Posts tagged with: social responsibility

Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin

Just say no to fracking!

For all of their wailing and gnashing of teeth about transparency, some in the American progressive movement certainly turn a blind eye toward the funding of their own pet causes. Last week, The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay reported that millions of dollars from unknown sources have been passed through a company in Bermuda and transferred to American nonprofits who oppose hydraulic fracturing and, it seems, any industry involved with fossil fuels. Among these nonprofits are several established groups of religious shareholder activists.

Markay quotes a Senate Minority Staff report released last summer by the U.S. Committee on Environment and Public Works (CEPW):

This report articulates several possible reasons for the convoluted and secretive structure of the far-left environmental movement; yet, at the end of the day, we are still asking – why? Why [are billionaires and millionaires] going to such extreme lengths to hide their generous support of supposed charitable causes?


RL-logo-wit1Earlier this month, religious shareholder activists from the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Mercy Investment Services and the Sisters of Mercy nabbed headlines by attempting to force Ralph Lauren Corp. to conduct a needless and politically driven human-rights risk assessment of offshore vendors.

The ICCR effort is another “name and shame” tactic intended to publically embarrass a company refusing to play ball with a left-leaning organization. According to the Huffington Post, the nominally religious shareholders’ proposal is …

… backed by the AFL-CIO Reserve Fund, an investment fund for the national trade union center, that urged Ralph Lauren to assess human-rights risk throughout its supply chain. The company’s board of directors told shareholders to vote the proposal down. (more…)

253877_5_Acton’s president and co-founder, Rev. Robert Sirico, recently wrote a piece for Real Clear Religion about corporations and social justice activism. He warns that the religious left’s attempts to stifle free speech in corporate boardrooms  would certainly negatively impact our political life.

Every annual meeting season, we watch as a small group of activist groups on the left such as As You Sow and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility submit proxy resolutions that demand disclosures of corporate public policy expenditures. This is done, these groups claim, in furtherance of a more “just and sustainable world.” In fact, such resolutions are designed to first bully corporations into disclosing lobbying activities and then promptly turn the tables by conducting aggressive campaigns in the press to shame them.

But the religious underpinnings for such arguments are spurious. The argument always goes that corporations have money and the poor and disadvantaged (always “disenfranchised” from the political process) do not. Therefore, according to this logic, it follows that it’s unfair that corporations are allowed to make public policy expenditures to unduly influence the political process. Curiously, opponents of such spending are often themselves corporate entities (albeit non-profit entities) that spend large sums of money to voice their own opinions. (more…)

Hobby-Lobby-StoreWhen the Supreme Court ruled on the Hobby Lobby case, the near universal reaction by liberals was that it was a travesty of epic proportion. But as self-professed liberal law professor Brett McDonnell argues, the left should embrace the Hobby Lobby decision since it supports liberal values:

The first question was: Can for-profit corporations invoke religious liberty rights under RFRA? The court answered yes. HBO’s John Oliver nicely expressed the automatic liberal riposte, parodying the idea that corporations are people. It is very funny stuff.

It is not, however, especially thoughtful stuff. The court does not argue that corporations are just like real people. Rather, it argues that people often exercise faith collectively, in organizations. Allowing those organizations to assert religious-liberty rights protects the liberty of the persons acting within them. The obvious example is churches, usually legally organized as nonprofit corporations.

The real issue is not whether corporations of any type can ever claim protection under RFRA — sometimes they can. The issue is whether for-profit corporations can ever have enough of a religious purpose to claim that protection.

To me, as a professor of corporate law, liberal denial of this point sounds very odd. In my world, activists and liberal professors (like me) are constantly asserting that corporations can and should care about more than just shareholder profit. We sing the praises of corporate social responsibility.

Well, Hobby Lobby is a socially responsible corporation, judged by the deep religious beliefs of its owners. The court decisively rejects the notion that the sole purpose of a for-profit corporation is to make money for its shareholders. This fits perfectly with the expansive view of corporate purpose that liberal proponents of social responsibility usually advocate — except, apparently, when talking about this case.

McDonnell is right, of course. Support for religious liberty should transcend partisan political lines. And it used to be an issue that was championed by liberals. The fact that religious liberty is now despised and denigrated reveals a sudden, perhaps irrevocable shift in the nature of progressivism in America.

(Via: Rod Dreher)

The 2013 “CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Policy Accountability and Disclosure” was issued Tuesday by the allegedly “nonpartisan” Center for Corporate Political Accountability – the “CPA” of the report’s title lest readers mistakenly read it as the objective analysis of a certified public accountant. The CPA referenced here is the organization operated by Bruce Freed, which shepherds proxy shareholder resolutions by left leaning “religious” shareholder activist groups as As You Sow and the Interfaith Council on Corporate Responsibility.

I haven’t taken the time for a deep-dive analysis of the report, but will do so most assuredly in the next few days. However, an initial reading of the Index’s Executive Summary must suffice for the moment. In short … poppycock. And piffle. Even preposterous.

Allow me to set the record straight. Ten years ago, CPA “began engaging corporations to voluntarily provide disclosure and oversight of political spending,” asserts Mr. Freed – if by “voluntarily” Mr. Freed means mounting a campaign of deceit against corporate political spending employing all means necessary to embarrass or otherwise shame companies to bend to the will of leftist, post-Citizens United, “corporations/bad. unions/good” ideology.

Mr. Freed and the faith-based shareholders for whom he writes proxy resolutions remain in a tizzy regarding those companies that spend lobbying or other political cash on causes and campaigns with which the left disapproves. In an environment of growing Leviathan and concomitant increase in regulatory restrictions emanating from government agencies, companies have little choice to ensure their own and employees’ survival as well as the profitability of shareholders than to engage in the political process. Indeed, to voluntarily withdraw from these policy debates would be nothing less than reckless disregard for political reality today.

So let’s break this down further: Unions spend members’ dues on political causes that tilt left whereas corporations spend company proceeds on causes that tilt right. Union spending rarely is called into question as it’s a given they’ll spend it on liberal candidates and agendas. Woe be unto those corporations, however, which endeavor to engage politically – even  privately – in the interest of their companies, employees, customers and shareholders. (more…)

As a child of the 1970s, your writer was witness to an amazing transformation in a large swath of the religious community. In what seemed like a wink of an eye, clergy, religious and nuns grouped together with yippies, hippies, and other left-of-center tribes to advance progressive causes. Never you mind that much of these initiatives have little overlap with Judeo-Christian principles, just believe in your heart that Jesus would oppose genetically modified organisms and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, while championing diversity and staunchly advocating the curtailment of greenhouse gases.

Of the above bugbears embraced as major issues by progressives, perhaps none resonates more than overturning Citizens United. Why, you ask? Because a reversal of the SCOTUS decision would tilt political discourse decidedly to the left, making all other issues fall like so many dominoes toward larger government, higher taxes and exponentially more regulations.  Take away businesses’ political voice and you’re left with nothing but one side of the debate.

This was the topic I watched debated on July 12 in Seattle at the Society of Corporate Secretaries & Governance Professionals’ Governance/Wired Conference. I attended the conference to help clarify the political spending and disclosure policies that seem to be front-of-mind for the shareholder-activist members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and As You Sow I’ve written so much about for Acton these past few months.

The debate featured Brian G. Cartwright, senior adviser, Patomak Global Partners, as advocate for Citizens United, and Bruce F. Freed, president and founder, Center for Political Accountability, arguing that the ruling posed grave threats to current political speech. Freed’s CPA nonprofit, incidentally, authored many of the campaign-finance proxy resolutions issued by shareholders.

Freed rhetorically asked: “Why is disclosure important?” and answered: “To reduce shareholders’ risk” by preserving the reputation of the business in which they hold stock. Among the threats listed were potential legal issues and risks of extortion. (more…)

There has been ample evidence presented in the past several years to suggest shareholder activism exhibited via proxy resolutions not only wastes time but, as well, corporate funds. And yet, unions and “social justice” advocates such as the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and As You Sow perpetuate the practice to the detriment of targeted companies.

And, according to a recently released study, this activism also works to the shareholders’ detriment as well. In effect, these proxy resolutions shoot the shareholder perpetrators in their own collective foot by reducing the profitability of the companies in which they hold stock – while simultaneously wounding other shareholders who don’t necessarily share the whole leftist/liberal magilla against hydraulic fracturing, free political speech and genetically modified organisms while advocating for network neutrality.

“Analysis of the Wealth Effects of Shareholder Proposals – Volume III” was released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Workforce Freedom Initiative on May 2. The study was conducted by Navigant Consulting’s Allan T. Ingraham, Ph.D., and Anna Koyfman, whose analysis of proxy resolutions by shareholder activists concludes:

[T]here is no conclusive evidence of measurable improvements in (short-term or long-term) stock market or (long-term) operating performance in target companies as a result of shareholder proposals. Therefore, we find no evidence that shareholder activism has a positive impact either on firms or on the entities offering shareholder resolutions. (more…)