Tag: Lobbying

SGI hosts a Lobbying Disclosure and Lobbying Alignment Webinar

SGI hosts a Lobbying Disclosure and Lobbying Alignment Webinar

Chris Cox

Companies invest billions of dollars in political influence through lobbying, campaign contributions, and other means. Corporations are societally chartered institutions of enormous importance and value, creating jobs, producing goods and services that consumers rely upon, impact the environment we live in and pay salaries to worker who hope to lead fulfilling lives. At the same time, corporations spend vastly greater sums on lobbying than the funds available to pro-consumer, pro-environment, and pro-worker organizations. Hence, we consider this an important, basic area of corporate governance, and adequate disclosure of corporate lobbying remains a pressing shareholder proposal topic.

SGI members filed or co-filed 12 proposals related to lobbying for the 2023 proxy season. Over the last few years, resolutions have moved from beyond basic disclosure to reporting on alignment and misalignment between a company’s stated position and the lobbying efforts that a company funds indirectly via trade associations,  501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits, and 527 political organizations, often referred to as “dark money.” Those reports are important as the reveal the risks of lobbying misalignment.

To dig deeper into these themes, we hosted Tim Smith, senior policy advisor at ICCR, and John Keenan, Corporate Governance Analyst for Capital Strategies for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), for a webinar on Lobbying Disclosure and Lobbying Alignment.

The webinar also points investors to valuable resources concerning lobbying:

We are grateful for Tim Smith and John Keenan joining us. We want to thank all of our members and guests for attending our webinar.

Slides are available here. The video is available here.

Join SGI for a Webinar on Lobbing Disclosure and Alignment

Join SGI for a Webinar on Lobbing Disclosure and Alignment

Chris Cox

Join us for our first webinar of 2023 on Wednesday, February 15th, at 10:00 a.m. Central. We will address efforts for increased lobbying disclosure. Similar to previous years, SGI members filed or co-filed a dozen resolutions that pertain to lobbying disclosure and lobbying alignment. Joining us will be Tim Smith, newly returning to the ICCR staff, and John Keenan, of AFSCME. Register for the webinar here. 

Why is this important? Visit any company’s website. Take a look at the company’s existing disclosures and assess:

  • Do they currently provide you with a clear idea of how and where the company is lobbying, to what end and with what efficacy, and how those activities are aligned with your interests?
  • Could you cite a number that represents how much the company has spent on influencing public policy, directly or indirectly, and with what partners, and on what issues?
  • Beyond its activities in the US, do you have a clear understanding of how the company attempts to impact policies in non-US jurisdictions?

Corporations are societally chartered institutions of enormous importance and value, creating jobs, producing goods and services that consumers rely upon, impact the environment we live in and pay salaries to worker who hope to lead fulfilling lives. At the same time, corporations spend vastly greater sums on lobbying than the funds available to pro-consumer, pro-environment, and pro-worker organizations. Hence, we consider this an important, basic area of corporate governance, and, in this webinar, we are going to dig into these engagements and resolutions.

Again, please, join us!

Walmart Hits a Double on Responsible Climate Lobbying Disclosure

Walmart Hits a Double on Responsible Climate Lobbying Disclosure

Chris Cox

By Frank Sherman

“Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, profoundly affecting all regions of the world and all sectors of society. . . . Companies need to be part of the solution to manage physical and transition risk, maintain societal license to operate and create value for business and society through mitigation and adaptation initiatives that draw on unique business capabilities.”

Walmart, 2021 ESG Summary

At first glance, this may be mistaken as an excerpt from an environmental NGO website rather than from the largest corporation in the world. But Walmart has long been recognized by many as a leader in climate action.  They were the first retailer to obtain SBTi certified greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and the first to make a zero emissions commitment that does not rely on carbon offsets for scope 1 & 2 emissions. Committed to 100% renewable electricity by 2035, they have also been recognized as the top retail partner by the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership. EPA’s SmartWay Excellence Award for shipping performance recognized Walmart for the fifth year in a row. Their award winning Project Gigaton targets a reduction of at least 30% of estimated scope 3 emissions by 2030. No wonder they made CDP Climate’s ‘A List’ for several years.

But one area where Walmart, along with many other companies, has fallen short is in its engagement on climate public policy. That’s why SGI member, the School Sisters of Notre Dame, Central Pacific Province (SSND), filed a shareholder resolution with the Company, as part of a broader campaign coordinated by ICCR and Ceres. According to Influence Map, Transition Pathways Initiative and Ceres, Walmart’s direct lobbying is supportive of the Paris Agreement. The SSND proposal asked Walmart to evaluate whether their indirect lobbying activities through trade associations and social welfare and nonprofit organizations are aligned with the company’s support of the Paris Agreement goals. We also asked the company to be more public in their support of robust climate policies rather than engaging policy makers ‘in private.’ The proponents withdrew the proposal after the Company agreed to improve their disclosure.

Following the withdrawal, Walmart strengthened their Government Relations Policy and made extensive updates to their Engagement in public policy webpage, providing details on governance, policy positions, engagement process, and examples of positive advocacy. They published a list of trade associations to which Walmart contributed funds of $25,000 or more in 2021. They actively engage their trade associations to influence their public policy positions. They note that the Business Roundtable’s (BRT) position towards climate policy, although not as strong as we would like, improved as a result of Walmart’s CEO Doug McMillon’s influence when he chaired the BRT.

To be fair, the goalpost on what constitutes “responsible climate lobbying” has been moving due to a number of factors including increasing calls from scientists for urgent action, such as the recent IPCC report. This culminated in the recently released Global Standard on Corporate Climate Lobbying describing 14 indicators to assess a company’s direct and indirect lobbying alignment with the Paris goal of limiting global temperature rise  to 1.5 degrees.

To be sure, there are areas where Walmart’s disclosure and practices can be improved. The main shortfall vs. the new global standard is the lack of a detailed public assessment of each trade association’s climate policy positions and how well it aligns with the Paris goals and the Company’s position. An increasing number of multinational companies are doing this assessment of their indirect climate lobbying through trade associations and nonprofits they fund, evaluating the actions they are taking to support or undermine the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. The Company states, “If a relationship—on balance—does not align with our priorities, we would end ties with the organization altogether,” which they did a few years ago when they exited the Chamber of Commerce. “I wouldn’t say they hit a homerun, but it’s safe to say they made it to second base,” said Tim Dewane, Director of Shalom – the Office of Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation for the School Sisters of Notre Dame, Central Pacific Province, the lead proponent of the resolution. “We have to continue to work to get them home.”

Follow the Money

Follow the Money

Chris Cox

Multiple crises over the past year reminded us that our global economy and our democracies are unjust and fragile. With decades of lobbying and political spending, companies have contributed to the breakdown of trust in the system by distorting elections, policymaking, law enforcement, and citizens’ ability to hold power to account.

Why do industries like meatpacking enjoy little oversight under both Democrat and Republican administrations? A recent report from the nonprofit advocacy group Feed the Truth suggests a disquieting answer. The report documents how the largest companies in the U.S. food system invest a significant sum in lobbying and campaign donations, all but guaranteeing a friendlier regulatory environment.

Corporate political spending and lobbying are possibly the major factors obstructing progress on critical policy issues including the climate crisis, corporate tax loopholes, fossil fuel subsidies, pharmaceutical pricing, minimum wage, worker rights, and youth tobacco use. Companies impede legislators and regulators from acting on evidence and for the common good. The 2010 Citizens United court ruling only exasperated corporate political influence.

Investors try to address this. For example, SGI members led or co-filed 10 political spending or lobbying resolutions.

When It comes to political spending on elections, we rely on guidance from the Center for Political Accountability (CPA). CPA, collaborating with the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research and Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, developed a model code of conduct. They apply that code and produce an annual report on political spending disclosure.

Capturing information on corporate lobbying is more difficult. Generally, it comes in three streams:

  1. Corporations directly employ lobbyists for matters of concern on the federal, state, and local level. The laws regarding disclosure vary in each jurisdiction making it difficult to track. For example, e-cigarette maker Juul admitted to Congress that it lobbies in 48 states, but try to gather all that data on your own.
  2. Corporations also make payments to trade associations that lobby on their behalf without specific disclosure or accountability. The US Chamber of Commerce has spent more than $1.6 billion since 1998.
  3. Corporations make payments to 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits and 527 political organizations, often referred to as “dark money,” that can create legal and reputational risk for companies. Ohio utility FirstEnergy is under investigation for funneling $60 million through a dark money 501(c)(4) group called Generation Now that was used for bribery. In another example, the Rule of Law Defense Fund is a social welfare group that helped organize the protest before the January 6th riots and is an arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA).

While corporate and traditional PAC direct donations to politicians have strict limits, company payments to trade associations and 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits for lobbying have no restrictions. This means companies can give unlimited amounts to third-party groups that spend millions on lobbying and undisclosed grassroots activity. Thus, shareholder proposals for lobbying disclosure capture indirect spending through trade associations or social welfare groups.

The CPA-Zicklin Index found that, among companies listed in S&P 500, only 18% fully disclose their contributions to 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, only 24% fully disclose their contributions to trade associations, and only 30% fully disclose their donations to 527 political organizations. So there is a long way to go.

In the wake of January’s attack on the U.S. Capitol and the pause imposed by some companies on their political donations, prospects for a change in the status quo may be improving. In February, ICCR asked companies to consider ending political spending on elections. This proxy season, shareholders sent a clear message for more disclosure and alignment of corporate political spending and lobbying.

This post is in a series that exams the outcome of the 2021 proxy season. For a complete list of SGI resolutions from 2021, please visit this page.

Chevron Investors Call for Climate Disclosure

Chevron Investors Call for Climate Disclosure

Natalie Wasek

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate Governance Webinar

Corporate Governance Webinar

Chris Cox

At the heart of this webinar is the conviction, born of evidence, that transparent and accountable corporate practices correlates to higher shareholder value and lower volatility in share prices. A company run well will deliver superior financial returns, over the long term, than a company that does not adhere to principles of transparency and accountability,

On Thursday, August 29, we were joined in our quarterly webinar by two leaders within the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR): Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management and John Keenan of  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

We are very grateful for the presence of both our guests in this webinar, for their commitment to work on these issues, and their generosity in sharing their wisdom with us.

As always, we welcome your feedback via a confidential evaluation found here. Slides from the webinar are found here.

Climate Change is now a Climate Crisis

Climate Change is now a Climate Crisis

Chris Cox

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!

SGI, Institutional Investors Continue to Press Companies for Disclosure of Lobbying

SGI, Institutional Investors Continue to Press Companies for Disclosure of Lobbying

Chris Cox

Among issues of corporate governance, lobbying disclosure remains an urgent topic for shareholder proposals in 2019. Five SGI members are a part of a coalition of at least 70 investors who have filed proposals at 33 companies asking for disclosure reports that include federal and state lobbying payments, payments to trade associations and social welfare groups used for lobbying and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation. That last sentence was detailed precisely because “following the money” is so complicated when it comes to lobbying expenditures. This year’s campaign highlights the theme of corporate political responsibility, with a focus on climate change lobbying.

Corporate lobbying impacts all aspects of the economy. Companies fund lobbying efforts on issues ranging from climate change and drug prices to financial regulation, immigration and workers’ rights. While lobbying can provide decision-makers with valuable insights and data, it can also lead to undue influence, unfair competition, and regulatory capture. In addition, lobbying may channel companies’ funds and influence into highly controversial topics with the potential to cause reputational harm.

In 2018, more than $3.4 billion in total was spent on federal lobbying. Additionally, companies spend more than $1 billion yearly on lobbying at the state level, where disclosure is far less transparent than federal lobbying. Beyond that, trade associations spend in excess of $100 million each year, lobbying indirectly on behalf of companies. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $95 million on federal lobbying in 2018 and has spent over $1.5 billion on lobbying since 1998.

To address potential reputational and financial risk associated with lobbying, investors are encouraging companies to disclose all their lobbying payments as well as board oversight processes. We believe that this risk is particularly acute when a company’s lobbying, done directly or through a third party, contradicts its publicly stated positions and core values. Disclosure allows shareholders to verify whether a company’s lobbying aligns with its expressed values and corporate goals.

“The faith community has been an active investor voice for around a decade pressing companies to expand disclosure on political spending (related to elections) and also lobbying disclosure. This is more important than ever as we look at issues of concern to ICCR members. For example it is a crucial time to hold companies accountable on their lobbying related to climate change and to urge them to lobby only for legislation consistent with the Paris Accord. Or monitor how drug companies lobby on opioids or drug pricing. Lobbying is not a remote governance issue but it intimately linked to a whole range of corporate responsibility issues we are all working on.”


Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management

Companies Receiving Lobbying Disclosure Resolutions for 2019 are:

  • AbbVie (ABBV)
  • Altria Group (MO)
  • American Water Works (AWK)
  • AT&T (T)
  • Bank of America (BAC)
  • BlackRock (BLK)
  • Boeing (BA)
  • CenturyLink (CTL)
  • Chevron (CVX)
  • Comcast (CMCSA)
  • Duke Energy (DUK)
  • Emerson Electric (EMR)
  • Equifax (EFX)
  • Exxon Mobil (XOM)
  • FedEx (FDX)
  • Ford Motor (F)
  • General Motors (GM)
  • Honeywell (HON)
  • IBM (IBM)
  • JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
  • Mallinckrodt (MNK)
  • MasterCard (MA)
  • McKesson (MCK)
  • Morgan Stanley (MS)
  • Motorola Solutions (MSI)
  • Nucor Corporation (NUE)
  • Pfizer (PFE)
  • Tyson Foods (TSN)
  • United Continental Holdings (UAL)
  • United Parcel Service (UPS)
  • Verizon (VZ)
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (VRTX)
  • Walt Disney Company (DIS)

The Decade We Stopped Climate Change

The Decade We Stopped Climate Change

Chris Cox

By Aaron Ziulkowski, Walden Asset Management

A New York Times Magazine published in August included one single article: “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change.” The title contains the spoiler that we all already knew: We are not stopping climate change. But the focus of the article by Nathaniel Rich—a whopping 30,000 words—is a historical recounting of how close the U.S. and global community came to establishing a binding framework that would have set us on a path to limit warming to what scientists consider manageable. Several decades later, we have still not accomplished this feat.

While some readers likely found the article depressing, it gave me a bit of hope. Rich chronicled a time when the risks of climate change were appreciated and regulations to limit emissions were recognized as the prudent action to take. This knowledge was accepted and embraced by conservatives and liberals as well as leaders of business and advocacy groups. While this promising response eventually derailed, investors may be able to help return the U.S. to a 1980s context—poised to act to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change.

Here’s what we can do.      

Ask companies to set emissions reduction goals that align with climate science. While this may sound outlandish, it is not. Many companies recognize that climate change presents both risks and opportunities and are committed to doing something about it. Forty-eight percent of Fortune 500 companies have set public targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, source more renewable energy, or some combination of the three. While some of these targets are not science-based (i.e., aggressive enough to reach carbon neutrality by the second half of the century), nearly five hundred companies from around the globe have publicly committed to set science-based targets, and over one hundred have already done so.

Ask companies to be more transparent about their political spending and lobbying, as well as lobbying done on their behalf by trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business community wields significant influence over public policy, for better and for worse. Transparency breeds accountability. As investors, we need to know how a company is lobbying, both because the reputational risk it might entail for the companies we invest in, as well as the risks that lobbying may create for the broader economy. According to AFSCME, more than 40 companies engaged by investors have strengthened their corporate lobbying policies, practices (e.g. a decision to end ties with a third party involved in controversial lobbying activities), and transparency.

Ask companies to proactively advocate for comprehensive climate legislation. While at the federal level it is unlikely there will be an opportunity in the near-term to pass comprehensive climate legislation, there is important groundwork that needs to be done to prepare for when the political moment is right. There are also numerous opportunities to influence state- and local-level policies related to climate change. We should ask companies, especially those that are setting their own goals and targets to reduce emissions, to support legislative and regulatory efforts that are consistent and indeed facilitate achieving their goals. For example, recently, in my home state of Massachusetts, the business community successfully mobilized to support strengthening climate legislation, including the sourcing of renewable energy. Groups like the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP), organized by Ceres, can help companies identify and participate in such efforts.

What we did not achieve in the past provides us our current goal and focus. The business community can be a supportive partner in fighting climate change, and investors have an important role in catalyzing that action.