Good News: Solar & Wind Emerge in Global Search for Renewable Energy Sources

Guest Commentary  – Alison Crady      Marketing Specialist, CDF Distributors and Fast Partitions, United Kingdom

On Planet Earth there are numerous resources we have learned to utilize to enhance our work and private lives. Through the work of brilliant inventors and engineers, our cities come alive day and night powered by reliable electricity.

From the cars we drive to the light bulbs that illuminate our desktop, we steadily use the planets’ natural resources without giving much thought to the power source.
But in recent years, in addition to our increasing usage of these resources and supplied power, there comes our greater awareness of their limitations.

Today, with the societal emphasis on greater sustainability in all areas of our lives, environmentalists and technicians eagerly search for renewable energy sources.

Options like hydropower, solar power, wind energy and geothermal plants are being tested around the world… the good news is, with increasing success, worth noticing.

Here are some good news stories to share about renewable energy successes around the world:

In Costa Rica
Perhaps one of the “brightest” examples, the nation of Costa Rica in Central America has managed to use 100 percent renewable energy for 76 days straight. This was the second test-run of the length of sustainable power this year, which adds up to over 150 renewable energy days. Being a smaller country, Costa Rica is the perfect testing grounds for replacement energy sources. The length of the country’s use of renewable power is astounding.

Throughout the project, the Costa Rican government depended on these primary replacements:
• Hydro/geothermal/wind/solar energy— 80. 27%
• Geothermal plants— 12.62%
• Wind turbines— 7.1%

In the Nation of Portugal
The Portuguese quest for clean energy has achieved some important milestones. Recently, this small European country on the Atlantic shoreline managed to provide power for four days straight using only renewable energy sources. For the entire 107 hours, the nation of Portugal was sustained only by wind and solar power. This 4-day streak was the recent peak of their increasingly-promising clean power journey. Last year renewable sources provided 48% of Portugal’s total energy needs. Zero harmful emissions release is the goal.

In the United Kingdom
In the UK, governmental leaders and renewable energy industry leaders are hard at work to identify sustainable clean energy solutions. Researchers have seen some dramatic changes in solar power and wind energy usage. Unfortunately, the UK government has decided to halt the spread of onshore windfarms, primarily because of how expensive these installations were becoming.

Experts predict at least a one gigawatt — enough to light up 660,000 homes — loss in renewable energy generation within the next five years. After the ground-breaking investment in wind energy last year, several proposed construction projects will come to a halt.

That is the disappointing news. Investment in solar power, on the other hand, has slowly but steadily been increasing. Perhaps with the coming drop in government wind energy subsidies, the renewable energy finances will be redirected to encourage greater solar energy funding.

In Spain
If you visit the colorful lands of Spain, Portugal’s neighbor on the Iberian Peninsula, you’ll soon learn that electrical power is expensive. The country’s lack of natural resource blessings — such as deposits of oil, natural gas or coal — has spurred policymakers and industry leaders forward in the development of renewable energy. With this motivation to find less expensive, reliable energy sources, Spain is becoming known as a “Cradle of Renewable Energy.”

During the night time, wind energy fulfills 70% of Spain’s electricity needs, with a daytime record achievement of 54%. Over 29 million homes in Spain are currently powered by wind energy. However, wind energy is unpredictable, which makes forecasting key to sustainable clean energy. The Spanish firm Acciona consistently monitors the operations of 9,500 wind turbines at the Pamplona control center.

In Germany
The German nation’s quest for renewable energy has recently gained momentum. According to the Agora Energiewende think tank, Germany was able to supply nearly 100% of its energy needs with renewable sources for an entire day. Conventional power plants were able to supply 7.7 gigawatts at their energy output peak. As the country moves forward to phase out nuclear and fossil fuels, Germany’s cleaner power drive / quest narrows in on solar and wind power.

In China
Never a country to miss out on significant global trends, China has taken stock in its renewable energy resources. Aware of the need to combat climate change, China sets up new wind turbines at the astonishing rate of two every hour. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), onshore wind and solar panels have increasingly been reduced in costs.

The IEA reported this decline as impressive, and they expect the trend to continue. With cheaper renewable energy options, the clean power usage trend will continue to take off, most industry expert agree.

The Rewards of Renewable Energy
The damaging effects of current levels of carbon dioxide emissions and the awareness of ever-limited natural resources are being felt around the world. The need for a better way to generate energy is clear. Given the recent trends of success, in a growing number of countries, solar and wind energy power sources are not going away any time soon. These renewable resources are the forecasted “superheroes” for continued (and significant) reduction in dangerous carbon emissions and energy source and supply security on a global scale.

That’s the good news to share today.

# # #

Allison Crady provides these links to the companies she serves as marketing specialist:
• http://www.cdfdistributors.com/
• https://www.fastpartitions.com/

Alison Crady

Guest Commentator Alison Crady

Will We See Mandated Corporate Reporting on ESG / Sustainability Issues in the USA?

by Hank Boerner – Chairman – G&A Institute

Maybe…U.S. Companies Will Be Required…or Strongly Advised… to Disclose ESG Data & Related Business Information

Big changes in mandated US corporate disclosure and reporting on ESG factors may be just over the horizon — perhaps later this year? Or perhaps not…

Sustainable & responsible investing advocates have long called for greater disclosure on environmental and social issues that affect corporate financial performance (near and long-term). Their sustained campaigning may soon result in dramatic changes in the information investors and stakeholders will have available from mandated corporate filings.

We are in countdown mode — in mid-April the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), the agency that regulates many parts of the capital market operations and especially corporate disclosure and reporting for investors issued a Concept Release with a call for public comments.

Among the issues In focus are potential adjustments, expansions and updating of mandated corporate financial reporting. One of these involves corporate ESG disclosure. The issue of “materiality” is weaved throughout the release.

Among the many considerations put forth by SEC: expanding corporate disclosure requirements for corporate financial and business information to include ESG factors, and to further define “materiality.” Especially the materiality of ESG factors.

The comment period is open for you to weigh in with your opinion on corporate ESG disclosure and reporting rules — or at least strong SEC guidance on the matter.

SEC has been conducting a “Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative,” which includes looking at corporate disclosure and reporting requirements, as well as the forms of presentation and methods of delivery of corporate information made available to investors. (Such as corporate web site content, which most feel needs to be updated as to SEC guidance.)

The umbrella regulatory framework — “Regulation S-K” — has been the dominant approach for corporate reporting since 1977 has been the principal repository (in SEC lingo) for filing corporate financial and business information (such as the familiar 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, etc.).

Investors Want More Corporate ESG Information

For a number of years now, investment community players have urged SEC to look at mandating or offering strong guidance to public company managements to expand disclosure and reporting to substantially address what some opponents conveniently call “non-financial,” or “intangible” information. An expanding base of investors feel just the opposite — ESG information is quite tangible and has definite financial implications and results for the investor. The key question is but how to do this?

Reforming and Updating Reg S-K

In December 2013 when the JOBS Act (“Jumpstart Our Business Startups”) was passed by Congress, SEC was charged with issuing a report [to Congress] on the state of corporate disclosure rules. The goal of the initiative is to improve corporate disclosure and shareholders’ access to that information.

The Spring 2016 Concept Release is part of that effort. The SEC wants to “comprehensively review” and “facilitate” timely, material disclosure by registrants and improve distribution of that information to investors. Initially, the focus is on Reg S-K requirements. Future efforts will focus on disclosure related to disclosure of compensation and governance information in proxy statements.

Asset managers utilizing ESG analytics and portfolio management tools cheered the SEC move. In the very long Concept Release – Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S-K, at 341 pages — there is an important section devoted to “public policy and sustainability” topics. (Pages 204-215).

ESG / Sustainability in Focus For Review and Action

In the Concept Release  SEC states: In seeking public input on sustainability and public policy disclosures (such as related to climate change) we recognize that some registrants (public companies) have not considered this information material.

Some observers continue to share this view.

The Concept Release poses these questions as part of the consideration of balancing those views with those of proponents of greater disclosure including ESG information:

• Are there specific public policy issues important to informed voting and investment decisions?

• If the SEC adopted rules for sustainability and public policy disclosure, how could the rules result in meaningful disclosures (for investors)?

• Would line items about sustainability or public policy issues cause registrations to disclose information that is not material to investors?

• There is already sustainability and ESG information available outside of Commission (S-K) filings — why do some companies publish sustainability, citizenship, CSR reports…and is the information sufficient to address investor needs? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these types of reports (such as being available on corporate web sites)?

• What challenges would corporate reporters face if ESG / sustaianbility / public policy reporting were mandated — what would the additional costs be? (Federal rule making agencies must balance cost-benefit.)

• Third party organizations — such as GRI and SASB for U.S. company reporting — offer frameworks for this type of reporting. If ESG reporting is mandated, should existing standards or frameworks be considered? Which standards?

The Commission has received numerous comments about the inadequacy of current disclosure regarding climate change matters. And so the Concept Release asks: Are existing disclosure requirements adequate to elicit the information that would permit investors to evaluate material climate change risk? Why — or why not? What additional disclosure requirements– or SEC guidance — would be appropriate?

Influential Voices Added to the Debate

The subject of expanded disclosure of corporate ESG, sustainability, responsibility, citizenship, and related information has a number of voices weighing in. Among those organizations contributing information and commentary to the SEC are these: GRI; SASB; Ceres; IEHN; ICCR; PRI; CFA Institute; PWC; E&Y; ISS; IIRC; BlackRock Institute; Bloomberg; World Federation of Exchanges; US SIF.

The overwhelming view on record now with SEC is that investor consideration of ESG matters is important and that change is needed in the existing corporate reporting and disclosure requirements. You can add your voice to the debate.

For Your Action:

I urge your reading of the Concept Release, particularly the pages 204 through 215, to get a better understanding of what is being considered, especially as proposed by proponents; and, I encourage you to weigh in during the open public comment period with your views.

You can help to ensure the SEC commissioners, staff and related stakeholders understand the issues involved in expanding corporate disclosure on ESG matters and how to change the rules — or offer strong SEC guidance. Let the SEC know that ESG information is needed to help investors better understand the risks and opportunities inherent in the ESG profiles of companies they do or might invest in.

SEC rules or strong guidance on ESG disclosure would be a huge step forward in advancing sustainability and ESG consideration by mainstream capital market players.

Information sources:

The SEC release was on 13 April 2016; this means the comment period is open for 90 days, to mid-July.

Helpful Background For You

Back in 1975 as the public focus on environmental matters continued to increase (all kinds of federal “E” laws were being passed, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act), stakeholders asked SEC to address the disclosure aspects of corporate environmental matters.

The initial proposal was deemed to have exceeded the commission’s statutory authority.

In 1974 the ERISA legislation had been passed by Congress, and pension funds, foundations and other fiduciaries were dramatically changing the makeup of the investor community, dwarfing the influence of one once-dominant individual investor. After ERISA and the easing of “prudent man” guidelines for fiduciaries, institutional investors rapidly expanded their asset holdings to include many more corporate equities.

And the institutions were increasingly focused on the “E,” “S” and :”G” aspects of corporate operations — and the real or potential influence of ESG performance on the financials. Over time, asset owners began to view the company’s ESG factors as a proxy for (effective or not) management.

While the 1975 draft requirements for companies to expand “E” and “S” information was eventually shelved by SEC, over the years there was a steady series of advances in accounting rules that did address especially “E” and some “S” matters.

FAS 5 issued by FASB in March 1975 addressed the “Accounting for Contingency” costs of corporate environmental liability FASB Interpretation FIN 14 regarding FAS 5 a year later (September 1976) addressed interpretations of “reasonable estimations of losses.” SEC Staff Bulletins helped to move the needle in the direction of what sustainable & responsible investors were demanding. Passage of Sarbanes-Oxley statutes in July 2002 with emphasis on greater transparency moved the needle some more.

But there was always a lag in the regulatory structure that enables SEC to keep up with the changes in investment expectations that public companies would be more forthcoming with ESG data and other information. And there was of course organized corporate opposition.

(SEC must derive its authority from landmark 1933 and 1934 legislation, expansions and updates in 1940, 2002, 2010 legislation, and so on. Rules must reflect what is intended in the statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. And opponents of proposals can leverage what is/is not in the laws to push back on SEC proposals.)

There is an informative CFO magazine article on the subject of corporate environmental disclosure, published September 9, 2004, after the Enron collapse, two years after Sarbanes-Oxley became the law of the land, and 15+ years after the SEC focused on environmental disclosure enhancements. Author Marie Leone set out to answer the question, “are companies being forthright about their environmental liabilities?” Check out “The Greening of GAAP” at: http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2004/09/the-greening-of-gaap/

And we add this important aspect to corporate ESG disclosure: Beginning in 1990 and in the years that followed, the G1 through G4 frameworks provided to corporate reporters by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) helped to address the investor-side demand for more ESG information and the corporate side challenge of providing material information related to their ESG strategies, programs, actions and achievements.

The G&A Institute team sees the significant progress made by public companies in the volume of data and narratives related to corporate ESG performance and achievements in the 1,500 and more reports that we analyze each year as the exclusive data partner for The GRI in the United States, United Kingdom, and The Republic of Ireland.

We have come a very long way since the 1970s and the SEC Concept Release provides a very comprehensive foundation for dialogue and action — soon!

Please remember to take action and leave your comments here:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept.shtml

U.S. Industry & Trade Associations Encourage Corporate Sustainability — Today, the American Cleaning Institute is in Focus

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

As more and more U.S. companies begin or expand their disclosure and reporting on their sustainability journey, and their widening range of corporate responsibility activities, the choice of reporting frameworks both narrows and expands.

Narrows in the sense that the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework — now in its fourth generation (“G4”) since the introduction of the GRI approach in 1999-2000 — is considered the de facto global standard by thousands of company managements. There are now 30,000 sustainability reports in the GRI database — 21,000-plus of those published GRI Reports.

And the number of reporting frameworks and generally accepted standard steadily expands — there are many more standards, frameworks, codes of conduct, guidelines, third party requests for information, that now take sustainability / responsibility / citizenship / environmental performance reporting far beyond where these activities were a decade or so ago. Many corporate managements recognize the importance of such reporting and devote the necessary [human and financial] resources to the task.

Examples of available standards include corporate responding to the annual CDP CSA request for information (the voluntary Corporate Sustainability Assessment). CDP began operations in 2000 as the Carbon Disclosure Project with focus on collecting, organizing and providing information on corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GhGs) to investors; today the CDP focus include water issues, forestry issues, supply chain issues, and sector-by-sector research and analysis (the first sectors included chemicals and automotive). The client base is almost 500 institutional investors with more than US$55 trillion in AUM — they accept the CDP approach as an important standard in reporting on corporate environmental performance (or lack of).

There are also global and U.S. industry associations and trade groups that help their corporate members to understand key issues, map materiality; understand stakeholder expectations; align corporate strategies, activities and programs, third party engagement, and disclosure and reporting with the ever-expanding stakeholder and shareholder expectations. Among these are such well-known organizations as Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) and the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC).

Industry Effort:
The American Cleaning Institute and Sustainability

One large industry-focused effort we focus on today organized resources to develop a charter to provide a common, voluntary approach to promote and demonstrate continual improvement in the industry’s sustainability profile is that of the cleaning (products & services) industry — the American Cleaning Institute (ACI).

The Charter for Sustainable Cleaning is one of ACI’ major initiatives to fulfill the mission, and provide a framework for corporate members to go beyond basic legal and regulatory requirements.

You know many of the member company names and their brands, which are ubiquitous in American and global business-to-business and consumer marketing; a sampling includes Amway, BASF, Church & Dwight, Clorox, Colgate-Palmolive, Dow, DuPont, Huntsman, and International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF).

The American Cleaning Institute’s sustainability mission is to “benefit society and improve the quality of life through hygiene and cleanliness by driving sustainability improvements across the industry and throughout the supply chain.” The ACI Charter for Sustainable Cleaning was launched in January 2014 at the group’s annual meeting & industry convention. The charter was in part based on the A.I.S.E. Charter for Sustainable Cleaning, a voluntary initiative of the sister trade association in Europe (AISE). The bulk of ACI’s U.S. member companies are cleaning product manufacturers and chemical suppliers.

To date, 25 ACI member companies are signing on to the charter; they are required to have systems in place to continual assessment; review; and improvement of sustainability performance. This includes product life cycle; raw materials; resource use; product specs; manufacturing; end use and disposal of products and packaging; and occupational health and safety.


Discussion:
Brian Sansoni, VP, Sustainability Initiatives

We spoke with ACI’s Brian Sansoni, the VP, Sustainability Initiatives, based in Washington, D.C. Brian described the ACI’s sustainability efforts with the Charter as “an ongoing roll-out, beginning with speaker presentations and participant discussion at the 2014 annual conference. We are now two years into the effort.” The effort is to develop and demonstrate the sustainability efforts of a major industry sector in the United States, the cleaning products and services manufacturing and marketing industry and the industry’s supply chain.

Brian, who joined ACI in 2000, was named VP, Sustainability Initiatives in 2012 (he also has the title of VP, Communication & Membership). Brian works closely with the association’s communications team, the government affairs team, research & science team, and with a sustainability committee whose members come from member companies. He’s a radio news reporter and Congressional press secretary by background and past experience, and applies those skills to the communication about the industry association and member companies’ commitments to greater sustainability.

Brian’s teammate is Melissa Grande, Senior Manager, Sustainability Initiatives, who joined us in the conversation. Brian and Melissa oversee the production of the ACI Sustainability Report, which Brian describes as being thorough, distinct and relevant with metrics that clearly provide a hallmark of what the association and its member companies are doing in their collective sustainability journeys. The report summarizes data from 33 member companies participating in the 2014 Sustainability Metrics Program (the metrics relate to energy use, GhG emissions, water use and solid waste generation). The report features an updated summary of ACI’s social and environmental sustainability programs, and details for ACI’s scientific and research programs. They also conduct the “Sustainability Academy” for the education of ACI’s member companies.

The report is available at: www.cleaninginstitute.org/sustainability2015

Melissa Grande explained that as part of the association’s ongoing collaboration with other standard setters, ACI is a member organization of the Sustainability Consortium (Melissa was previously a member of the consortium staff).  ACI participated in the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB) development of suggested (voluntary) materiality disclosures for the Consumption Products Sector (including household and personal products).

Brian Sansoni stressed that the ACI effort is intended to create an industry-wide, discrete approach that member companies can benefit from, and contribute to as the initiatives move forward.

Important:  ACI’s Critical Issue Assessment

For the first time, the Institute staff and participating companies conducted a comprehensive materiality assessment to map risks and opportunities facing the U.S. cleaning product value chain, including key energy and environmental metrics. The mapping identified and characterized the key issues that affect ACI’s membership and the industry-at-large.

The top issues identified in the materiality process by internal and external stakeholders:

1 – Materials (safety of chemical ingredients; raw material sourcing, scarcity).
2 – Disclosure & Transparency (public disclosure related to sustainability, governance, products).
3 – Climate Change / GhGs (climate risk & opportunities; GhG emissions).
4 – Ecological Impacts (biodiversity, deforestation, environmental management, responsible agricultural practices).
5 – Water (use, waste water treatment, recycling).
6 – Workplace Health and Safety (health & safety management; health & wellness training programs).
7 – Waste (hazardous, non-hazardous waste; management of product end-of-life).
8 – Energy (energy use, renewable energy).
9 – Supply Chain Management (screening business partners on ethics & sustainability issues).
10 – Compliance (with EHS regulations).

The American Cleaning Institute’s Materiality Assessment, Brian notes, is an important way of guiding the association’s and member companies’ reporting on industry priorities. It’s also useful for the dialogue between companies and their stakeholders. ACI CEO Ernie Rosenberg notes that the association will be more strategic about tracking industry performance [on the issues] and the ACI sustainability reporting will evolve as a result.

In our view, the American Cleaning Institute’s sustainability program is an excellent example of the preferred method of the American business community in addressing ESG performance issues: adopting of voluntary, industry-wide standards, approaches, guidelines, codes of conduct, and other non-regulated approaches.

As we said up top, this approach is represented by what we see in the automotive, electronics, chemicals, apparel and other industries and sectors. This is important to keep in mind as the public dialogue on sustainability reporting includes expectations that the Federal government will at some point issue mandates for greater sustainability disclosure and structured reporting (similar, some advocates say, to mandated financial reporting).

# # #

For Reference

 

Company participants in the 2014 American Cleaning Institute Metrics Program:

AkzoNobel Chemicals LLC; Amway; Arylessence, Inc; BASF Corporation; Brenntag North America; Celeste Industries Corporation; Chemia Corporations; Church & Dwight Company, Inc; The Clorox Company; Colgate-Palmolive Company; Corbion; Croda, Inc; The Dow Chemical Company; DuPont Industrial Biosciences; Ecolab, Inc; Evonik Corporation; Farabi Petrochemicals; Firmenich Incorporated; Givaudan Fragrances Corporation; GOJO Industries, Inc; Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc; Huntsman Corporation; International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc; Novozymes PQ Corporation; Procter & Gamble; SC Johnson; Sasol; Seventh Generation; Shell Chemical LP; Stepan Company; The Sun Products Corporation; Vantage Oleochemicals.

These companies are key members of the US$30 billion U.S. cleaning products marketplace. ACI members formulate soaps, detergents and general cleaning products used in household, commercial, industrial and institutional settings. They also supply ingredients and finished packaging for these products; and, ACI members include oleochemical producers.

Interview With John H Streur of Calvert

By Louis Coppola, Governance & Accountability Institute


Calvert has a substantial presence at the 3rd Annual CSR Investing Summit.  Why was Calvert motivated to get involved with the conference?

We are big fans of S-Network. We recently chose S-Network to provide the underlying index construction and daily maintenance associated with the Calvert Responsible Index Series, and I think our reasons for sponsoring the conference are very similar to our reasons for choosing them for that task. S-Network really is a leader in custom index creation and they have a particular niche in understanding and working with Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data and “smart beta” indexes. We have had a long-standing relationship with them through work they already do providing custom indexes for two of our actively managed global investment strategies. Supporting the S-Net CSR Investing Summit is also one of the ways that Calvert can act on its commitments as a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). We see forums like this as an opportunity to help educate others within the investment industry – particularly those who might be newer to responsible investing. We know that S-Network will bring together a conference agenda that is really at the cutting-edge of how best to define, manage and measure responsible investing. It’s in venues like this that the responsible investment community can work collaboratively to enhance how the UN PRI is being implemented within the field.


I understand that Calvert is presenting some new research for the first time.  Could you elaborate on this please?

Sure. As an integral part of Calvert’s fixed income investment process, we have long evaluated ESG factors alongside fundamental security analysis. Over the years, our relative-value analysis has identified significant ESG performance impacts (or you could think of these as insights) in many areas, such as sector analysis, credit ratings, credit spreads, duration, and security selection. We’ve recently published a paper explaining our finding that ESG factors appear most influential on spread performance for companies that exhibit combined outlier fundamental and ESG characteristics.  Specifically, we’ll be sharing the results of a paper in which we designed an empirical, back-tested study of the impact of ESG on the performance of credit default swap (CDS) spread performance over a 10-year period. We used six distinct scenarios, or simulations, and I don’t want to be providing a spoiler, but the exciting thing is that for all six simulations, the data demonstrated that ESG analysis added value, positively impacting performance.

I’m also excited to share that Calvert is working with George Serafeim, the Jakurski Family Associate Professor of Business Administration at Harvard, to conduct additional research that we’ll be sharing later this summer and throughout the fall in a series of thought leadership papers. George and several members of the Calvert team are exploring a range of topics and the exciting thing about this partnership is that we can really pair George’s intellectual curiosity with the proprietary insights and data from the Calvert research system.


You say that Calvert’s approach to Responsible Investing is shifting from being primarily values-driven to primarily research-driven.  What do you mean by that?

There is a lot of baggage that can come with the word “values.” It is a word that has gotten a bad rap lately and I want to be very clear about the fact that everything Calvert Investments does on behalf of our clients – whether it’s a large institutional asset owner or an individual investor – reflects a set of values that we refer to as the Calvert Principles of Responsible Investment.  These Principles outline our perspective on the role of corporations in society, the ways that we believe corporations should interact with our natural environment, how they should contribute to building equitable societies and how we believe they should be governed. So we’re not moving away from our principles.

Often when you hear someone talk about a “values-based” approach, that’s a euphemism for employing negative screens. Our new research system puts us in a very different position to be able to differentiate between companies that are minimally acceptable – those that barely clear the bar – and those companies that are good, better and best. This much more methodical approach allows us to make more nuanced decisions without the performance trade-offs of less sophisticated approaches.

Getting very tactical about how this works, Calvert’s sustainability analysts have developed performance indicators and models in conjunction with our equities and fixed-income analysts for all 156 GICS sub-industries. The research system is focused on the materiality of specific ESG factors. It’s a very holistic approach.


It sounds like change is a consistent theme at Calvert these days. As a Chief Executive Officer, how are you communicating this change – both internally and externally?

Change is another word that can be loaded. I have great respect for Calvert’s history as a leader and a pioneer in the socially responsible investment space. I think that the next step forward for our firm – our next evolution – is to become a global leader in responsible investing.  The differences in the language seem subtle, but the expectations we have of ourselves as a steward of other people’s capital are profound. Being a responsible investor means that you are balancing your responsibilities to many stakeholders.

First and foremost, we have to produce an expected investment return consistent with the risk budget of each client. It is fundamentally what we do. But truly responsible investors (and other large asset owners) do that in a particular way. The “how” is also important. We look at the full scope of impacts – risks and opportunities – associated with the non-financial characteristics of each company in which we invest. We see these environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors as a two-way street. Companies can create risk through their behaviors or they can be exposed to risk because of the changing natural environment, shifting social norms, changing regulations, etc. The third aspect of a responsible investment approach is being an engaged shareholder. This means voting our proxies in a way that is consistent with our Principles, it means shareholder advocacy – bringing resolutions where companies are not acting fast enough. It can be dialogues and multi-stakeholder initiatives to raise awareness of issues that are going to be critical in the future. We are an active and engaged shareowner in the companies in which we invest. And finally, responsible investment is also about acknowledging the obligations that companies have to the communities in which they operate. That includes Calvert and the companies we hold. Responsible investors understand that we must work to solve the most vexing problems facing society today. I would point to global poverty as one of those issues. How can we create inclusive prosperity? At Calvert, we do this through our own philanthropic giving and we enable investors to do this through community investing and an ability to channel assets toward early stage companies that are creating solutions to global problems.


What primary shifts have you observed in institutional attitudes toward responsible investing and products tied to ESG?

Leading institutions have literally gone from being somewhat antagonistic about the value of incorporating sustainability (or ESG factors) into investments to essentially requiring that asset managers consider these factors. I think there was always some perception or validation around the idea that there were brand risks tied to obvious social factors such as human rights abuses in the supply chain. However, after the collapse of the financial markets in 2008, we began to see an accelerated level of conviction around the role that good governance – accountability, transparency, diversity – could play in the financial services sector, specifically banks. At the same time, leading companies were demonstrating how better management of environmental resources could cut costs, lead to innovations, etc. Corporations are integrating ESG into their own understanding of business risk and opportunity. I think that smart institutions are focusing on two key demographics as well – women and Millennials – both of whom have been shown to prefer a responsible approach.


On June 19, Calvert announced substantial changes to its existing core Responsible Index along with the launch of two additional indexes in the large cap growth and value spaces.  Could you describe these strategies in more detail along with the motivations behind the launches?

The Calvert Social Index has been a gold standard in responsible indexing for 15 years. We’ve definitely been hearing from existing clients that they wanted to be able to have exposure to more areas of the market and at the same time, there’s an undeniable trend toward lower-cost investment options. It seemed Calvert was uniquely positioned to address both of these needs. The Calvert Social Index became the Calvert U.S. Large Cap Core Responsible Index as of market close on June 19th. At the same time, we launched two additional indexes – the Calvert U.S. Large Cap Growth and U.S. Large Cap Value Responsible Indexes.

The starting place when thinking about index construction is with the S-Network U.S. Large Cap 1000 (SNET 1000) which is 99.9% correlated to the Russell 1000. When we apply our Principles of Responsible Investment, we come up with about 700 constituents that meet the criteria that we have selected. From there, we rank those constituents on a float-adjusted market cap weighted basis which is similar to the way most indexes are constructed. We then do an analysis based on the top 10 GICS sectors and look at how our constituents weigh out in those ten GICS sectors relative to the S Net 1000 sectors. We make adjustments to ensure that the Index remains sector neutral. The elimination of these potential sources of variance is advantageous – in particular it helps to minimize tracking risk for our indexes and identify company-specific criteria that are adding value to the index as opposed to cyclical factors that are happening in the economy.

From our large-cap core index we construct a growth and value index based on the same 700 constituents. Think of them as stack-ranked from most growth-oriented at the top to most value-oriented at the bottom. The top 30% are exclusively in our growth index and the bottom 30% exclusively in our value index. The 40% that are in between will appear in both indexes.


Are these new indexes a harbinger of things to expect in the future?  If so, why now?

Definitely. By bringing the new Calvert research process to more global capital markets we can create additional indexes and we can also strengthen our active portfolio management. It is only by having this quantitatively oriented dataset of the full rankings and ratings of ESG risk and opportunity that the best investment decisions can be made.

You will see us bringing this approach to several additional investment universes in the coming months including small cap, mid cap, non-U.S. developed markets, emerging markets and the fixed income space.  Additionally we have the ability to customize passive solutions for clients and I think that’s a great application and additional evolution of passive investing – custom passive investing.


I see you are scheduled to deliver the closing remarks for the conference. What roles do conferences such as this one play for its participants and audience members in terms of the overall direction of the investment industry?

Conferences like the S-Net Summer in the City CSR Investing Summit are really important because they aren’t designed to be sales-focused, but really thought leadership focused. It’s a very different environment when you bring together expert practitioners such as plan sponsors, endowments, consultants, academics, non-governmental organizations, the sell side, and even the media.  I think when you look at the agenda; you see opportunities to really challenge your own thinking, challenge assumptions about where the industry is headed and how we should get there. I am eager to engage with fellow practitioners, both those who are actively engaged in supporting the UN PRI and those who are new to that framework, to identify what’s new, what’s next, and how we can best further the goals of responsible investment.


About Calvert Investments
Calvert Investments is a global leader in Responsible Investing. Our mission is to deliver superior long-term performance to our clients and enable them to achieve positive impact. Founded in 1976 and headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Calvert Investments had more than $13 billion in assets under management as of May 31, 2015. Learn more at www.Calvert.com.

NASDAQ OMX Group and CRD Analytics Announce Companies In/Out of the Sustainability Benchmark

Twice annually the NASDAQ OMX CRD Global Sustainability Index is re-balanced  The Index (NASDAQ: QCRD) is an equally-weighted equity index that is a benchmark for stocks of companies that take a leadership role in sustainability performance reporting, and traded on a major US stock exchange.

Added effective May 18, 2015:  Adobe Systems, Autodesk, Campbell’s Soup Company, Consolidated Edison, DIRECTTV, FedEx, NRG Energy, Tesla Motors, and Verizon Communications.

Eliminated:  Hess Corp, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Statoil ASA, ENI, Rio Tinto, Vale SA, NetApp, and Petrobas.  For information about this well-established benchmark, read our Top Story this week.

Breaking News: Semi-annual Changes to the NASDAQ OMX CRD Global Sustainability Index (Tuesday – May 19, 2015)
Source: CRD Analytics – The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:NDAQ), and CRD Analytics today announced the results of the semi-annual re-ranking of the NASDAQ OMX CRD Global Sustainability Index (NASDAQ:QCRD), which will become effective prior to market…

It’s Morning, Again, In America…Or Is It?

LarryChecco_Photo_Largeby Larry Checco

sTo hear many politicians, pundits and financial analysts tell it, it’s morning again in America.

The stock market is at record highs. Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash (Apple, alone, has US $178 billion in cash). Employers are adding workers to their payrolls at an average of well over 200,000 jobs a month.

For the period ending December 2014, even workers’ salaries increased by 2.2 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And inflation remains low.

In short, the catfish are jumping, and the cotton is rising high in the morning sun.

But for millions of working-class American families the damage caused by the Great Recession has been done, and will take decades, if not generations to undo. These folks don’t know from morning in America. They’re still living a nightmare.

Some inconvenient facts

According to the Russell Sage Foundation, the typical American household saw its wealth cut nearly in half as a result of the Great Recession. From 2007 to 2013, median household wealth, adjusted for inflation, decreased 43 percent, from $98,872 to $56,335.

Desperate to stay afloat, countless working-class Americans have gone through, or are still spending down, their life savings, including their retirement funds. Some are just another job loss or major illness away from total financial ruin.

Many boomers approaching retirement age are staying in the workforce longer. When they do retire, many, because of their depleted savings, will be forced to rely on Social Security as their only means of support.

Millennials are finding it hard to find good paying jobs and the unemployment rate for young African-American males remains at nearly 25 percent.

Perhaps the worst tragedy of the Great Recession is that the greatest vehicle for transferring wealth to future generations—namely, the family home—is no longer available to the estimated eight million families who have lost, or may still lose, theirs due to foreclosure, according to Moody’s Analytics’ chief economist, Mark Zandi.

Although foreclosure rates have abated, one out of 10 homeowners — or 5.1 million homes — remain underwater, meaning they are worth less than the mortgages owed on them, down from a high of 12.1 million homes that were underwater as recently as the fourth quarter of 2011, according to MarketWatch.

How did we get here?

Irresponsible lending—and borrowing—as well as trash subprime mortgage products foisted on unsuspecting folks can be blamed for a lot of the wrack and ruin in both the housing industry and the general economy.

Even though some financial analysts are predicting that 2015 will be a good year for U.S. equities—some even rosily predict good news for the next five years—the low- and middle-income families hurt most by the Great Recession will receive the least benefit from a recovering economy.

According to the latest Federal Reserve survey data, the vast majority of Americans—94.5 percent—hold one sort of financial asset or another, from savings and checking accounts to stocks and cash-value life insurance policies.

The sad fact is that America’s richest 10 percent hold nearly 85% of these assets, according to Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

So, yes, millions of Americans are back working—but at a fraction of what they were making in the past, and with fewer benefits. Some have even had their pensions reduced.

How long will it take for these folks to return to pre-recession levels of savings and wealth formation? For most, decades, if not longer. Some, perhaps, never.

More importantly, what will it take for us as a nation to ensure this never happens again?

That’s the $16 trillion question — the amount of wealth this last financial debacle cost us.

However, here’s a thought: We might want to start by creating policies that offer more opportunities for all throughout our system—including access to good, affordable education, healthcare, housing and living-wage jobs—more transparency in our markets, more oversight of and accountability from our financial institutions, greater consequences for those who prey on others unethically or illegally…and, oh yeah, tax reform that creates far less trickling up of wealth and far more trickling down.

It would be a start.

Contents © 2015 by Larry Checco

Larry Checco is president of Checco Communications. His latest book is entitled Aha! Moments in Brand Management: Commonsense Insights to a Stronger, Healthier Brand. Checco Communications is a consulting firm that specializes in branding. Larry’s take is different. His message is that good branding is far less about marketing, advertising and public relations and far more about quality leadership and staff, appropriate and ethical behavior, and an organization’s willingness, ability and commitment to live up to the promises, or covenant, its brand represents. His first book, Branding for Success: A Roadmap for Raising the Visibility and Value of Your Nonprofit Organization, has sold thousands of copies worldwide.
larry.checco@verizon.net

“Trust” — Think About How Important It Is in Our Personal and Business Lives

by Hank Boerner – G&A Institute

This week I was among the fortunate to be named to the Trust Across America / Trust Around the World organization’s annual recognitions of respected thought leaders who advance arguments about the importance of building / protecting / enhancing / projecting “trust” in our personal, business and organizational lives.

I was named to the thought leader award roster in 2011, 2012, 2013, 20i4, and this year — and so, with 14 other thought leaders, I’ve also been named to the first “Lifetime Achievement Award” by TAA.  This is a great honor for me, and also humbling.

I’m honored to be among such distinguished colleagues, leading thought leaders on trust , including author: Patricia Aburdene (Megatrends); Steven Covey (prominent “trust” author); Medtronic’s former CEO Bill George; Leslie Gaines Ross (Weber Shandwick); trust coach Charles Green; and others of similar stature — the list is at: http://www.trustacrossamerica.com/offerings-thought-leaders-2015.shtml

As a journalist, writer on societal issues, corporate manager, and then consultant to managements and boards, throughout my career I’ve been sharing knowledge of the importance of Trust.

Trust in the leader, trust in the organization, trust in products — these are important resources that can bring the enterprise through a crisis situation.  This applies to both organizations and leaders in the private, public and social sectors — think about the busting-of-trust by brand name leaders who quickly fall from grace; of government officials who in an instant achieved infamy; of not-for-profit or public institutional leadership who squandered trust and good will.  (They, unfortunately, can seem to be legion!)

I’ve had the good fortune to work for and with, outstanding men and women in leadership roles who first built trust as the foundation for the enterprises that they would then build and manage.  I’ve written about them in other places.

“TRUST” in an ancient concept coming down to us through such languages as Old Norse (think: Vikings and the civilizations of Scandinavia); various Old English roots; Dutch; German; and even more ancient languages).  The term conveyed (and I think still conveys) important [modern & ancient] human concepts:  faith/faithful; agreement or covenant; comfort; true/truthful…)

“Trust” if you think about it is at its core a bargain that we make with others, and really with ourselves as well, to keep the faith / to be true (to our words and in our actions) / to keep the agreement with others to live up to theirs and our expectations regarding “trust.”

This Week’s Headlines – and Broken Trust

As I learned of my award, I was humbled, and proud, and reflective.  I thought about my work over the decades in helping others to understand and build trust; of leaders and enterprises who broke the trust with stakeholders; and of leaders who leveraged the valuable treasure (trust they built over time) to gain competitive advantage, to offset the effects of critical issues or crisis events; and I thought about leaders that I admired who conveyed trust as the most important message in their inventory of possible “key messages.”

And then I turned to the morning news and the headlines about trust leaped from the pages – such as those of  The New York Times.

There was one story focused on one of our leading “anchormen” on the NBC News Network, Brian Williams, he is backtracking from and apologizing for telling a story of surviving an attack on the helicopter he was traveling in (in the Iraq war).  The most prominent of our national storytellers (and managing editor of the NBC Nightly News) quickly was engulfed in a crisis — and stepped aside from his duties.

I was impressed by his recognition of what is at stake for him, the network and the news program when he said:  “…I will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who place their trust in us…”

Another story was about our healthcare records, entrusted by us to third parties, and what healthcare and other enterprises do ./ don’t do  — and what might happen to our most personal & private information.  The upsetting headline was about Anthem’s databases of patient information being hacked. This company is one of the nation’s leading healthcare organizations and as many at 80 millions of us doing business with Anthem may have had our information stolen.

This is on the heels of retailers’ records being hacked. (reflecting on the “invasion” of our financial and credit privacy through the Target data hacking).

Trust — do we have it today / will we have it tomorrow when we visit a retail store and are invited to swipe our credit card in the counter terminal? That’s an important question for retailers in fixed locations and those merchandising goods & services in the digital space.  Lack of trust (in the protection of our information) could cost retailers billions’ in lost customers and sales.

And then there is personal trust embodied in our own views and bow we might communicate those views and opinions.  Consider this:  If you think it, and don’t say or write or otherwise share it, you can think really terrible things about that bullying boss, irritating co worker, nagging family member, callous or un-trustworthy business colleague.

But if you say it…write it…email it…  in today’s “ultra-communicative” world, what is “out there” can easily come back to haunt. And so another headline was about one of the leaders of Sony’s movie studio (Amy Pascal) stepping down after her emails were hacked and made public. (The Times played this up with a cute headline: “Pascal Lands in Sony’s Outbox.”)

Can we trust our in-house emails to be protected and kept private — or should we expect something we say, or write (even of sort of to ourselves as a joke or “relief valve”) to then have “it” \splashed across media. (This episode was costly: She was co-chair of Sony Picture Entertainment.)

With thoughts of Florida – the Sunshine State – on the minds of some of us northerners during this wintery season, a story out of Tallahassee, the capital, caught national attention.  (Especially since “trust” in Florida’s governmental institutions may again be critical in the Presidential election of 2016.)

Florida Governor Rick Scott fired a law enforcement official. Florida has some unusual methods of governance; one is the “cabinet” approach, with the [separately elected statewide] Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, and Agricultural Commissioner Adam Putnam — who, with the Governor, oversee state agencies. Together they decide on hiring and firing in the state agencies.  (All are Republicans – could their actions or lack of action impact on trust in the party?)

The question of trust comes to mind as the governor apparently sidesteps answering his cabinet colleagues’ questions on about the method of the official’s “leaving” — the governor said he resigned, the official said (no) he was fired.

The high-ranking law enforcement official told reporters that he was forced out because he would not do certain things – like bring charges against political opponents (thereby politicizing the office and the criminal justice system).

Also catching my attention was the sudden “explosion” of news & commentary around something that Americans have long taken for granted”  vaccinating against serious diseases. (There is an epidemic of measles cases in a number of states.)

I remember from my childhood getting measles, mumps, whooping cough, and other vaccinations.  Everyone got the shots. As a young adult I was first on line to get (first) the sugar tablet and then the needle containing polio vaccinations.

Now we have the spectacle of political leaders jumping into an important  public health discussion to crassly try to leverage parental fears and anxiety into personal political advantage as they eye upcoming primary campaigns.

Of course, we have the right to have our own opinions and to express these; for the common good, we also have the responsibility to do our part to protect the public health.  My child should not infect your child if that is possible to avoid (say, through community-wide vaccinations).

But, but – there is always a but.  Some people in this debate ask…what about our trust in the vaccination process…in the methodology behind the vaccination…in the drug manufacturer creating the product that we will accept into our bodies…what about the public sector officials who tell us of the necessity and safety of the vaccine?  Trust — or lack of — that is what is on the table here!

Finally for this round, I see the headline of Standard & Poor’s organization paying US$1.3 billion in penalties for its role in putting favorable ratings on subprime mortgage package offerings to institutional investors — that helped to bring about the 2007-2008 global crisis in the financial markets.  Trust — that is what investors had in mind when they looked at the S&P ratings.  Will they trust S&P ratings again in the future?

Trust, we can conclude, is a concept important to our enjoying an orderly society, to our personal well-being, and to getting to the facts and the truth in matters of importance to us. Trust is worth thinking about — every day, in all of our relationships!

 * * * * * * * * *

For information about my awards and Trust Across America, you can check these links:

http://www.justmeans.com/press-release/top-thought-leaders-in-trust-2015-awards-gai-chairman-hank-boerner-named-lifetime

TAA: http://www.trustacrossamerica.com/

 

 

 

Attention Boards & CEOs: The Conference Board Has Important Insights to Share To Help Your Company…Survive and Succeed!

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

The Conference Board is one of the most prestigious and important (for corporate managements) of our membership business associations, as well as credible research think tank on management issues and topics. The Board has long had corporate governance in focus and has been a major factor in helping to advance effective, responsive, accountable governance in the USA.

The Conference Board was one of the early organizations serving boards, C-suite and key functional managers to expand the governance research and advisory services to include social and environmental issues & topics: ESG is on the of the agenda for many aspects of Board operations.

Members of boards and CEOs and C-suite-ers receive Director Notes on key topics and issues with practical advice needed to improve performance and better serve society.

Today’s issue of Director Notes is worthy of close reading — and re-reading — by sustainability professionals: “Navigating the Sustainability Transformation.” The introduction is bold:

“CEOs and Directors making key business decisions regarding the company’s strategy for the year ahead and beyond would be well-advised to change the current boardroom conversation. Driven by factors tied to sustainability, over the next 15 years, every company in every industry sector will need to transform itself to survive and succeed. Board members, CEOs and he executives advising them need to ask: “How should we plan for this major transformation?” (emphasis mine)

The report describes a four-stage model for companies to progress from engaging initially with sustainability to accelerating, leading, and ultimately transforming their business.”

Addressing the practical aspects of corporate sustainability (board style), the report focuses attention on a host of corporations that are embracing sustainable strategies, actions, programs, engagements.  These include “new brands” such as Airbnb, Google, Tesla, and Uber — all of which have disrupted old business models and achieved leadership – fast! — in their categories (Airbnb vs. the hotel business, Tesla vs. old line auto manufacturers, etc.).

Established companies — some dating back a century or more — are featured in the report, with explanations of how they have achieved success (and frankly, heartily survived) in a business environment (and investment mindset) where disruption is prized over proven models.  These old-line companies have succeeded by being transformation, often disrupting their own cash cows!

Examples include:  3M; General Electric (with its Eco-magination); BMW; DuPont; Dow; Unilever; Michelin; HP; SC Johnson; Nike; Kimberly Clark; McDonalds; Wal-mart Stores; Starbucks; NRG Energy; Newmont Mining; Coca-Cola Company; IKEA; Interface; Sony; BT; Tesco; Azko Nobel; Xcel Energy; and Waste Management;.

Waste Management’s transformation from a traditional waste hauler to strategy and service provider to corporate customers is one highlight of the report.

Sustainability professionals will want to read The Conference Board report’ views on the 4 stages of progression for companies. I think this could become a top-of-agenda discussion in board rooms and C-suites in the weeks ahead.

The stages are (1) engagement with sustainability; (2) accelerating progress; (3) leading (sector, industry, peers, etc); (4) transforming.  There are many companies at stages 1 and 2, a few moving on to 3, and very few to point to as stage 4 (yet).  Many companies exhibit characteristics of stages 1 and 2 — these are examples in the report.

Moving into the transformation stage is challenging, of course. Given the dramatic upheaval in so many businesses, in such a short period of time, will make looking ahead 10 or 15 years to the critical period to 2030 and beyond…daunting, for sure.

But there are practical, realistic things going on in our world that make such exercise ( closely examining where your company is in the 4 stages of sustainability) necessary.  Natural resources (“natural capital to many) grows more scarce in many parts of the world.  It looks like there will be stranded assets on many corporate balance sheets (and in investment portfolios) as we shift away from fossil fuels. (We won’t always have plentiful, easy-to-access USD$48 crude oil available!)

The Conference Board report found a few examples of what could pass for stage 4 companies: “Few companies today are solidly at 4, but a growing number of leaders have one or more stage 4 attributes.  Airbnb, Google and Uber are ‘sharing economy’ companies; DuPont, Novelis, Unilever, and Waste Management are examples of long-established enterprises…”:

The 4-Stage Model is explained in the report.  We can see this having a powerful impact, similar to Professor Michael Porter’s work with Mark Kramer: “Creating Shared Value” (Harvard Business Review, January 2011).

the Conference Board makes the report(s) available for your reading — information is at:  https://www.conference-board.org/publications/publicationdetail.cfm?publicationid=2885

* * * * * * * *

The Director Notes are a series of publications the Board engages experts from various disciplines to contribute to, including experts in leadership, corporate governance, risk oversight, and sustainability.

The current issue was authored by Gilbert (Gib) Hedstrom, principal of Hedstrom Associates.  Content includes excerpts from his coming book, “The Sustainability Scorecard TM Handbook/”  Hedstrom is director of the Conference Board’s Sustainability Council.  He invited me to be guest presenter on corporate sustainability reporting and related topics at a recent Council meeting in Washington, D.C.

Matteo Tonello is managing director for corporate governance at The Conference Board; he is editor of the Director Notes series.

Melissa Aguilar is a researcher in the corporate leadership department of the board and is executive editor of the series.

Conference Board information is at: http://www.conference-board.org/

Imagine the Power to Address Climate Change As the Pope & Roman Catholic Church Focuses on Sustainability

by Hank Boerner – Chairman, G&A Institute

Imagine the impact — the power of the organizational resources directed at climate change issues — as the global Roman Catholic Church focuses on the issues. In 2915, the new year, the global church could become the major “game changer” on the issue.

There is a new Holy Father in place — Pope Francis, who took office in a little bit less than two years ago. He has shaken things up in the Roman Curia (the important headquarters infrastructure in Rome/Vatican City) and is sending strong signals to the faithful on all continents.

Among those messages:  we are the stewards of the natural world and have moral and spiritual responsibilities in that regard.

The buzz is that a powerful message will be coming from Pope Francis this spring, in the form of an encyclical, the traditional way that important and “highest” teachings are communicated to the faithful worldwide.

Photo: USCCB

The resources of the church are immense and global: 1.2 million faithful around the world, 75 million alone in the United States; 5,000 bishops; 400,000 priests; newspapers; radio and TV stations; web sites; hundreds of orders; universities & colleges…and more.

Thinking of impact in capital markets:  Many Roman Catholic orders are members of a powerful institutional investor activist coalition — Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), which engages with public companies to address issues of concern.  Including uppermost in mind, climate change.

If these and other resources are brought to bear on climate change issues, think of this as the game changer for the global discussion on the subject.

We have strong hints now at the direction to be taken by Pope Francis and the church he leads.  Here are some things to consider as we enter 2015.

In late December, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, shared her views on the church’s anticipated moves. “Pope Francis,” she posited, “is about to make history by issuing the first-ever comprehensive Vatican teachings on climate change, which will urge 1.2 billion worldwide to take action…”

Ms. Goodman interviewed author and Vatican expert Austin Ivereigh (co-founder of Catholic Voices), who has just published the biography, “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.”  Mr. Ivereigh said that the encyclical will address the science underlying arguments for policy changes and actions to be taken.

As backdrop, in May 2014, two “Pontifical academies” that are part of the Vatican mechanisms — The Academy of Sciences, and the Academy of Social Sciences — conducted a joint workshop and in effect convened a summit in Rome to discuss “Sustainability Humanity, Sustainable Nature”  Our Responsibility;”

The gathering explored economic growth and the impact on natural resources (“natural capital”).  And, the gap between rich and poor and the impact of economic growth on emerging economies, urban pollution, the growth of poverty, and other issues. (Among participants:  Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University Earth Institute.)

The intent of the workshop was to view “Humanity’s interchanges with Nature through a triplet of fundamental, inter-related Human needs — Food, Health, Energy.\

The Papacy is a powerful bully pulpit for addressing societal issues and bringing the considerable resources of the Roman Catholic resources (spiritual, economic, diplomatic, persuasive) to bear. And Pope Francis is a logical messenger on the issue. Thank about his background and personal resources.

He was trained as a chemical technician in his homeland, Argentina. He chose the priesthood, entering the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits, who run universities worldwide). Ordained in 1969, he continued his studies, on to the doctorate in Germany. He taught philosophy in university.

His personal motto is miserando atque eligendo, chosen when he was first a bishop — meaning “lowly but chosen;” in Latin. He was appointed archbishop, then cardinal, and in March 2013 Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope — the first from the Americas.

As priest – bishop – archbishop – parish priest – teacher – cardinal — Francis has been focused on serving the poor, social justice, the authenticity of the church in matters of faith and morals, and the need for humankind to be stewards of nature. He took the name Francis noting the inspiration of St. Francis of Assisi, the great spiritual leader and protector of nature.

Biographer Ivereigh, who presumably has his necessary contacts in the Curia, predicts Pope Francis will issue his “climate change” encyclical in March.  The Holy Father is scheduled to visit Sri Lanka and The Philippines — both of which suffered great damage and human loss in recent storms that many experts attributed (the intensity) to climate change..

Topics to be included may be deforestation (a system that encourages to much inequality), And “consumerism,” which encourages damage to the environment.

Consider this:  the foundation of the document is predicted to be [that] the scientific consensus is that climate change is real…and momentum if needed to bring about action to address the challenges.

And then we should consider the impact / outcome of the enormous resources of the global Roman Catholic Church and all of its communication organs (including parish pulpits) are brought to bear on climate change issues.  With Pope Francis on point, corralling other religious, governmental and NGO communities to join his 21st Century crusade.

We’ll be watching – this will be a game changer, for sure.

* * * * * * * *

To see Amy Goodman report:  http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14898

 

 

 

 

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