris fall short of the 2 degree scenario and get the world nowhere near the 1.5 degree ambition. Transportation has replaced electricity production as the top emitter in the U.S. due to the displacement of coal by natural gas. Despite the White House announced withdraw from Paris, several states have set targets for GHG reduction, renewable energy and CAFÉ standards (which reduce auto emissions) that exceed federal standards. Japan, the EU, China and India continue to increase CAFÉ standards while Trump’s EPA rolls back U.S. targets. The EPA is being sued for rolling back methane emissions standards in oil & gas production. Economists are confident that economics wins over politics with the cost of unsubsidized wind and solar electrical power now competitive with fossil fuels. We agreed to step up public advocacy and pressure corporations to do the same if the U.S. wants to remain competitive in a low carbon world.

Jamie Bonham (NEI) mapped the growing awareness and complexity of various investor groups to manage climate risks and opportunities. ICCR has to find its unique voice while leveraging these larger asset managers and NGO’s. Sean Wright of EDF presented some ideas for continued engagement on methane engagements (“The ICCR methane campaign is making a critical difference”). Rob Berridge of Ceres discussed the overlap of the Climate Action 100+ (CA100) with existing ICCR engagements with 40 U.S. companies. He has been identified as the Ceres contact with ICCR on the CA 100+, and will encourage CA100 teams to include ICCR members in their engagements or at least keep us connected (note that SGI members are on the CA100 teams for Exxon, Chevron and Valero). Ceres will analyze the Fortune 500 companies to identify climate laggards that have slipped through the cracks for ICCR to consider engaging.

In assessing ICCR’s progress over the past couple years, we noted advances with heavy GHG emitters by asking for long-term 2-degree scenario plans and science-based reduction targets (SBT). We’ve made more progress with utilities than the transport sectors, while O&G companies continue to hold on to their business-as-usual model, although they too, are starting to develop 2degree scenario reports. ICCR also led the methane campaign with good results (…as attested by EDF) due to our trusted corporate relationships, convening power with companies and non-ICCR investors, and ability to bring NGO expertise and investor focus. Finally, ICCR members were ahead of the investor world engaging global banks and asking for climate related disclosure consistent with TCFD guidelines.

In reviewing ICCR’s capabilities, we felt our strengths included our reputation for long-term, respectful yet challenging engagements; our moral credibility to speak for people and planet; and collaborative culture between members and partners. However, we recognize that often times we lack focus and are spread too thin; we’re not as diverse as desired, in terms of race, faith traditions, and younger generations; and we’re sometimes not clear or consistent in our objectives (“asks”). Opportunities include focusing on climate justice; engaging mid-cap companies: regional companies in communities where we have a presence (CRI’s); diversifying our membership with millennials and other faiths; and better collaboration with partners (e.g. Ceres). In addition to the current political environment, we recognize threats to our dated model such as aging/consolidation of faith members; corporate opposition to shareholder rights; and overlap with some of our partners.

We developed a draft Mission statement: “Through the lens of faith and as stewards of creation, we engage companies as investors and participate in public advocacy to accelerate the just transition to a low carbon economy consistent with the Paris Climate Accord and in preference to those most vulnerable.” We then brainstormed a Vision or what success looks like in terms of the companies we engage, the communities for which we advocate, the environment and society. Out of this came the realization that ICCR needs to stay above political partisanship while having the audacity to (continue to) speak truth to power; be pioneers in addressing emerging, cross-cutting issues; and be true to our justice mission.

Going forward, we will continue the SBT engagements by collaborating with CA100, expanding the energy utility list, adding the Fortune 500 laggards, and identifying mid-cap/small-cap companies in communities where we have members. Engagement of local companies has the potential added benefit of encouraging support for pro-climate policies more broadly. We will shift our conversation from 2 degrees (where too many people will suffer) to 1.5 degree scenarios and will seat our climate change work within a frame of “Just Transition”. Just Transition focuses on the needs of workers and communities as the energy economy transitions away from a reliance on fossil fuels. We plan to expand the methane campaign by challenging the ‘clean natural gas’ mantra – working more closely with affected communities, engaging companies across the value chain, and bringing larger asset managers to the discussion. We will establish an Amazon team where we hope coordination among investors and collaboration with select NGOs will achieve better results than the individual efforts to date. This big tent effort with Amazon will address issues across program areas, including climate change. Finally, we will broaden the effort to engage the financial sector, focusing on regional banks.

We concluded with agreement that the growing investor attention towards climate change is a welcome development that is especially needed in the current political environment. ICCR needs to stay true to its mission and focus on those activities that incorporate marginalized communities and their needs into the vision that guides our corporate engagements.

ICCR Human Rights/Human Trafficking Strategic Review

Two weeks ago, Frank Sherman and I participated in the ICCR Program Strategy Week. The Program Directors met with their Work groups in NYC to evaluate the progress over the past year and chart out a path forward for the 2018-19 corporate engagement season. This article will summarize the human rights/human trafficking session.

Estimates indicate that 27 million victims fall prey to trafficking and slavery each year and that it is a global trade valued at $32 billion dollars. But due to the clandestine nature of these crimes and the reluctance of victims to speak out because they live in fear of physical retribution and/or deportation, trafficking and slavery are typically very difficult to uncover and prosecute. Through the Human Rights/Human Trafficking (HR/HT) Work Group, ICCR members ask the companies they hold to adopt human rights policies that formally recognize human trafficking and slavery and to train their personnel and their suppliers to safeguard against these risks throughout their supply chains. Human rights provides an umbrella for all ICCR efforts.

Investor Alliance for Human Rights (IAHR)

The day prior to our session, the Alliance met as well. It will take some time to define action that corresponds to IAHR or to the HR/HT work group as both groups are concerned with issues that overlap. The Alliance has three components: Human rights responsibilities of investors, collective action, and multi-stakeholder engagement.

The IAHR:

  • Promotes implementation of human rights due diligence by companies
  • Encourages the creation of enabling environment for responsible business conduct through awareness raising, standard setting, and regulatory development – states, multi-lateral institutions, the UN, development banks and, of course, investors
  • Encourages engaged companies to develop and strengthen activities and process to provide remedy
  • Builds partnerships with business community, NGOs, trade unions, local communities and others to leverage this work

It seems likely that the IAHR will focus, this year, on Banking and Tech sectors as it relates to salient human rights issues. Again, it will take some time to develop the necessary coordination between the efforts of IAHR and ICCR working groups.

Ethical Recruitment

Even though we no longer have a full-time staff position, ICCR will sustain efforts in this area. Significant progress has been made, but more work remains to be done.

Companies face significant challenges related to ethical recruitment strategies. Historically, it has been difficult to make progress on labor rights/working conditions for companies in their first tier. Now there is a new paradigm where companies need to think about their labor supply chains in every tier. There is a state of paralysis and it is hard to make progress. While there are leaders who are making progress, not enough companies are following. Most companies focus on attending conferences and webinars and think of a legal response: “What is the shape of the risk to the company?”

When the companies attempt to assess their risk, they often rely on risk-mapping platforms that all tend to give a sense of the country risks (using the State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report and/or the Labor Department’s child and forced labor report listing countries and commodities), but not go any deeper. Further, the auditing systems need training and refinement: If you don’t ask the right questions, you won’t find forced labor. Occasionally, corporate legal counsel can suggest that the company may not want more information about recruitment as it may open the company to litigation concerning what is discovered. As well, we need to develop clear standards to separate the good from the bad recruiters. Currently, only certain sectors and commodities have been the focus of recruitment: ICT, seafood sector and palm oil sector, and coffee. This work will need to be broadened.

A critical question for work: what is the true cost of recruitment? There is the cost of recruitment, and there are charges that migrant workers pay that are not recruitment costs but the cost of corruption. More focus on this issue is needed plus an emphasis on companies sharing the cost of recruitment with suppliers as well as workers who have paid getting reimbursements. Again, progress has been made, but we must deepen and extend that progress.

Sex Trafficking

We spent some time in discussion about how we might engage companies in the airline industry, hotel industry, transportation sector, and the tech sector. We assessed some of the corporate engagements in recent years as well as identified some of our allies in this work.

Legislative Priorities

We also discussed legislative and regulatory priorities in the upcoming year concerning human trafficking. A significant priority is the re-authorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). In the U.S. House (HR 2200)
and in the U.S. Senate (S1311, S 1312, S 1862), bills may come to the floor during this year. Given the mid-term elections and other factors, these bills may not be considered, but advocates are continuing to call for this. Additionally, we want to be mindful of the appropriations process in a few areas: State Department programs to end human trafficking; State and foreign appropriations; some provisions in the Department of Labor as well as Health and Human Services; and appropriations for Homeland Security’s enforcement of the ban on forced and child labor.

In the fight against human trafficking, a critical role for faith-based investors, then, is to continue to work with “Know the Chain,” engaging corporations and boards in conversations about supply chain and due diligence. These efforts keep the issue spotlighted.

Supporting Materials

  1. Materials on the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals:
  1. Know the Chain Benchmarks – 2018 Benchmarks Company Lists (ICT, F&B, Apparel and Footwear)
  2. International Tourism Partnership’s Principles on Forced Labor launched June 12th: http://www.greenhotelier.org/our-news/industry-news/hotel-sector-unites-under-itp-to-tackle-forced-labour/
  3. “Ripe for Change: Ending Human Suffering in Supermarket Supply Chains” Oxfam’s new report, June 21, 2018
  4. One page summary of Global Forum on Responsible Recruitment In Singapore,  June 11-12, 2018