On February 12, the Unitarian Universalist Association, Walden Asset Management and KLD sponsored a talk by Laura Berry, Executive Director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR).
I had the privilege of introducing her. These were my remarks.
In introducing my old friend, Laura Berry, I want to state the glaringly obvious: Without ICCR, SRI as we know it wouldn’t exist. It would not exist.
Recently, I received two queries from a reporter on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and CSR reporting. These were my responses.
Query 1
“Why evaluate companies from the CSR point of view at all? What good does it serve, especially considering the many flaws in CSR research cited below?”
Jonathan Dee’s article, “A Toy Maker’s Conscience“, which appeared in the New York Times Magazine at the end of December is a must read.
First, it’s a generous yet clear-eyed portrait of Baruch College professor Prakash Sethi, a defining force in the movement for corporate accountability for more than 35 years.
His story is one of the great ones in our business, but it has gone, largely, unheralded. And Jonathan Dee has gotten both the story and Prof. Sethi’s voice right.
Time and time again, I see people on my side of the corporate social responsibility debate claim that “originally” corporations only came into existence for a “public purpose”.
Some go on to argue that we should reinstate that qualification. Others think we should assume the requirement still exists and impose higher levels of social responsibility on companies.
While history does not support the claim of a golden age when corporations came into being to serve a “public purpose”, it does not prevent society from imposing one now.
Coyright © 2007 by KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Alicia H. Munnell, the Peter F. Drucker Professor of Management Science at Boston College, has asked, “Should Public Plans Engage in Social Investing?” in a briefing paper published by the Center for Retirement Research of which she is Director.1 Her answer:
But even assuming that divestment is an effective mechanism to stop genocide and reduce terror risk and that state legislatures and pension fund boards are the right place to make foreign policy, the issue remains whether pension funds are an appropriate vehicle for implementing that policy. The answer seems unquestionably “no”.2
Is Prof. Munnell saying something outrageous here? If divestment by public pensions could halt genocide and “reduce terror risk”, they still shouldn’t do it?
Copyright © 2007 by KLD Research & Analytics, Inc. All rights reserved.
One of the under-reported heroes of the environmental cause is Patriarch Bartholomew I of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The story below reflects his efforts.
Before turning to the story, I’d like to quote some words of the Patriarch from his visit to the US ten years ago:
To commit a crime against the natural world is a sin. For humans to cause species to become extinct and to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation, for humans to degrade the integrity of the Earth by causing changes in its climate, stripping the Earth of its natural forests, or destroying its wetlands … for humans to contaminate the Earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life with poisonous substances — these are sins.1
In the litany of failed technologies introduced by industry leaders, Sony’s Betamax—a videotape technology superior to its rival, VHS—probably leads the 20th century list.
Topping the 19th century list is Edison’s direct current (DC) electric transmission. At low levels, Westinghouse’s alternating current (AC) seemed a more efficient, safer means of transmitting power locally.
It may be that Edison had it right. DC allows transmission across greater distances with less power loss than AC. That may be crucial in bringing more wind and solar power on line. Suitable sites for wind and solar farms tend to be far away from the cities they’d supply. So says the July 26 Economist.
“Antitrust” is a word that has long outlived its usefulness. We need a new word – or set of words – that captures society’s imperative to regulate economic and social relations with its corporate creations.
Who recalls why we’re against trusts? At least beyond a vague, queasy feeling about collusion, hidden power, price fixing and political corruption…
In the US, business trusts arose in the 1880’s and 90’s to hold controlling interests in corporations. At that time, state laws existed that restricted ownership of corporations to in-state residents, limited the corporation’s ability to do business across state lines, and imposed capitalization restrictions. Since the trusts were not incorporated, however, these restrictions did not apply to them.
‘Precatory proposals’: this phrase from Purgatory has quickly entered the lexicon of those defending access to non-binding shareholder resolutions. Its users should wash their spell checkers out with soap.
‘Precatory proposals’, as I wrote a few weeks ago, is a phrase apparently invented by Leo E. Strine, Jr. Strine is a lecturer at Harvard Law School and a judge in Delaware, and he is no friend of non-binding resolutions. He’d like to see them abolished.
So, those who’ve adopted the phrase – which sounds very legal, very precise – should know what ‘precatory’ means and implies.
