As part of its annual Share Power campaign, Amnesty International is supporting a resolution urging Chevron to address investor concerns regarding its operations in Burma.
Chevron, in partnership with Total of France, the Petroleum Authority of Thailand and Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), holds equity in the largest investment project in Burma: the Yadana gas field and pipeline that transports gas to Thailand and has reportedly paid millions of dollars to the Burmese regime, Amnesty’s Ian Heide notes.
“Human rights organizations have documented egregious human rights abuses by Burmese troops employed to secure the pipeline area, including forcible relocation of villagers and use of forced labour on infrastructure related to the pipeline project.”
Chevron is the last major American company with active operations in Burma, according to the Shareholder Association for Research in Education (SHARE). “When Chevron purchased U.S. oil company UNOCAL in 2005, it acquired a minority stake in the Yadana pipeline,” SHARE says. A “grandfather” clause exempts Chevron from current U.S. sanctions on commercial activity in Burma.
Ongoing human rights issues, as well as mounting legal and reputational risks, have shareholders, unions and civil society groups calling for the company’s withdrawal from the country, SHARE adds.
The broad resolution – drafted by a diverse coalition of U.S. investors – calls on Chevron to submit a report by 2010 explaining the company’s criteria for investment in; continued operations in; and withdrawal from specific countries.
In its latest corporate social responsibility report, Chevron does not specifically mention its operations in Burma. “We are committed to respecting human rights in the countries and communities where we operate,” the report states.
SHARE says SRI investors can express support for human rights in Burma by asking mutual fund investment managers and advisors to consider voting in favour of the resolution.
Results will be announced at Chevron’s annual meeting on May 26, 2009.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Ethical files human rights proposal with Power Corp.
Ethical Funds says Power Corporation of Canada needs to improve disclosure on how the financial holding company is dealing with human rights abuses in countries where it has operations.
Subsequently, Ethical has filed a shareholder proposal asking Power to strengthen its Corporate Social Responsibility statement to describe how it evaluates investments, as well as its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Power is perhaps best known for its financial subsidiaries, which include IGM Financial, Great-West Lifeco, Mackenzie Financial and London Life. All four companies offer SRI mutual funds.
However, Power also controls Pargesa Holding S.A. and ultimately Groupe Bruxelles Lambert (GBL), which has significant holdings in energy giant Total S.A. Total has operations in Burma and Sudan. In addition, Power has been approved by China’s securities regulator to invest in Yuan-denominates securities, Ethical notes.
“From the current disclosure, Power investors are unable to identify how the company is implementing its Corporate Social Responsibility statement,” Ethical says. “Consequently, investors are unable to determine if the company is effectively working to mitigate the risks of complicity with human rights abuses. Disclosure of Total’s policies in the appendix of Power’s proxy circular does not constitute adequate disclosure, nor do those policies effectively mitigate the risks from exposure to the deteriorating human rights situations in Burma and Sudan.”
“Shareholders require improved disclosure from Power in order to understand how the company is working to mitigate risks related to human rights abuses,” Ethical adds. “This resolution is simply asking for better disclosure on the implementation of the Corporate Social Responsibility statement.”
Power’s AGM is scheduled for May 13.
Subsequently, Ethical has filed a shareholder proposal asking Power to strengthen its Corporate Social Responsibility statement to describe how it evaluates investments, as well as its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Power is perhaps best known for its financial subsidiaries, which include IGM Financial, Great-West Lifeco, Mackenzie Financial and London Life. All four companies offer SRI mutual funds.
However, Power also controls Pargesa Holding S.A. and ultimately Groupe Bruxelles Lambert (GBL), which has significant holdings in energy giant Total S.A. Total has operations in Burma and Sudan. In addition, Power has been approved by China’s securities regulator to invest in Yuan-denominates securities, Ethical notes.
“From the current disclosure, Power investors are unable to identify how the company is implementing its Corporate Social Responsibility statement,” Ethical says. “Consequently, investors are unable to determine if the company is effectively working to mitigate the risks of complicity with human rights abuses. Disclosure of Total’s policies in the appendix of Power’s proxy circular does not constitute adequate disclosure, nor do those policies effectively mitigate the risks from exposure to the deteriorating human rights situations in Burma and Sudan.”
“Shareholders require improved disclosure from Power in order to understand how the company is working to mitigate risks related to human rights abuses,” Ethical adds. “This resolution is simply asking for better disclosure on the implementation of the Corporate Social Responsibility statement.”
Power’s AGM is scheduled for May 13.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Jeffcott to leave Maquila Solidarity Network
One of Canada’s best-known sweatshop activists, Bob Jeffcott, has decided to leave the Maquila Solidarity Network (MSN), an organization he co-founded in 1995, to pursue other interests.
MSN describes itself as a labour and women's rights organization that supports the efforts of workers in global supply chains to win improved wages and working conditions and a better quality of life.
“Our focus has always been on supporting the efforts of the women and men who make our clothes to organize to improve their wages and working conditions, not on shutting down factories with bad conditions or giving shoppers ethical choices,” Jeffcott said in an open letter to his MSN colleagues. “We've always been more interested in and committed to finding new ways to make corporations more accountable rather than in helping them to better regulate themselves.”
Jeffcott admits that the “harsh reality” of factory conditions has improved little over the past 15 years and that the current financial crisis has undermined what little job security garment workers once enjoyed.
Still, there have been some significant advances over the years related to workers’ rights. “When MSN first became involved in campaigns targeting major apparel brands back in the 1990s, companies like Nike, Gap, Disney and Levi's would often deny that reports of sweatshop abuses were based in fact and/or try to avoid accepting their share of responsibility for the abuses,” Jeffcott writes.
”Today, few major apparel brands are still in the denial stage, and many of these brand-sensitive companies are now willing to sit down and discuss core issues like what steps they should take to ensure that workers' right to organize and bargain collectively is respected. While there are still major hurdles to overcome before the brands' stated commitment to freedom of association becomes reality at the factory level, we've come a long way from the days when they would tell us, "It's not our responsibility."
In 2000, MSN and its partners in Canada's Ethical Trading Action Group (ETAG) launched a national campaign for government regulations that would require companies whose clothes are sold in the Canadian market to publicly disclose the names and addresses of the factories where those products were made.
Apparel retailers and manufacturers fought back, and were able to convince the Canadian government that factory locations were "proprietary information." ETAG then shifted its focus to pressuring individual companies to voluntarily disclose their global supply chains and to lobby public institutions to adopt procurement polices that require, among other things, that suppliers publicly disclose factory locations.
”Today, almost every major sportswear brand publicly discloses their factory locations, and last year, Mountain Equipment Co-op became the first Canadian retailer to voluntarily disclose the names and addresses of the supplier factories where its own-brand products are made,” Jeffcott says.
MSN and ETAG also helped to instigate and provided advice and support to local campaigns lobbying public institutions to adopt "No Sweat" purchasing and licensing policies. Today, 19 Canadian universities, five Canadian municipalities and 11 Ontario Catholic school boards have No Sweat policies.
Jeffcott has also been busy outside of Canada, collaborating with trade unions, women's organizations and labour rights NGOs in garment-producing countries such as El Salvador, Lesotho, Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, Mexico, Haiti and the Philippines.
”Although some of these struggles were unsuccessful and many of the victories were short-lived, they did achieve important precedents and helped keep alive workers' hope for change. This truly is a global movement against sweatshop abuses and for workers' and women's rights, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a part of it.”
For more information, visit the Maquila Solidarity Network website.
MSN describes itself as a labour and women's rights organization that supports the efforts of workers in global supply chains to win improved wages and working conditions and a better quality of life.
“Our focus has always been on supporting the efforts of the women and men who make our clothes to organize to improve their wages and working conditions, not on shutting down factories with bad conditions or giving shoppers ethical choices,” Jeffcott said in an open letter to his MSN colleagues. “We've always been more interested in and committed to finding new ways to make corporations more accountable rather than in helping them to better regulate themselves.”
Jeffcott admits that the “harsh reality” of factory conditions has improved little over the past 15 years and that the current financial crisis has undermined what little job security garment workers once enjoyed.
Still, there have been some significant advances over the years related to workers’ rights. “When MSN first became involved in campaigns targeting major apparel brands back in the 1990s, companies like Nike, Gap, Disney and Levi's would often deny that reports of sweatshop abuses were based in fact and/or try to avoid accepting their share of responsibility for the abuses,” Jeffcott writes.
”Today, few major apparel brands are still in the denial stage, and many of these brand-sensitive companies are now willing to sit down and discuss core issues like what steps they should take to ensure that workers' right to organize and bargain collectively is respected. While there are still major hurdles to overcome before the brands' stated commitment to freedom of association becomes reality at the factory level, we've come a long way from the days when they would tell us, "It's not our responsibility."
In 2000, MSN and its partners in Canada's Ethical Trading Action Group (ETAG) launched a national campaign for government regulations that would require companies whose clothes are sold in the Canadian market to publicly disclose the names and addresses of the factories where those products were made.
Apparel retailers and manufacturers fought back, and were able to convince the Canadian government that factory locations were "proprietary information." ETAG then shifted its focus to pressuring individual companies to voluntarily disclose their global supply chains and to lobby public institutions to adopt procurement polices that require, among other things, that suppliers publicly disclose factory locations.
”Today, almost every major sportswear brand publicly discloses their factory locations, and last year, Mountain Equipment Co-op became the first Canadian retailer to voluntarily disclose the names and addresses of the supplier factories where its own-brand products are made,” Jeffcott says.
MSN and ETAG also helped to instigate and provided advice and support to local campaigns lobbying public institutions to adopt "No Sweat" purchasing and licensing policies. Today, 19 Canadian universities, five Canadian municipalities and 11 Ontario Catholic school boards have No Sweat policies.
Jeffcott has also been busy outside of Canada, collaborating with trade unions, women's organizations and labour rights NGOs in garment-producing countries such as El Salvador, Lesotho, Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, Mexico, Haiti and the Philippines.
”Although some of these struggles were unsuccessful and many of the victories were short-lived, they did achieve important precedents and helped keep alive workers' hope for change. This truly is a global movement against sweatshop abuses and for workers' and women's rights, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a part of it.”
For more information, visit the Maquila Solidarity Network website.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Ethical releases list of shareholder resolutions
Ethical Funds announced today that it has filed shareholder resolutions with a number of Canadian companies outlining a variety of concerns, including climate change, human rights, indigenous people’s rights and sweatshops.
Topping the list is Barrick Gold, which made headlines recently when it was expelled from the Norwegian government’s pension plan for environmental reasons. Ethical is asking Barrick’s board of directors to engage an independent third party to review the company’s engagement practices and performances, focusing on the Cortez Hill mine site in Nevada.
Ethical sent two analysts to Nevada last year to tour Barrick’s mines and meet with the indigenous Western Shoshone community. Subsequently, Ethical recommended that Barrick consider conducting a human rights impact assessment of that project, an idea rejected by Barrick.
Ethical is also asking Enbridge to provide a report assessing the costs and benefits of adopting a policy requiring the free, prior and informed consent of aboriginal communities as a necessary condition for proceeding with the construction of company projects.
Sherritt International, E-L Financial, Great West Lifeco and Saputo have all been asked to report on how they are assessing the impact of climate change on their corporations and how they plan to disclose this information to shareholders. If applicable, the four companies have also been asked to explain their rationale for not disclosing such information in the future, through reporting mechanisms such as the Carbon Disclosure Project.
Power's board of directors has been asked to issue a report describing how it evaluates investments according to its CSR statement and commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Power has investments in countries where human rights violations are of international concern, including Burma, Sudan and China.
The board of directors at Reitmans as been asked to publicly disclose a code of conduct for the company’s suppliers, including a credible compliance program with independent monitoring. According to Reitmans’ most recent Annual Information Form, the company sources 75% of its merchandise from countries where labour and human rights abuses are known to occur.
Please click here for the full text of the Ethical resolutions.
Topping the list is Barrick Gold, which made headlines recently when it was expelled from the Norwegian government’s pension plan for environmental reasons. Ethical is asking Barrick’s board of directors to engage an independent third party to review the company’s engagement practices and performances, focusing on the Cortez Hill mine site in Nevada.
Ethical sent two analysts to Nevada last year to tour Barrick’s mines and meet with the indigenous Western Shoshone community. Subsequently, Ethical recommended that Barrick consider conducting a human rights impact assessment of that project, an idea rejected by Barrick.
Ethical is also asking Enbridge to provide a report assessing the costs and benefits of adopting a policy requiring the free, prior and informed consent of aboriginal communities as a necessary condition for proceeding with the construction of company projects.
Sherritt International, E-L Financial, Great West Lifeco and Saputo have all been asked to report on how they are assessing the impact of climate change on their corporations and how they plan to disclose this information to shareholders. If applicable, the four companies have also been asked to explain their rationale for not disclosing such information in the future, through reporting mechanisms such as the Carbon Disclosure Project.
Power's board of directors has been asked to issue a report describing how it evaluates investments according to its CSR statement and commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Power has investments in countries where human rights violations are of international concern, including Burma, Sudan and China.
The board of directors at Reitmans as been asked to publicly disclose a code of conduct for the company’s suppliers, including a credible compliance program with independent monitoring. According to Reitmans’ most recent Annual Information Form, the company sources 75% of its merchandise from countries where labour and human rights abuses are known to occur.
Please click here for the full text of the Ethical resolutions.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ethical Funds maps out action plan for 2009
It looks to be another busy year for the research team at Vancouver-based Ethical Funds, with today’s release of the mutual fund company’s extensive sustainable investment program annual report.
Bob Walker, vice president, sustainability, says Ethical plans to focus on three key issues in 2009. “The first is investor risk in Canada’s oil sands. The second is how companies can assess the full range of their impacts on human rights and ensure that their activities benefit impacted communities. The third will address how investors can help restore integrity to capital markets and the publicly-traded companies that benefit from the ethical functioning of those markets.”
As well as engaging oil sands companies on climate change, Ethical will ask companies in other sectors to work on emissions reduction, including continued dialogue with real estate companies on implementing green building strategies. Oil sands companies will also be asked to address cumulative water use issues and forestry companies will be encouraged to adopt sustainable practices.
On the social side, Ethical will continue to work with companies to encourage the development and implementation of human rights policies and programs when operating in risky countries. The fund company will also work towards eliminating sweatshop conditions and make an effort to ensure companies are not inadvertently supporting the use of child or forced labour.
Respecting indigenous rights is also on the 2009 agenda, particularly in the mining sector, where Ethical will support the adoption of informed consent as the standard for project development.
Corporate governance will be Ethical’s third main focus, with the company asking companies to improve their corporate social responsibility reporting and overall quality of their disclosure. Curbing excessive compensation will remain a priority, with Ethical asking that compensation be linked to positive performance on both the financial and the non-financial side.
“We believe companies that proactively address environmental, social and governance challenges have a long-term competitive advantage over companies that choose to ignore these issues,” notes Walker.
The sustainability report also includes highlights from Ethical’s work in 2008, including encouraging more Canadian companies to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project, encouraging Canadian banks to adopt and disclose procedures for evaluating climate change-related credit risk in their commercial lending policies and raising awareness of the risks investors face from the scale and pace of development in Alberta’s oil sands.
Bob Walker, vice president, sustainability, says Ethical plans to focus on three key issues in 2009. “The first is investor risk in Canada’s oil sands. The second is how companies can assess the full range of their impacts on human rights and ensure that their activities benefit impacted communities. The third will address how investors can help restore integrity to capital markets and the publicly-traded companies that benefit from the ethical functioning of those markets.”
As well as engaging oil sands companies on climate change, Ethical will ask companies in other sectors to work on emissions reduction, including continued dialogue with real estate companies on implementing green building strategies. Oil sands companies will also be asked to address cumulative water use issues and forestry companies will be encouraged to adopt sustainable practices.
On the social side, Ethical will continue to work with companies to encourage the development and implementation of human rights policies and programs when operating in risky countries. The fund company will also work towards eliminating sweatshop conditions and make an effort to ensure companies are not inadvertently supporting the use of child or forced labour.
Respecting indigenous rights is also on the 2009 agenda, particularly in the mining sector, where Ethical will support the adoption of informed consent as the standard for project development.
Corporate governance will be Ethical’s third main focus, with the company asking companies to improve their corporate social responsibility reporting and overall quality of their disclosure. Curbing excessive compensation will remain a priority, with Ethical asking that compensation be linked to positive performance on both the financial and the non-financial side.
“We believe companies that proactively address environmental, social and governance challenges have a long-term competitive advantage over companies that choose to ignore these issues,” notes Walker.
The sustainability report also includes highlights from Ethical’s work in 2008, including encouraging more Canadian companies to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project, encouraging Canadian banks to adopt and disclose procedures for evaluating climate change-related credit risk in their commercial lending policies and raising awareness of the risks investors face from the scale and pace of development in Alberta’s oil sands.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Canadian SRI funds closely monitoring Barrick
The Norwegian government’s decision to expel Barrick Gold from its state pension plan for environmental reasons has sparked renewed debate over whether Canadian SRI mutual funds should continue to invest in the controversial mining company.
Barrick is a top ten holding in four Canadian SRI funds: Ethical Balanced, Ethical Stock, Ethical Index and Acuity Social Values Canadian Equity.
Bob Walker, vice president, sustainability, at Ethical Funds notes that the Norwegian pension fund uses divestment as a tool to express dissatisfaction with a company’s performance, instead of engagement, which is Ethical’s preferred approach.
Walker notes that Ethical has been talking with Barrick since 2005 and has made progress in a number of areas. For instance, Barrick has established a human rights policy, joined the UN Global Compact on corporate responsibility, hired a chief medical officer to deal with HIV/AIDS and has extended the availability of antiretroviral drugs to employees and their families.
The company also established community engagement guidelines that Walker says could have improved Barrick’s performance in a number of controversial mining projects around the world. However: “In the last two years, that hasn’t happened, the controversies are continuing.”
Ethical sent two analysts to Nevada last year to tour Barrick’s mines and meet with the Western Shoshone community. Subsequently, Ethical recommended that Barrick consider conducting a human rights impact assessment of that project, an idea rejected by Barrick.
Ethical is now in the process of drafting a shareholder proposal for Barrick’s 2009 annual general meeting in an effort to get the company to improve its human rights and environmental performance, Walker says.
So what would it take for Ethical to divest in Barrick?
“We have fairly clear rules on that,” Walker says. “We make three concerted efforts at engaging a company on any given issue and if they fail to respond with sound arguments on those three occasions then we will divest.”
The rejection of [establishing a human rights impact assessment in Nevada] would represent the first strike, Walker says. But there’s still the shareholder proposal and an upcoming meeting with Barrick’s new CEO to consider. “We’ll see how things go from there. We are pretty patient around these issues and we believe that corporate change takes time.”
Over at Acuity, Social Values Funds manager Martin Grosskopf points out that for a Canadian equity fund benchmarked to the TSX, the gold sector is impossible to ignore.
Still, he concedes that Barrick, like most companies in that sector, does not come without controversy. “The reality is that all of the gold mining companies have significant issues and Barrick has had many of these issues for years, but it still ranks better than others within the space.”
“We’re not trying to avoid the issues entirely; we know we are going to own companies that have some contentious issues and Barrick is certainly one of them.”
Of course, both Walker and Grosskopf note that socially responsible investors can avoid Barrick by investing in other Canadian Ethical or Acuity products, such as Ethical’s Special Equity Fund or Acuity’s Clean Environment Equity Fund. “We don’t own gold in that fund,” Grosskopf notes. “I don’t think you can mine gold without having significant environmental impacts, that’s the nature of that sector.”
Canada’s two other SRI-focused mutual fund companies – Inhance Investment Management and Meritas Mutual Funds – do not hold Barrick.
Barrick is a top ten holding in four Canadian SRI funds: Ethical Balanced, Ethical Stock, Ethical Index and Acuity Social Values Canadian Equity.
Bob Walker, vice president, sustainability, at Ethical Funds notes that the Norwegian pension fund uses divestment as a tool to express dissatisfaction with a company’s performance, instead of engagement, which is Ethical’s preferred approach.
Walker notes that Ethical has been talking with Barrick since 2005 and has made progress in a number of areas. For instance, Barrick has established a human rights policy, joined the UN Global Compact on corporate responsibility, hired a chief medical officer to deal with HIV/AIDS and has extended the availability of antiretroviral drugs to employees and their families.
The company also established community engagement guidelines that Walker says could have improved Barrick’s performance in a number of controversial mining projects around the world. However: “In the last two years, that hasn’t happened, the controversies are continuing.”
Ethical sent two analysts to Nevada last year to tour Barrick’s mines and meet with the Western Shoshone community. Subsequently, Ethical recommended that Barrick consider conducting a human rights impact assessment of that project, an idea rejected by Barrick.
Ethical is now in the process of drafting a shareholder proposal for Barrick’s 2009 annual general meeting in an effort to get the company to improve its human rights and environmental performance, Walker says.
So what would it take for Ethical to divest in Barrick?
“We have fairly clear rules on that,” Walker says. “We make three concerted efforts at engaging a company on any given issue and if they fail to respond with sound arguments on those three occasions then we will divest.”
The rejection of [establishing a human rights impact assessment in Nevada] would represent the first strike, Walker says. But there’s still the shareholder proposal and an upcoming meeting with Barrick’s new CEO to consider. “We’ll see how things go from there. We are pretty patient around these issues and we believe that corporate change takes time.”
Over at Acuity, Social Values Funds manager Martin Grosskopf points out that for a Canadian equity fund benchmarked to the TSX, the gold sector is impossible to ignore.
Still, he concedes that Barrick, like most companies in that sector, does not come without controversy. “The reality is that all of the gold mining companies have significant issues and Barrick has had many of these issues for years, but it still ranks better than others within the space.”
“We’re not trying to avoid the issues entirely; we know we are going to own companies that have some contentious issues and Barrick is certainly one of them.”
Of course, both Walker and Grosskopf note that socially responsible investors can avoid Barrick by investing in other Canadian Ethical or Acuity products, such as Ethical’s Special Equity Fund or Acuity’s Clean Environment Equity Fund. “We don’t own gold in that fund,” Grosskopf notes. “I don’t think you can mine gold without having significant environmental impacts, that’s the nature of that sector.”
Canada’s two other SRI-focused mutual fund companies – Inhance Investment Management and Meritas Mutual Funds – do not hold Barrick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)