Tag: SNAP

Externalities vs. Solidarity

Externalities vs. Solidarity

Chris Cox

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.

Why you should be concerned about the 2018 Farm Bill

Why you should be concerned about the 2018 Farm Bill

Chris Cox

by Frank Sherman

Why should people of faith and socially responsible investors pay attention to this year’s Farm Bill? What may appear to be an innocent funding bill turns out to have a major impact on things we care about.

The Farm Bill is renewed every five years. It was initially conceived during the Great Depression to provide fair prices for both consumers and farmers, as well as access to quality food and protection for natural resources. In 1965, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps) was combined with the support for commodity prices into a single omnibus bill because neither bill was able to pass on its own. Food stamps now make up almost 80% of the Farm Bills’ funding helping over 45 million Americans.

In a recent article in The New Republic  (The Farm Bill Is Everything That’s Wrong With Congress), Alex Shephard argues that the 2018 Farm Bill has little to do with farms or farmers. Most of the debate revolves instead around a host of other issues, like the deep cuts and “work requirements” for the food stamp program and draconian immigration reforms. The House version of the 2018 Farm Bill, which passed by a narrow margin in June, includes harmful and unnecessary barriers to access, like burdensome work requirements. On the other hand, the U.S. Senate version protects SNAP and includes pilot programs to connect SNAP recipients to work through effective employment and training programs. It is now up to a Conference Committee to work out the differences.

In 1965, funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps) was combined with the support for commodity prices into a single omnibus bill because neither bill was able to pass on its own. With food stamps now helping over 45 million Americans, making up almost 80% of the Farm Bill’s funding, this situation has grown only more dire under this polarized Congress. The House version of the 2018 Farm Bill, which passed by a narrow margin in June, includes harmful and unnecessary barriers to access, like burdensome work requirements. On the other hand, the U.S. Senate version protects SNAP and includes pilot programs to connect SNAP recipients to work through effective employment and training programs. It is now up to a Conference Committee to work out the differences.

The premise of the additional work requirements (there are already work requirements in the current SNAP program) in the House Bill — that somehow people who use SNAP are lazy — is fundamentally wrong. Most adults on SNAP work and nearly 70% of SNAP participants are in families with children. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP provides a nutritionally adequate diet to 1 in 3 children (here)! Research shows children who benefit from SNAP are likelier to have better health and educational outcomes as adults. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center report that a majority of registered voters oppose recent efforts to scale back SNAP food benefits and believe the government should be doing more to meet the needs of people facing food insecurity. However, pressure from the White House to pass the House version and the midterm elections to will make it difficult for GOP Senators to preserve their bipartisan bill.

Okay, so the Farm Bill is critical to the working poor. But what does it have to do with corporations that are not directly involved in food industry? Because SNAP supports millions of low wage workers working for Walmart, McDonald’s, Amazon and many others. 30% of Americans are working in jobs that barely lift a family above the poverty line, even if they were working full-time, year-round. SNAP also supports children who are their future employees! Research shows children who benefit from SNAP are likelier to have better health and educational outcomes as adults.

So what can you do about this? There has been a lot of support of the SNAP program from faith based groups (see Food Research & Action Center overview here). ICCR had a recent webinar where several faith groups and NGO’s described this urgent issue (recording here). The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition website (here) provides a wealth of information on the farm bill process and actions you can take.

This may be crowded out of the headlines, but it is vitally important to us.