Climate Change Risk? Nah – The Deniers & Destroyers Are At Work – White House Attempts to Roll Back Obama Legacy

Deniers/Destroyers are at work – at US EPA — the White House — hoping/wishing for rollback of rich Obama legacy positions on climate change issues…

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

March 28, 2017

In classic-CNN style we bring you !!!BREAKING NEWS!!! – the Climate Change Deniers and Environmental Regulatory Protection Destroyers are at work in Washington DC today.

You’ve heard the news by now: President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator E. Scott Pruitt are preening and pompously strutting as they announce the important beginnings of what they want (and hope!) to be the rollback of important environmental and public health protections of the Obama Administration … you know, the “job killers” that were at work putting coal miners out of business.

At least that’s some of the twisting, grasping, pretzel-elian logic that underpins the actions taken today (which in turn tells the Trump loyal voting base that yes, still another campaign promise is being carried out on their behalf).

During his early months in office, President Barack Obama signed important Executive Orders that addressed climate change issues and global warming challenges — and please here do note that these and other Presidential EOs are always based on (1) the existing statutes enacted by Congress and (2) the authority of the Office of the President.

You remember some of the key statutes involved in these issues  — The Clean Air Act (CAA); The Clean Water Act; (CWA) the foundations laid by the all-empowering National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) …and other landmark legislation sensibly reached on a bipartisan basis over the decades since American rivers burst into flames.

Today, President Donald Trump signed [a very brief] EO with a flourish — the “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” Executive Order.

The action orders the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin the [legal] process of un-doing or re-doing the nation’s Clean Power Plan, the keystone to President Obama’s actions to address global warming. (Or “climate change” if one is skittish about being on the side of the angels on this issues.)

Here is what today’s EO covers:

  • Executive (cabinet) departments and agencies will begin reviewing regulations that potentially burden the development/or use of domestic energy sources — and then suspend, revise or rescind those that “unduly burden” the development of domestic energy resources…beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest.
  • All [Federal] agencies should take appropriate actions to promote clean air (!) and clean water (!) for the American People — oh, while following the law and the role of the Congress and the States concerning these matters. (One hopes this includes Flint, Michigan residents. We can hear great, cogent arguments in the Federal courts about all of this.)
  • Costs are to be considered — regarding “environmental improvements for the American People” — as, when “necessary and appropriate” environmental regulations are to be complied with…and the benefits must be greater than the cost.

This is encouraging, if only that it is stated to provide cover for legal challenges: Environmental regulations will be developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science and economics!

  • All Federal agencies are to review actions that are described in the Trump Executive Order and then submit to the [White House] staffed departments and the Vice President their plan(s) to carry out the review for their agency.

Here’s The Important Deny/Destroy Actions

By swipe of pen, the President revoked these important cornerstones of the Obama Administration climate change legacy:

  • Executive Order 13653 (November 1, 2013) – “Preparing the U.S. for the Impacts of Climate Change.”
  • President Memorandum (June 25, 2013) – “Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards.”
  • Presidential Memorandum (November 3, 2015) – “Mitigating Impact on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment.”
  • Presidential Memorandum (September 21, 2016) – “Climate Change and National Security.”
  • Report of the Executive Office of the President (June 2013) – “Climate Action Plan.”
  • Report of the Executive Office of the President (March 2014) – “Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions.”
  • The Council on Environmental Quality guidance (August 5, 2016) – “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of GhGs and Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.”

And The Very Important Clean Power Plan…

  • A review of the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan,” to be suspended, revised or rescinded, or, new rules proposed following the steps necessary. This will affect:
  • The final rules of the Clean Power Plan (October 23, 2015) – “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units”;
  • Final Rules (October 23, 2015) – “Standards of Performance for GhGs from New, Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units;
  • Proposed Rule (October 23, 2015) – “Federal Plan Requirements for GhGs Emissions from Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed before January 8, 2015”; “Model Trading Rules: Amendments to Framework Regulations”.
  • The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases – convened by the Council of Economic Advisors and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) — is disbanded, and the documents that established the “social cost of carbon” no longer represent public policy.

Beyond these specifics, the EO also orders the Secretary of the Interior to review its rules, and any guidance given, and (if appropriate) suspend, revise and rescind these. Included:

  • Final Rule (March 26, 2015) – “Oil and Gas: Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands”;
  • Final Rule (November 4, 2016) – “General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights”;
  • Final Rule (November 14, 2016) – “Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights”;
  • Final Rule (November 18, 2016) – “Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation.”

For the record: The EO is intended to (1) promote clean and safe development of “our Nation’s vast” energy sources; (2) avoid regulatory burdens that constrain production, energy growth and job creation; (3) assure the Nation’s geo-political security.

US SIF Weighs In

The influential trade association for sustainable, responsible and impact investing swiftly responded. Lisa Woll, CEO of US SIF, commented:

“On behalf of our 300 institutional members, US SIF belies the Administration should be working aggressively to reduce carbon in the atmosphere and that this Executive Order accomplishes the opposite.

“The United States is paying a high economic price from the ravages of severe drought, wildfires and storms associated with increased atmospheric levels of carbon. This is not the time to retreat from the call to protect current and succeeding generations from the catastrophic implications of further, unrestrained climate change.”

In the US SIF biennial survey of sustainable and impact investment assets, it should be noted here that U.S. money managers with US$1.42 trillion in AUM and institutional asset owners with $2.15 trillion in assets consider climate change risk in their investment analysis — that is three times the level in the prior survey in 2014.

Now — Investors – NGOs – State and local governments – social issue activists — business leaders — Federal and State courts — can push back HARD on these moves by the Trump Administration.

Otherwise, it could be drill, baby, drill — dig, baby, dig — and, hey, it’s good for us, we are assured by the Deflector-in-Chief and his merry band of wrongheaded Deniers/Destroyers in the Nation’s capital!

What do you think — what do you have to say? Weigh in our this commentary and share your thoughts – there’s space below to continue the conversation!

News From the Sustainability Front as The Trump White House Makes Controversial Moves on ESG Issues — Actions and Reactions

by Hank Boerner – Chair/Chief Strategist – G&A Institute

February 23, 2017
Forward Momentum! – Sustainability 2017

Are you like many of us having sleepless nights and anxiety spells as you watch the antics of the Trump White House and the creeping (and similarly moving-backwards) effects into the offices of important Federal agencies that the Administration is taking over?

Consider then “other news” — and not fake news, mind you, or alt-news — but encouraging real news that is coming from OTHER THAN the Federal government.

We are on track to continue to move ahead in building a more sustainable nation and world — despite the roadblocks being discussed or erected that are designed to slow the corporate sustainability movement or the steady uptake of sustainable investing in the capital markets.

Consider the Power and Influence of the Shareowner and Asset Managers:

The CEO of the largest asset manager in the world — BlackRock’s Larry Fink — in his annual letters to the CEOs of the S&P 500 (R) companies in January said this: “Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors relevant to a company’s business can provide essential insights into management effectiveness and thus a company’s long-term prospects. We look to see that a company is attuned to the key factors that contribute to long-term growth:
(1) sustainability of the business model and its operations; (2) attention to external and environmental factors that could impact the company; (3) recognition of the company’s role as a member of the communities in which it operates.

A global company, CEO Fink wrote to the CEOs, needs to be “local” in every single one of its markets. And as BlackRock constructively engages with the S&P 500 corporate CEOs, it will be looking to see how the company’s strategic framework reflects the impact of last year’s changes in the global environment…in the ‘new world’ in which the company is operating.

BlackRock manages US$5.1 trillion in Assets Under Management. The S&P 500 companies represent about 85% of the total market cap of corporate equities.  Heavyweights, we would say, in shaping U.S. sustainability.

* * * * * * * *

As S&R investment pioneer Steve Viederman often wisely notes, “where you sit determines where you stand…” (on the issues of the day).  More and more commercial space users (tenants and owners) want to “sit” in green spaces — which demonstrates where they “stand” on sustainability issues.

Consider:  In the corporate sector, Retail and other tenants are demanding that landlords provide “green buildings,” according to Chris Noon (Builtech Services LLC CEO). The majority of his company’s construction projects today can easily achieve LEED status, he says (depending on whether the tenant wanted to pursue the certification, which has some cost involved). The company is Chicago-based.

This is thanks to advances in materials, local building codes, a range of technology, and rising customer-demand.

End users want to “sit” in “green buildings” — more than 40% of American tenants recently surveyed across property types expect now to have a “sustainable home.” The most common approaches include energy-saving HVAC systems, windows and plumbing. More stringent (local and state) building codes are also an important factor.

Municipalities — not the Federal government — are re-writing building codes, to reflect environmental and safety advances and concerns. Next week (Feb 28) real estatyer industry reps will gather in Chicago for the Bisnow’s 7th Annual Retail Event at the University Club of Chicago to learn more about these trends.

* * * * * * * *

Institutional investors managing US$17 trillion in assets have created a new Corporate Governance framework — this is the Investor Stewardship Group.

The organizers include such investment powerhouses as BlackRock, Fidelity and RBC Global Asset Management (a dozen in all are involved at the start). There are six (6) Principles advanced to companies by the group that including addressing (1) investment stewardship for institutional investors and (2) for public corporation C-suite and board room. These Principles would be effective on January 1 (2018), giving companies and investors time to adjust.

One of the Principles is for majority voting for director elections (no majority, the candidate does not go on board). Another is the right for investors to nominate directors with information posted on the candidate in the proxy materials.

Both of these moves when adopted by public companies would greatly enhance the activism of sustainable & responsible investors, such as those in key coalitions active in the proxy season, and year-round in engagements with companies (such as ICCR, INCR).

No waiting for SEC action here, if the Commission moves away from investor-friendly policies and practices as signaled so far. And perhaps – this activism will send strong messages to the SEC Commissioners on both sides of the aisle.

Remember:  $17 trillion in AUM at the start of the initiative — stay tuned to the new Investor Stewardship Group.  These are more “Universal Owners” with clout.

* * * * * * * *

Not really unexpected but disappointing nevertheless:  The Trump Administration made its moves on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), part of the Bakken Field project work, carrying out a campaign promise that caters to the project’s primary owners (Energy Transfer Partners**) and other industry interests, S&R investors are acting rapidly in response.

The company needed a key easement to complete construction across a comparatively small distance. Except that…

  • The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe says the route would cross their drinking water source, impact their sacred sites, and threaten environmentally-sensitive areas;
  • would violate treaty territory without meeting international standards for their consent; (this is the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, which according to the U.S. Constitution, should be the supreme law of the land);
  • and ignore alleged shortcomings in the required environmental review (under the National Environmental Policy Act – NEPA).

These are “abuses”, and banks and financial services firms involved may be complicit in these violations by the nature of their financing, S&R investors note. Their involvement in the project financing could impact their brands and reputations and relationships with society. And so S&R shareholders are taking action.

Boston Common Asset Management, Storebrand Asset Management (in Norway) and First Peoples Worldwide developed an Investor Statement to Banks Financing the DAPL. The statement — being signed on to by other investors — is intended to encourage banks and lenders to support the Rock Sioux Tribe’s request for re-routing the pipeline to not violate — “invade” — their treaty-protected territory. The violations pose a clear risk, SRI shareholders are saying.

The banks involved include American, Dutch, German, Chinese, Japanese, and Canadian institutions.  They in turn are owned by shareholders, public sector agencies, and various fiduciaries — “Universal Owners,” we would say.

The banks include: Bayerische Landesbank (Germany); BBVA (Argentina); Credit Agricole (France); TD Securities (Canada); Wells Fargo; ABN AMRO (The Netherlands); Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ; and Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and others.

The shareholders utilizing the Investor Statement say they recognize that banks have a contractual obligation with the respect to their transactions — but — they could use their influence to support the Tribe’s request for a re-route…and reach a “peaceful solution” acceptable to all parties.

As The Washington Post reported on January 24th, soon after the Trump Administration settled in, President Trump signed Executive Orders to revive the DAPL and the Keystone XL pipelines. “Another step in his effort to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy,” as the Post put it.

One Executive Order directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to “review and approve in an expedited manner” the DAPL. Days later the Corps made their controversial decision, on February 7th reversing course granting Energy Transfer Partners their easement. This week the remaining protestors were removed from the site (some being arrested).

The sustainable & responsible & impact investment community is not sitting by to watch these egregious events, as we see in the Investor Statements to the banks involved. The banks are on notice — there are risks here for you.

* * * * * * * *

May be what is happening in the asset management and project lending activities related to the project is the IBG / YBG worldview of some in the financial services world:  I’ll Be Gone / You’ll Be Gone when all of this hits the fan one day.  (Like the massive Ogalala Aquifer being contaminated by a pipeline break. The route of the extension is on the ground above and on the reservation’s lake bed.  Not to mention the threats to the above ground Missouri River, providing water downstream to U.S. states and cities.)

* * * * * * * *

Energy Transfer Partners, L.P:  (NYSE:ETP)  This is a Master Limited Partnership based in Texas.  Founded in 1995, the company has 71,000 miles of pipelines carrying various products. The company plans to build other major pipelines — the Rover Project — to carry product from the shale regions (Marcellus and Utica) across the Northern U.S. state east of the Mississippi.  ETP LP acquired Sunoco (remember them?).

Mutual Funds – Bond Holders – other key fiduciaries with brands of their own to protect — are funding the operations of ETP LP.

Brand names of equity holders include Oppenheimer; Goldman Sachs Asset Management; CalPERS; JPMorgan Chase.  Bond holders include Lord Abbett, PIMCO, Vanguard.  There are 567 institutional owners — fiduciaries — with some 45% of ownership, according to Morningstar. Partners include Marathon Petroleum Company (NYSE:MPC) and Enbridge (NYSE:ENB). (Bloomberg News – August 2, 2016 – both firms put $2 billion in the project and related work.)

The Partnership used to have an “Ownership” explanation on its web site — now it’s disappeared. But you can review some of it in Google’s archived web site pages here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.energytransfer.com/ownership_overview.aspx&num=1&strip=1&vwsrc=0

* * * * * * * *

We are seeing in developments every day (like these above with non-governmental strategies and actions) that hold out promise for corporate and societal sustainability advocates and sustainable investment professionals that with — or without — public sector support, the Forward Momentum continue to build.

We’ll share news and opinion with you — let us know your thoughts, and the actions that you / your organization is taking, to continue the momentum toward building a better future…a more sustainable nation and world.

Out the Seventh Generation, as the Native American tribes are doing out in the American West in protecting their Treaty lands.  In that regard we could say, a promise is a promise — the Federal and state governments should uphold promises made in treaties.  Which are covered as a “guarantee” by the U.S. Constitution that some folk in politics like to wave around for effect.

FYI — this is Article VI:  “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

The Results Are In: Sustainable, Responsible, Impact Investing by U.S. Asset Managers At All-time High — $8 Trillion!

by Hank Boerner – Chairman & Chief Strategist, G&A Institute

We have an important update for you today: The US SIF Report on “US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends, 2016,” was released this week.

The top line for you today: In the U.S.A., sustainable, responsible and impact (SRI) investing continues to expand — at a rapid and encouraging pace.

As we read the results of 2016 survey report, we kept thinking about the past 30 or so years of what we first knew as “socially responsible,” “faith-based,” “ethical” (and so on) approaches to investing, and that more recently we declared to be sustainable & responsible investing (SRI). And even more recently, adding “Impact Investing”).

At various times over the years we tried to visualize “how” the future would be in practical terms when many more mainstream investors embraced SRI / ESG approaches in their stock analysis and portfolio decision-making.

We’re happy to report that great progress continues to be made. It may at times have seemed to be slow progress for some of our SRI colleagues, especially the hardy pioneers at Domini, Trillium, Calvert, Zevin, Walden, Christian Brothers/CBIS, As You Sow, Neuberger Berman, and other institutions.  But looking over the past three decades, always, in both “up and down” markets, and especially after the 2008 market crash — sustainable, responsible and impact investment gained ground!

And so, we in the U.S. SRI community anxiously look forward to the every-other-year survey of U.S.A. asset owners and managers to measure the breadth and depth of the pool of assets that are managed following ESG methods, SRI approaches, etc.

Here are the key takeaways for you in the just-released survey by the U.S. Forum for Sustainable & Responsible Investment (US SIF), the trade association of the SRI community that has tracked SRI in its survey efforts since 1995-1996, and the US SIF Foundation.

2016 Survey Highlights:

• At the start of 2016, ESG (“environmental/social/governance”) factors were being considered for US$8.72 trillion of professionally-managed assets in the United States of America.

• SRI Market size: that is 20 percent / or $1-in-$5 of all Assets Under Management (AUM) / for all US-domiciled assets under professional management (that is almost $9 Trillion of the total AUM of $40.3 trillion).

• This is a gain of 33% over the total number ($6.572 trillion in AUM) in the previous US SIF survey results at the start of 2014.

• Surveyed for the 2016 report: a total of 447 institutional investors, 300 money (asset) managers, and 1,043 community investment institutions. This can be described as a diverse group of investors seeking to achieve positive impacts through corporate engagement -or- investing with an emphasis on community, sustainability or advancement of women.

Drivers: Client demand is a major driver – the U.S. asset owners hiring asset (money) management firms are increasingly focused on ESG factors for their investments — as responsible fiduciaries.

ESG Criteria: Survey respondents in the investment community had 32 criteria to select from in the survey, including E-S-G and product related activities (ESG funds); they could add ESG criteria used as well.

What is important to the investors surveyed?  The report authors cited responses such as:

• Environmental investment factors — now apply to $7.79 trillion in AUM.
• Climate Change criteria – now shape $1.42 trillion in AUM – 5 times the prior survey number.
• Clean Technology is a consideration for managers of $354 billion in AUM.
• Social Criteria are applied to $7.78 trillion in AUM.
• Governance issues apply to $7.70 trillion in AUM, 2X the prior survey.
• Product specific criteria apply to $1.97 trillion in AUM.

The Social criteria (the “S” in ESG) include conflict risk; equal employment opportunity and diversity; labor and human rights issues.

Product issues include tobacco and alcohol; these were the typically “screened out” stocks in the earlier days of SRI and remain issues for some investors today.

Mutual Funds:
Among the investment vehicles incorporating ESG factors into investment management, the survey found 519 registered investment companies (mutual funds, variable annuity funds, ETFs, closed-end funds). Total: $1.74 trillion in AUM.

Alternative Investment Vehicles:
There were 413 alternate investment vehicles identified as using ESG strategies (including private equity, hedge funds, VCs). Total: $206 billion in AUM.

Institutional Investors:
The biggie in SRI, with $4.72 trillion in AUM, a 17% increase since the start of 2014 (the last survey). These owners include public employee funds; corporations; educational institutions; faith-based investors; healthcare funds; labor union pension funds; not-for-profits; and family offices.

Community Investing:
The survey included results from 1,043 community investing institutions, including credit unions; community development banks; loan funds; VC funds. Total: $122 billion in AUM. (These institutions typically serve low-to-moderate income individuals and communities and include CDFI’s.)

Proxy Activism:
SRI players are active on the corporate proxy front: From 2014 to 2016, 176 institutional investors and 49 money managers file / co-file shareholder resolutions at U.S. public companies focused on environmental (E) or social (S) issues. (The number remains stable over the past four years, the report tells us.) The major development was that where such resolutions received 17% approval from 2007 to 2009, since 2013, 30% of resolutions received 30% or more approval.

Methodologies/Approaches:
There are five primary ESG incorporation strategies cited by US SIF: (1) Analyzing, selecting best-in-class companies, positive choices for the portfolio; (2) negative approaches / exclusionary approaches for certain sectors or industries or products by/for the fiduciary; (3) methods of ESG integration — considering various ESG risks and opportunities; (4) impact or “outcome” investing, intended to generate social (“S) or environmental (“E”) impact along with financial return; (5) selecting sustainability-themed funds of various types.

Commenting on the survey results, US SIF CEO Lisa Woll observed that as the field grows, some growing pains are to be expected. . .with the continuing concern that too often, limited information is disclosed by survey respondents regarding their ESG assets. While the number of owners and managers say that they are using ESG factors, they do not disclose the specific criteria used. (This could be, say, criteria for clean energy consideration, or labor issues of various kinds.)

The US SIF biannual survey effort began in 1996, looking at year-end 1995 SRI assets under management. In that first year, $639 billion in AUM were identified. By the 2010 report, the $3 billion AUM mark was reached. That sum was doubled by the 2014 report.

Year-upon-year, for us the message was clear in the periodic survey results: The center (the pioneering asset owner and management firms) held fast and key players built on their strong foundations; the pioneers were joined by SRI peers and mainstream capital market players on a steady basis (and so the SRI AUM number steadily grew); and investors — individuals, and institutions — saw the value in adopting SRI approaches.

Today, $1-in-$5 in Assets Under [Professional] Management sends a very strong signal of where the capital markets are headed — with or without public sector “enthusiasm” for the journey ahead in 2017 and beyond!

There is a treasury of information for you in the report, which is available at: www.ussif.org.

Congratulations to the US SIF team for their year-long effort in charting the course of SRI in 2015-2016:  CEO Lisa Woll; Project Directors Meg Voorhes of the US SIF Foundation and Joshua Humphreys of Croatan Institute; Research Team members Farzana Hoque of the Foundation and Croatan Institute staff Ophir Bruck, Christi Electris, Kristin Lang, and Andreea Rodinciuc.

2016 survey sponsors included: Wallace Global Fund; Bloomberg LP; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; Calvert Investments; TIAA Global Asset Management; Candriam Investors Group; KKR; MacArthur Foundation; Neuberger Berman; Saturna Capital (and Amana Mutual Funds Trust); Bank of America; BlackRock; CBIS (Catholic Responsible Investing); Community Capital Management Inc.; ImpactUs; Legg Mason Global Asset Management / ClearBridge Investments; Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing; Sentinel Investments; Trillium Asset Management; Cerulli Associates; and, Walden Asset Management.

A footnote on terminology: Throughout the survey exercise and reporting, terms used include sustainable, responsible and impact investing; sustainable investing; responsible investing; impact investing; and SRI. These are used interchangeably to describe investment practices.

About US SIF:  This is a three-decade old, Washington-DC-based membership association that advances SRI to ensure that capital markets can drive ESG practices. The mission is to work to rapidly shift investment practices toward sustainability, focusing on long-term investment and the generation of positive social and environmental impacts.  SIF Members are investment management and advisory firms; mutual fund companies; research firms; financial planners and advisors; broker-dealers; non-profit associations; pension funds; foundations; community investment institutions; and other asset owners.

Governance & Accountability Institute is a long-time member organization of the U.S. Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (US SIF).

As part of the G&A Institute mission, we are committed to assisting more investing and financial professionals learn more about SRI and ESG — especially younger professionals interested in adopting SRI approaches in their work.  G&A is collaborating with Global Change Advisors to present a one-day certification program hosted at Baruch College/CUNY on December 14, 2016.  Details and registration information is at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/intro-to-corporate-esg-for-investment-finance-professionals-certification-tickets-29052781652

Who Runs the World? Girls!

Guest Commentary by Lauren Mazurek

LaurenMI, a girl in the 21st century, living in America, attending a private high school, have many opportunities — one of them being playing an abundance of sports. These activities include high school soccer, club soccer, cross country and basketball.

Some days when I am very tired I complain about running 3.1 miles (the distance of a cross country race). Sometimes I just want to sit down and not run at all. We all take things for granted or complain about taking on life’s small burdens, whether it’s taking out the trash or cleaning your room. These are First World problems! What I realize is 62 million girls around the world are not experiencing these problems.

What I realize is 62 million girls around the world are not in school and do not have the opportunity to be educated. For girls in east Africa, boys are 1 1/2 times more likely to complete secondary educations than girls. Girls have to walk 2-to-4 miles EACH DAY just to get water, a basic and life sustaining need.

Notice I did not say fresh water or clean water; this is because more often than not the water they are walking so long to get is quite unsanitary. Two-thirds of the world’s 880 million illiterate adults are women. An educated girl will have healthier children, earn a greater income and is more likely to send her own children to school and for every year of school completed, a woman’s lifetime earnings will be 10-20% higher.

The societal initiative “Her Best Foot Forward” is helping women and girls in east Africa to reach their full potential. How, you may ask? Permit me tell you: Her Best Foot Forward is an organization that contributes to the empowerment of women and girls in east Africa. The beautifully handcrafted local artisan sandal available for purchase is NOT a donation: it’s a purchase with a purpose!

Together purchaser and maker determine where the proceeds of the sandals go to, social ventures in east Africa. The Artisans who make these beautiful sandals receive a fair wage, clean water, health services and educational & entrepreneurial support!

These women are able to build financial strength and self-confidence. Whether the contributions go to helping to clean the water in Africa or to a girl’s education, the purchaser is helping the betterment of the world.

According to the African proverb, “If you educate a man you educate a person, but if you educate a woman you educate a nation.” Hoping my persuasion can build a nation “Who are we? What do we run? The world!”

# # #

Guest commentator Lauren Mazurek is “Ambassador” for Her Best Foot Forward, the non-profit organization serving girls in East Africa.  She is a high school student at Visitation Academy in Greater St Louis, Missouri.

Lauren Mazurek soccer-85JUR1Z3

# # #

 About Her Best Foot Forward:  The organization is focused on empowering women and girls through livelihood projects, education, and clean water.  Information at:  http://www.footforwardfund.org

 

 

 

 

“Our Common Future” – the Masterpiece of Gro Harlem Brundtland, Also Known to Many As the Influential “Brundtland Report”

Former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway (and then special envoy for the United Nations) was invited by the UN to create and manage a “World Commission on Environment and Development (“WCED”), which over time became known as the “Brundtland Commission.”  The commission gave the world a framework for moving forward on what would become known as “sustainable development.”

The commission report (in 1987) was titled, “Our Common Future,” paved the way for the world leader gathering in 1992 – the “Earth Summit.”   Her work continued after the commission work concluded; she led the Norwegian government peace initiative in the Middle East, bringing the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Israel’s Yitzak Rabin. (This led to the “Oslo Accords.”)  Ms. Brundtland moved on to the World Health Organization (WHO) as Director-General.

Then it was on to be one of the UN’s Special Envoys for Climate Change.  And to close comradeship with President Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu and other leaders as “the Elders,” bringing attention to pressing societal issues.  She is a fascinating – and inspiring – woman in key global and regional leadership roles.

So what are her thoughts on the current state of sustainability?  How has the concept moved forward – and after 28 years, what has the world accepted (of the thoughts of Our Common Future)?  (The main message remains:  Our generation has a responsibility to address the destiny of the planet.) How does she view the meetings in Paris (COP 21)?

She shares her views on these questions and on electric-powered cars and the beneficial impact on public health.  How can countries encourage the adoption of EV’s?  (Remember, her home country of Norway is a major oil-producing nation – pumping fossil fuel for powering of internal combustion engines.)

Thinking back to 1987 and the commission work – that is not so long ago, is it!  The current generation of undergrad and grad students focused on the many dimensions of sustainable development, and after graduation moving into positions in companies, governments, civil societies, will be shaping the direction of those organizations…advancing the seminal work of the Brundtland Commission and many others inspired by the commission’s work.

Watch a 10-minute video interview of Gro Harlem Brundtland by Zachary Shahan by clicking the link below:

Interview With Gro Harlem Brundtland, Grandmother of Sustainability (Video)
(Thursday – February 11, 2016)
Source: Clean Technica – Gro Brundtland is the “grandmother of sustainability.” She is a true legend, and the roots of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” sprouted in the famous report named after her, Our Common Future, also known as the…

Davos at 47 Years – Always Interesting News From the Gathering in Switzerland of Business – Government – NGO Leaders

Each winter for the past four decades leaders in government, business, media, academia, and civil society  gather beneath snow-capped mountains in the mile-high town of Davos, Switzerland to ponder and debate the present and future of our world society.  This year’s gathering (2,500 in attendance) focused in good measure on the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

The first revolution being use of water and steam to move from hand-to-mechanical means of production; the second was the coming of electronic wonders in mass production; the third is use of IT and electronics to automate and communicate and transfer information via the internet.  The fourth?  Automation… artificial intelligence… robots… drones… interactive technologies… virtual reality…  enabled disruption…  Everything we take for granted is in upheaval.  For humans, will it be competition (with robots) or collaboration?  They debated that in Davos this month.

One consensus seemed to be that science, in leading the way into the Fourth Revolution (as it did the past three), will need better use of talent – like more women in the field.  The image of the lone scientist in a white coat working at the lab table is passé; today, discovery and innovation is more collaborative and inter-disciplinary in nature.  Governments need to play a larger role, for staying power (long-term results) given the frequent short-term focus of the business and investment community.  Discovery needs to be nurtured over a longer period to bring us breakthroughs like GPS, space satellites and organ transplants.

And on being human and humane – the RED campaign, organized by singer Bono of U2 and others 10 years ago, announced at Davos that US$350 million has been raised to help those with AIDS (providing anti-retroviral therapies).  RED campaigners aim for an AIDS-free generation as soon as possible.  Well done to those 65 companies who helped RED raise the funds.

Below is a snapshot of items for you out of Davos -– always interesting reading!

Davos Snapshot

Davos Meeting Preview 2016: What To Watch For At World Economic Forum In Switzerland
(Monday – January 18, 2016) Source: International Business Times – With the World Economic Forum set to begin Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland, world leaders, business tycoons and journalists have already begun flocking to the snow-capped resort town in the Swiss Alps in preparation for the…

Davos 2016: Who’s who at the World Economic Forum (and who’s notably absent) – from Leonardo DiCaprio to Travis Kalanick and George Osborne
(Monday – January 18, 2016) Source: City AM – On the Swiss slopes, the annual gathering of the World Economic Forum which kicks off this Wednesday, brings together the world’s biggest politicians, business leaders and a sprinkling of celebrities to liven things up too.

Who will win Davos 2016?
(Wednesday – January 20, 2016) Source: Quartz – Sure, the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos is the premier gathering of global power brokers, a place for the great and the good to address the thorniest issues facing society. But it is also an unparalleled display of…

This is where the real deals at Davos are done
(Thursday – January 21, 2016) Source: BBC – Call it the Davos Fringe Festival. Increasingly this “fringe”, the privately-organized events, are taking the attention of attendees away from the Congress Centre and the WEF’s carefully curated program. Invitations to private…

What are the 10 biggest global challenges’
(Friday – January 22, 2016) Source: World Economic Forum – World Economic Forum – The scale of the employment challenge is vast. The International Labour Organization estimates that more than 61 million jobs have been lost since the start of the global economic crisis in 2008, leaving…

G&A Institute Supports The Global Sourcing Council’s “17 Weeks / 17 SDGs Initiative”

Governance & Accountability Institute announces its support of the Global Sourcing Council’s “17 Weeks / 17 SDGs Initiative,” developed by GSC in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were adopted by all 193 countries at the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015.

G&A Institute, in the spirit of SDG 17 on “Partnerships For The Goals,” will help to communicate GSC’s message of education and inspiration through its distribution channels, clients, and partnerships. GSC’s 17 Weeks / 17 SDGs Initiative will work to educate and inspire the global community about the business case for aligning sourcing and supply chains with the 17 important global goals. This Initiative provides supporters a global platform over the course of 17 weeks to demonstrate their leadership activities around the SDGs in their sourcing and supply chains.

Click here to read the full press release.

Harvard’s Eccles on the UN SDGs – They Are “Good for Business”

After months of study, deliberation and negotiation, members of the United Nations task force charged with establishing “Sustainable Development Goals” can take a bow — all 193 member nations have signed on to the goals, which address a wide range of ESG issues, such as solving hunger and poverty issues, addressing inequalities, dealing with climate change issues, creating more “sustainable cities,” and encouraging “more responsible” consumption.

There are 17 goals in total, and large—cap company managers we are speaking with in North America and Europe describe how their enterprises are now at work adopting goals and applying these to their long-term planning and target setting.  Companies are structuring programs and actions around the goals.  The actions/programs usually relate to the mission of the company.  A handful of companies that we’ve chatted with are attempting to address all 17 goals.

Are these companies unusual?  Should corporate boards and managements be wary of the UN setting goals that affect their business prospects? Do senior managers view this as the UN interfering with the ability to create value for shareholders?

Harvard University professor Bob Eccles says “no,” business leaders should and are adopting the goals for their companies.  Writing in Forbes, Eccles advises:  “The 2030 Agenda is very good news for the corporate community. Its goals represent clear business opportunities for those companies that understand sustainable change can be met through innovative products and services.”

Some goals, he explains, are industry-specific (such as clean water); some goals can be supported by every company (such as gender inequality). The goals represent aspirational markers for managements in both the short- and long-term (the goals go out to 2030).  Important:  Eccles sees it as the duty of the board of directors as fiduciaries to recognize the importance of the SDGs, and work to ensure that their company is responding with appropriate strategies.

The UN first set these types of goals in 2000, at the start of the new century, with the Millennium Goals.  Many public companies adopted these and fitted the goals to their own operations (such as reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions).  The usual practice was to align the company strategies and actions with the 2015 target date of those goals.  The new goals are much more sweeping and comprehensive and take the actions out to the 2030 date…companies are now assessing the 2000/2015 efforts and strategizing their embrace of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The goals were officially launched in September at the United Nations meetings in New York City.  In the weeks and months ahead, there will be much news and commentary about the SDGs, with companies, governments, NGOs, multi-lateral agencies, investor coalitions, and other stakeholders weighing in.  If you have not tuned in yet, we should point out that Harvard Professor Eccles is a prominent and credible voice in sustainability circles -– we encourage you to read the story below with his views.

And finally… if you’re a company that wants to explore what the SDGs mean to your organization’s strategy we’ve put together several resources and services here at G&A (and through our partners) that can assist you in this important strategy setting process.

Please contact us at lcoppola@ga-institute.com to learn more about how we can help.

UN Sustainable Development Goals: Good For Business
(Wednesday – October 21, 2015)
Source: Forbes – Businesses today are expected to be part of the solution to our world’s greatest challenges – from climate and water crises, to inequality and poverty – as captured in the Sustainable Development Goals …

Movers & Shakers in Shareholder Activism — Watch the 2015 Proxy Season and ICCR

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

For more than 35 years, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has been in the forefront of pressing for changes and reforms in corporate policies, practices and behaviors. This is a coalition of 300 institutional investment organizations — mainly faith-based and “values-driven” institutions — directly managing US$100 billion in assets.

Members include major religious denominations, sustainable & responsible investing organizations, foundations, unions, colleges & universities, and social issue advocacies.

ICCR through its long0-term activism and corporate engagement — especially in proxy season and importantly, year-round — influences many billions of dollars more in AUM in the US and global capital markets.

Issues on focus for ICCR members in 2014 included:

Corporate Governance — a traditional/perennial set of concerns; this includes separation and chair and CEO positions, and independence of board members;

The Environment – especially global warming / climate change and environmental justice;

Food – access to nutritious food, ag & land use, use of antibiotics in meat animals, food & sustainability…and more; note that for ICCR, food issues include the impact of climate change on growing areas (such as flooding and droughts);

Global Health – access to medicines by people in less-developed economies is a long-standing concern of members, who over the decades have engaged with pharma companies change marketing practices;

Human Rights — increasingly in recent years the focus on corporate supply chain behaviors, policies, and actions has increased;

Water – this ties in to human rights and access to water is a key factor; also, the trend to privatization of water supply is an important focus;

Financial Services – responsible lending was in focus long before the major banks took on too much risk and led the nation into crisis with subprime lending shenanigans; as investors, ICCR members are focused on “risk” as much and perhaps more than many mainstream institutions.

Big issues for ICCR members in recent years includes the focus on corporate political spending (lobbying, contributions); and, strategies / policies / actions / disclosures (and especially lack thereof) on the part of companies in member investment portfolios.

Says the coalition:  “ICCR members advocate for greater transparency around how company resources are used to impact elections, regulations and public policy.”

ICCR through member organizations engages with corporate boards and managements to discuss issues of importance to members, who operate in “a multi-stakeholder collaboration.”  Typically, brand names among public companies are the enterprises engaged for discussion.  Changes made at the brand names will eventually affect (and result in change) for more companies in the industry or sector or geography.

At G&A Institute we have long had a collaborative relationship with ICCR and see [ICCR] actions as important sustainable investment leadership positioning by key institutional and individual investors on ESG issues — especially in the annual corporate proxy voting seasons.

Recently Al-Jazeera America network broadcast an informative segment featuring ICCR leadership –the program interviews feature Sister Pat Daly (leader of the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment), Sister Barbara Aires (Sisters of Charity of Paterson NJ), and ICCR Chair Father Seamus Finn, OMI (Missionary of Oblates of Mary Immaculate).

Father Finn is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post — his very readable posts are at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-seamus-p-finn-omi/

Sister Pat, the segment reported, filed 20 proxy resolutions and had corporate engagement meetings in 2014.

The segment is available on line at:  https://ajam.app.boxcn.net/s/7bkt7oc4mpymnfuow3g3

Worth noting:  In December, JP Morgan Chase released a report on changes in how the company does business; ICCR member institutions invested in JPMC welcomed the public release of the report.

Stay Tuned to ICCR in the new year — it’s an important capital markets force…”Inspired by faith, committed to action.”

ICCR is led by Executive Director Laura Berry; you can learn more about her at:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ4PzEpyiD4; information on ICCR is at:  www.iccr.org

 

Corporate Human Rights Performance — Benchmarking and Ranking of Global Companies

by Hank Boerner – G&A Institute

Interesting news out of Switzerland today — the first wide scale project to rank up to 500 global companies on their human rights performance was launched, and corporate human rights performance in key sectors will be researched and ranked over the coming months.  The first sectors in focus are Agriculture, Apparel, Extractives, and Information and Communications Technology.

This is the new Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (“CHRB”).

The organizers of the long-term project include Aviva Investors; Business and Human Rights Resource Center; EIRIS; the Institute for Human Rights and Business; and VBDO (a sustainable investment forum for SR investors in the Netherlands).  The Corporate Roundtable (ICAR) has endorsed the project.

In announcing the project, the organizers said that investors, companies and consumers are increasingly aware of the impacts of business on human rights.  The project will share the first publicly-available (open source) information on corporate policies, processes and performance on human rights…including what managements are doing to address negative impacts, and what they can do to scale resources.

Among recent positive developments the organizers citied:

  • A year after the Rana Plaza factory fire in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Accord has spurred on greater transparency, with increased public reporting on factory inspections.
  • Beverage industry giants Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo have committed to Zero Tolerance policies on “land grabs.”
  • The European Union is committed to restricting exports of spyware surveillance technologies because of human rights concerns.
  • The recently-adopted Conflict Mineral legislation in the United States has resulted in a 65% drop in armed groups profiting from illegal mining trade.

Backgrounds of the partnering organizations in the project:

  • Aviva Investors – global asset management business, and part of Aviva plc, one of the UK’s largest insurance services providers.
  • Business and Human Rights Resource Centre – international NGO that tracks human rights impact of 5,600 companies in 180+ countries, with information available in 7 languages.
  • Calvert Investments – influential US investment management firm and long-time recognized leader in advancing sustainable & responsible investment strategies.
  • EIRIS – global leader in ESG research and SRI strategies (UK based with members in the EU).
  • Institute for Human Rights and Business – global “think and do” tank, providing “impartial space for dialogue to deepen understanding of human rights challenges and the [appropriate] role of business.”
  • VBDO – The Dutch association of institutional investors promoting  sustainable development; members consider both financial and ESG criteria for their investments.

Over the next 3 years the 6 organizations — organized as the “CHRB Steering Group” — will conduct a worldwide “consultation” on the methodology and results with diverse stakeholders, and collect and release information on 500 companies’ human rights performance.  The information will be open source, and available to company managements, investors, the public sector, local communities, and NGOs.

Steve Waygood of Aviva Investors commented:  “Our benchmark will introduce a positive competitive environment and companies try to race to the top of the annual ranking.  [The effort] will also shine a light on those [companies] where performance needs to improve.

“It took more than 60 years from the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were developed.

“We believe that within 6 years of their approval, we can help to make these Guiding Principles routine corporate practice through the development and use of the Benchmark.”

Information is available through EIRIS:  contact is Stephen Hine, head of Responsible Investment Development – Stephen.hine@eiris.org

Note that the team at Governance & Accountability Institute identifies, tracks and monitors third party recognitions of companies for a variety of [their] achievements. These include scores, rankings, ratings, and “best of” lists.  This is definitely a growth business, and the third party actions can have influence on a company’s reputation and capital markets valuation.  Investors and other third parti4s will be watching the new human rights benchmarking as the project moves forward.