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

ICCR Food and Water Strategic Review

By Frank Sherman

Last week, Chris & I participated in the ICCR Program Strategy Week. The Program Directors met with their Workgroups 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 Food strategy session.

The Food Workgroup has been focused on several issues over the past few years including the overuse of antibiotics in meat, supply chain deforestation, food waste, nutrition, pesticide use, and worker rights. As would be expected, many food & beverage (F&B) companies are confronted with many of these risks. Different ICCR investor groups often times deal with the same company in silos, leading to inefficient and ineffective engagements. In the future, the company leads will try to discuss their issue objectives and strategies with each other annually, inform each other of upcoming dialogues, and support each other with joint agendas.

Animal agriculture accounts for 70% of antibiotic use, most of which is not medically necessary. Although we are engaging the meat producers, our focus has been on restaurants and retailers. We have been successful in reducing antibiotics in poultry with Sanderson Farms being the last holdout (43% vote). We’ve made far less progress on beef, pork and turkey; however we anticipate a beef policy from McDonald’s by the end of the year which may be the catalyst for the industry. We will also collaborate with Karner Blue Capital on engaging F&B companies on animal welfare issues.

Deforestation has been a nexus of issues from deforestation and soil erosion to biodiversity loss and land & labor rights abuses. Investors and allied NGO’s have made considerable progress on palm oil with 74% of SE Asia’s palm oil refining capacity now covered by these No Deforestation, No Peat, No Exploitation (NDPE) sourcing policies. We plan to weigh in on RSPO’s update of the Principle & Criteria to strengthen them. Company commitments to source certified timber & pulp are also fairly extensive whereas commitments on sustainable beef and soy are far fewer, partly due to the lack of investor and NGO focus. This coming season, we will work with the broader global PRI investor coalition to focus on these commodities at companies who are creating the biggest impact.

With up to 40% of food (and all the resources that goes into producing it) wasted in the U.S., investors are calling on F&B companies to assess, reduce and optimally manage their food wastes. Kroger stepped up with their Zero Hunger-Zero Waste program with a target of zero food waste by 2025. Progress was also made at Target, Darden, McDonald’s, Kellogg and Hilton. The company target list will expand next season with stronger demands for companies to measure and report on waste reduction progress.

With more than 1 in 3 adults and 1 in 6 children considered to have obesity in the U.S. while 15% of American households are food insecure, nutrition continues to be a societal issue that we focus on. ICCR investors are engaging F&B manufacturers, retailers and restaurants to establish nutrition policies, improve product profiles, and change their marketing strategies, especially towards children. We have made progress in collaboration with the Access To Nutrition Index to encourage companies to improve their ranking. We will continue to work with UConn Rudd Center on marketing to children and minority communities.

We’ve increased our focus on food supply chain labor rights. We continue to support of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers and are starting to advocate for meat processing workers in the U.S. We are planning a campaign on the poultry sector where workers are typically immigrants and often undocumented leading to abuses. This is also the case for farm workers who are subject to unethical recruitment practices. We plan to work with Oxfam who’s recently released report, Behind the Barcodes, exposes the root causes behind human suffering in food supply chains.

The Food Workgroup has a full agenda, and Seventh Generation Interfaith members are welcome to jump in.

SGI joins investor statement on 5th Anniversary of Rana Plaza Disaster

At the fifth anniversary of the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh which resulted in the deaths of over 1,100 garment workers, SGI joins ICCR members in an investor statement assessing advancements made to improve worker health and safety in the Bangladesh apparel sector.

Within months of the disaster, the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety was established as a model for collective action between brands and retailers sourcing in Bangladesh, as well as global and local trade unions, and NGOs, to inspect the country’s apparel factories and implement necessary reforms to safeguard workers.

Led by the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, the Bangladesh Investor initiative, an investor coalition comprising 250 institutional investors representing over $4.5 trillion in assets under management, was formed in May of 2013 to urge a strong corporate response to Rana Plaza including participation in the Accord. Further, in their engagements with companies the investors made four main recommendations:

  • Join the legally binding Accord on Fire and Building Safety (Accord) signed by trade unions, brands and retailers with NGOs as witness signatories;
  • Commit to strengthening local trade unions and ensuring a living wage for all workers including through their engagement with the Bangladesh government;
  • Publicly disclose all their suppliers including those from Bangladesh;
  • Ensure that appropriate grievance mechanisms and effective remedies, including compensation, are in place for affected workers and families.

The investors argue that supply chain transparency is critical to safeguarding worker safety and employer responsibility since visibility into extended supply chains, including sub-contractors, is a precondition to identifying risks, including safety, forced labor, harassment, discrimination and denial of freedom of association.

“Stakeholders, including investors, rely on transparency as a tool for evaluating corporate performance on a range of social, environmental and governance issues,” observed Lauren Compere, Managing Director of Boston Common Asset Management. “The Accord has been very transparent in requiring disclosure of each of the 1,600 factories it covers which helps investors track progress. This disclosure requirement is a ‘best practice’ that all companies need to implement, beginning with 1st tier suppliers, then throughout their extended supply chains.”

The Accord model has proven to be effective due to the binding nature of the agreement, and a governance structure that has equal representation of brands and trade unions with an independent chair from the International Labor Organization.

“We applaud the Accord for Fire and Building Safety for establishing safer factories through collective action at an unprecedented level, with 220 brands using their leverage to change supplier behavior in partnership with global and local trade unions,” said David Schilling, Senior Program Director, ICCR. “This transformative model should be applied and adapted to at-risk supply chains in other sectors and countries.”

Investors have been pressing companies and their boards to take the ‘high road’ when setting prices to enable factories to pay fair wages and comply with workplace human rights standards, including freedom of association and collective bargaining.

“Investors have the ability to influence company directors. This means that moral responsibilities accompany the rights we enjoy as shareholders,” said Steve Waygood, Chief Responsible Investment Officer, Aviva Investors. “The casual disregard for employee welfare demonstrated by the directors involved in the Rana Plaza catastrophe should be unacceptable to anyone. As institutional investors, we should challenge corruption and exploitation in all its forms wherever we find it. Ensuring we motivate the right kinds of corporate behavior is part of our own duty to our clients.”

While the investors are pleased with progress made by the Accord, they emphasize that the job of remediating all the issues is far from done and will continue to urge those companies that have not signed on to the 2018 Accord and its three-year extension to do so.

“It has been five years since the nightmare that took place at Rana Plaza, and while significant progress has been made by the Accord to address the root causes of the tragedy, we must not forget that these workplace risks persist in many sectors across the globe,” said Sr. Barbara Aires of the Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth, NJ. “The moral and business imperative for corporations to preempt these risks by implementing comprehensive safeguards throughout their supply chains is clear. As investors and stakeholders, we will continue to monitor progress on these concerns in the Bangladesh apparel sector and beyond.”

To see the full statement, please visit here. See more from ICCR here.

ICCR and SGI: Shareholders Committed to the Rights of Immigrants

Four SGI members participated in ICCR‘s Spring Conference: Sr. Ruth Battaglia, C.S.A., Chris Cox, Frank Sherman, and Friar Robert Wotypka, O.F.M., Cap. This post from Sr. Ruth is another report of what we heard and learned at the conference.

The Congregation of the Sisters of St. Agnes has a strong connection to immigrant communities and their needs. The congregation was founded in 1885 in response to the faith needs of German immigrants in Wisconsin. When Hmong, who were allies of the United States in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War and later stages of the Laotian Civil War, started seeking asylum as political refugees after the communist takeover in both nations in 1975, the Sisters of St. Agnes were instrumental in welcoming them and helping them resettle in Fond du Lac, WI. Today, sisters in Arizona provide legal aid and other forms of assistance to the immigrant population along the Naco border with Mexico. Recently the congregation has been advocating on behalf of Dreamers and for a just US immigration policy. They are pleased to join ICCR’s effort to invite companies to look at their policies and practices around immigration.

ICCR believes that just and equitable immigration policies are critical to a stable and prosperous business environment and will promote sustainable communities. At its recent conference in New York, an ICCR session was devoted to the topic of immigration. While some companies claim that immigration does not affect them, they need only look down their supply chain to discover how immigration impacts them. They also will discover that immigrants are very vulnerable to injustices.

In engagement with companies on immigration investors must ask:

  • Who is responsible for corporate risk oversight on labor/immigration issues?
  • What risks face immigrant workers? Are all workers covered by company policies on worker health and safety, fair wages, benefits? Do workers have a way to report grievances without fear of retaliation?
  • How does the company assess engagement with the community when it hires immigrant labor, addressing fears, reducing tensions? How does it relate to ICE? If the number of immigrants decline, where will the company look for qualified employees?
  • What are the company’s public policy positions on immigration? Does it publicly support comprehensive immigration reform? Is it supportive of the “Agricultural Worker Program Act” which was introduced in Congress to provide a path to lawful permanent residency for agricultural workers?

One breakout group grappled with guidelines for companies that rely on immigrants in the workforce (beauty, agriculture, textiles, farm-workers) asking them to prohibit passport retention, exactment of fees, harassment and discrimination. Also, the group suggested asking companies to provide contracts and to grant the right to assemble and to bargain collectively. Another group asked, “What is the role of investors in tech companies and airlines who are involved in immigrant surveillance?” And another dealt with the question “Who finances the harm?” Can the financial sector engage in pro-immigrant practices?

It was evident that this newer area of endeavor for ICCR, while complex and involving hard work, was well received by conference attendees ready to accept the challenge of engagement with companies on behalf of immigrants. In accord with a strong theme of the conference, it would be a collaborative effort with immigrants whose voices and experience would shape the efforts.

In February Seventh Generation hosted a very informative webinar, Immigration and the Shareholder. Check it out. https://seventhgenerationinterfaith.org/2018/02/17/sgi-webinar-recording-immigration-and-the-shareholder

Sister Ruth Battaglia is the Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Coordinator for the Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes.

Shareholders work for racial justice

Four SGI members participated in ICCR‘s Spring Conference: Sr. Ruth Battaglia, C.S.A., Chris Cox, Frank Sherman, and Friar Robert Wotypka, O.F.M., Cap. We will report back what we heard and learned in a variety of ways in the coming weeks.

Today’s tweet from Pope Francis reminds us that preventing evil is not enough; we must take positive action together. Since its inception, SGI has endeavored to make the voices and concerns of those who suffer injustice the center of our reflection and action. I see it reflected as well in the work of the new Racial Justice Investing group within ICCR.

National events in 2017 intensified focus on racial, ethnic, and gender equality. The #MeToo movement, protests concerning the Confederate Flag and Confederate statues, the Women’s March, and the Black Lives Matter movement all contributed to this shift in focus. While personal conversion is vital to change, it is not enough. Addressing systemic injustice requires changes in structures at the level of policy, economics, and worldviews.

A session at the recent ICCR conference included a session from the newly formed Racial Justice Investing group. Pat Tomaino of Zevin Asset Management chaired the session. We also heard from Lisa Hayles of Boston Common Asset Management, Susan Baker of Trillium Asset Management, and Mari Schwartzer of NorthStar Asset Management. Hayles spoke of The 30% Coalition (that corporate boardrooms reflect the gender, racial and ethnic diversity of the United States workforce). Susan Baker discussed workforce diversity and the case for pressing companies to make the composition of the workforce transparent. Schwartzer voiced concerns about prison labor (NPR reported on some of the issues). Finally,  Tomaino addressed diversity and inclusion, especially within the tech workforce.

Pat Tomaino

The Racial Justice Investing group has monthly/semi-monthly calls and has a webpage within ICCR’s member area where SGI members can sign up to participate and to receive regular updates. Previously, the group drafted a Mission Statement:

Racial Justice Investing is a group of socially responsible investors and others in the business community who are taking action for racial justice within our own organizations, as well as in our engagements with portfolio companies.

This important work will contribute to our corporate engagements. We heard about success from Johns Hopkins in hiring of ex-offenders. We talked about resolutions asking tech companies to tie portion of executive compensation to diversity and inclusion goals among other sustainability goals. We also heard about work from the American Friends Service Committee investigating corporate investments in the prison industry. Much remains to be done, but it is exciting to see our partners deeply engaging this issue.