Trillium Asset Management Corporation

First Peoples Worldwide Announces Partnership with Trillium Asset Management

lmackinnon — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:30:47 +0000

Research and Advocacy Collaboration To Promote Indigenous Voices in the Boardroom

Contacts:
Lisa MacKinnon, Trillium Asset Management (617) 423-6655
Katie Cheney, First Peoples Worldwide (540) 899-6545

February 1, 2012 — First Peoples Worldwide (FPW), a global indigenous nonprofit dedicated to strengthening Indigenous Peoples, today announced a new partnership with Trillium Asset Management. Under the terms of the partnership, Trillium is undertaking custom research and shareholder advocacy focused on how corporate policies and programs can better protect and enhance Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Founded in 1997 by widely acclaimed advocate Rebecca Adamson, FPW supports projects that preserve biodiversity, identify contemporary applications for traditional knowledge, mitigate the impact of climate change, and advocate free prior informed consent.

Adamson, a Cherokee, has developed creative, mutually beneficial economic models since 1970 and was just interviewed for the 2013 PBS series entitled “Women Who Make America.” Her work includes creating the first microloan fund in the United States, the first tribal investment model, a national movement for reservation land reform, and legislation that established new standards of accountability regarding federal trust responsibility for Native Americans.

First Peoples’ new small grants fund, Keepers of the Earth, makes grants directly to communities in ways that ensure capital is engaged to reflect cultural values. It is an effective platform for donors who want 100 percent of their monies directed to some of the most remote grassroots communities in the world. FPW is the only organization worldwide that distributes global grants using the collaborative intelligence of indigenous wisdom to address contemporary challenges in areas of wealth, environment and cultural preservation.

In keeping with Rebecca’s ongoing focus on innovation, she looked to Trillium to help build a new partnership to promote Indigenous voices in the corporate boardroom.

Trillium is the oldest independent investment firm focused exclusively on Sustainable and Responsible Investing. Under this partnership, Trillium is leveraging its expertise in corporate responsibility research and advocacy as well as its deep ties within the sustainable investing community. This collaboration culminates in a FPW publication called “Corporate Engagement Strategies: Indigenous Partnerships for Best Practice Solutions.”

As part of this publication, Trillium is providing FPW with regular research updates examining best practices in corporate America and reviewing new developments in legal cases and local and national legislation.

Trillium is also helping FPW engage in broader policy discussions around corporate responsibility. For example, Trillium helped FPW provide formal input into the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guidelines’ next generation framework. A recent letter signed by Rebecca Adamson, and supported by Trillium, makes the case that the current GRI reporting guidelines can be significantly improved by developing indicators that more explicitly address the reporting organizations’ impact on Indigenous communities and how well companies are equipped to anticipate, forestall and mitigate negative impacts.

According to CEO Matt Patsky, “We believe Trillium Asset Management is uniquely positioned to work with First Peoples in developing cutting edge research and advocacy on Indigenous peoples’ issues. We have been integrating these issues into our investment process since our founding in 1982.”

Rebecca Adamson said of the partnership, “Our partnership with Trillium signifies one of the first genuine platforms for Indigenous grassroots voices to be heard by corporate America. Trillium’s deep understanding of research and advocacy related to corporate sustainability policies is a powerful springboard that drives grassroots voices into the boardroom.”

This partnership illustrates well Trillium’s ability to provide custom research and advocacy services on behalf of other groups of investors. Trillium believes there may be a strong demand for such a service from a variety of investor groups.

This partnership is a natural extension of the work Trillium has undertaken for some time to address Indigenous peoples’ rights. Trillium was one of the first investment companies to explicitly reference Native American and Indigenous peoples’ rights as a specific area of focus in its sustainable investment criteria. Trillium also addresses these issues through dialogue and shareholder proposals with some of the largest companies in America.

# # # #

First Peoples Worldwide is a global development nonprofit based in Fredericksburg, VA with expertise in indigenous management principles and solutions for best practice in corporate strategies. The FPW flagship fund Keepers of the Earth links donors directly with communities all over the world by making small grants in ways that successfully apply indigenous intelligence and support economically effective platforms for positive change.

Trillium Asset Management, LLC is the oldest independent investment advisor devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing. With over $950 million in assets under management, Trillium has been managing equity and fixed income investments for high net worth individuals, foundations, endowments, religious institutions, and other non-profits since 1982. A leader in shareholder advocacy and public policy work, Trillium’s goal is to deliver both impact and performance to its investors.

Tags: First Peoples Worldwide, Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Rights, Indigenous Voices, Rebecca Adamson

Trillium Urges Washington State Corporations to Support Marriage Equality Legislation

salpern — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:34:09 +0000

On January 27, 2012, Trillium Asset Management, LLC and seven other institutional investors wrote to 18 companies based, or with a strong presence, in Washington State, to encourage them to support legislation allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry. The letter states, “We believe it is not only the right thing to do, but that it is smart business practice that enhances competitiveness in attracting and retaining employees from the widest possible talent pool.” Washington-based employers such as Concur, Group Health, Microsoft, RealNetworks, Starbucks and Vulcan and other employers such as Alcoa, Google and Nike have recently endorsed Washington’s marriage equality legislation.

The letter was sent to Alaska Air, Amazon, Boeing, Costco, Expeditors, F5 Networks, JC Penney, Keybank, McDonalds, Nordstrom, PG&E, Perkins Coie, Paccar, T-Mobile, State Farm, Safeway, REI and Walgreens. It was signed by Trillium, the Equity Foundation, the Pride Foundation, the Sustainability Group at Loring, Wolcott, Calvert Investments, the Horizons Foundation, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and the Tides Foundation.

Trillium Vice President Shelley Alpern said, “Many of the companies we are contacting have admirable LGBT workplace policies. We hope that they will act quickly to ensure that their commitment to fairness and respect for diversity are not undercut by the inability of their LGBT workforce to marry in Washington State. The states that are beginning to recognize and allow gay marriage will have an advantage in attracting and retaining a wider pool of workers.”

The marriage equality bill has been voted out of committee and is said to be on a fast track toward a full vote by Washington legislators.

The full text of the letter can be viewed here.

Since the mid-’90s, Trillium has promoted LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) workplace equality through corporate dialoge and shareholder resolutions. More information about these initiatives can be found here.

On 2nd Anniversary of Citizens United, Trillium, Green Century Capital Management & Advocacy Groups Launch Drive to Stem Corporate Political Spending

salpern — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:08:50 +0000

On the second anniversary of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Trillium Asset Management, LLC and Green Century Capital Management announce that they have filed shareholder resolutions at three companies, Bank of America, 3M & Target Corporation, urging them to refrain from making political donations in the future. This is the first time institutional shareholders have asked corporations to entirely refrain from political spending.

Prohibit Political Spending From Corporate Treasury Funds – Bank of America (2012)

salpern — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:48:39 +0000

WHEREAS:

Political spending and corporate money in politics is a highly contentious issue, made more prominent in light of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case that affirmed companies’ rights to make unlimited political expenditures to independent groups. In the 2012 election year, we expect even more media and public attention to corporate spending to influence elections. Experts predict that an unprecedented amount of money will be spent in the 2012 election season.

Recent polls highlight the public’s disapproval. In a June 2010 Harris poll, 85% of voters said that corporations “have too much influence over the political system today….” In February 2010, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% opposed Citizens United, noting, “the bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times.”

Corporate political contributions can backfire on a corporation’s reputation and bottom line. In 2010, Target and Valero received unwanted attention, consumer boycotts, and protests for their support of controversial candidates and ballot measures. In a Harris Poll released in October 2010, a sizable portion (46)% of respondents indicated that if there were option, they would shop elsewhere if they learned that a business they patronized had contributed to a candidate or a cause that they oppose.

According to the Institute for Money in State Politics, Bank of America’s political spending on the state and federal levels totaled over $2.1 million in 2007-2008. However, this figure does not include payments to trade associations or other tax-exempt organizations that may channel corporate money to political ends.

Many trade associations that receive corporate contributions spend vast sums in electoral politics; these payments are not required to be disclosed. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged to spend between $50 and $75 million in the 2010 election season, and announced that it would work to unseat any member of Congress who voted for healthcare reform. According to Public Citizen, only 32% of groups broadcasting electioneering communications in the 2010 primary season revealed the identities of donors in their Federal Election Commission filings, down from nearly 100 percent in the 2004 and 2006 cycles.

Increasingly, companies such as IBM, Colgate Palmolive, Wells Fargo and others are adopting policies prohibiting spending of political funds directly or indirectly to influence elections.

Given the risks and potential negative impact on shareholder value, the proponents believe Bank of America should adopt a policy to refrain from using treasury funds in the political process.

RESOLVED:

The shareholders request that the board of directors adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election or campaign.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

We believe this policy should include any direct or indirect contribution that is intended to influence the outcome of an election or referendum. It should also prohibit the use of trade associations or non-profit corporations from channeling our company’s contributions or membership dues to influence the outcome of any election or referendum.

Tags: Bank of America, political activity, Political Contributions, shareholder acvocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Hydraulic Fracturing – Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (2012)

salpern — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:47:50 +0000

Whereas:

Hydraulic fracturing in natural gas drilling has become highly controversial. The resolution proponents are concerned about regulatory, legal, reputational and financial risks associated with the environmental, health, and social impacts of fracturing operations.

Concern about water sources, toxic chemicals and wastewater has led to new regulations in several states and proposed federal legislation. Explosions, contamination incidents, and millions of dollars in fines demonstrate that things can and do go wrong. For example, in Pennsylvania, officials have cited energy companies for 2,500+ violations associated with fracturing practices and collected $25.7 million in fines since 2008.

More than 250 health care professionals and medical societies warned New York Governor Cuomo that the state failed to analyze public health impacts of hydraulic fracturing in its rush to approve permits for drilling. They cited evidence in Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, North Dakota and Pennsylvania that found worsening health metrics among neighbors of gas wells and related infrastructure. The onset of symptoms and drilling frequently coincided.

Negative local impacts are straining community resources and generating opposition to fracturing operations. According to the investor research and advisory firm MSCI, “the expansion of oil gas activities into areas previously untouched by the industry will continue to face fierce opposition …unless companies adequately manage environmental impacts and community health concerns through communication and adoption of best environmental practice.”

In this climate, companies risk increased regulatory and legal risks or bans on fracturing operations outright. Pittsburgh banned natural gas drilling within city limits. New York State and Maryland imposed moratoriums. France completely banned the practice.

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report to investors by September 2012, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential or legally prejudicial data, on the short-term and long-term risks to the company’s operations, finances and gas exploration associated with community concerns, known regulatory impacts, moratoriums, and public opposition to hydraulic fracturing and related natural gas development.

Supporting statement: Such report should, at a minimum, summarize for the prior two fiscal years, with regard to hydraulic fracturing and related infrastructure:

Any substantial community opposition to the company’s maintenance or expansion of particular operations, such as permitting and drilling;
Government enforcement actions, including allegations of violations;
Total aggregate government fines on an annual basis;

Tags: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, hydraulic fracturing, shareholder advocacy, Shareholder Resolutions

Report on BPA Use – Coca-Cola Company (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:24:12 +0000

WHEREAS:

The value of Coca-Cola’s brand is based on consumer trust. Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA can leach out of the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages resulting in human exposures. BPA can mimic estrogen in the body; a number of animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and to tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Experts are particularly concerned about exposure to BPA by the very young and pregnant women.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research.

The proponents believe that Coca-Cola has misrepresented the scientific consensus. For example, its Bisphenol A Assessment (11/11) claims “current levels of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) through beverage packaging pose no health risk to the general population, including children.” Yet, ten US states and several local governments have banned BPA in children’s reusable food and beverage containers. The European Union, China and Malaysia instituted bans on BPA in baby bottles in 2011. Canada added BPA to its list of toxic substances in 2010. Japan took BPA out of can linings in the 1990’s.

Proponents believe the use of BPA poses regulatory, reputational and legal risk. More than 20 states and multiple federal bills have introduced legislation to ban or limit the use of BPA. Coca-Cola has received considerable media coverage over its use of BPA. Health organizations including the Breast Cancer Fund have conducted high profile consumer campaigns targeting food companies over their use of BPA in their can linings. Class action lawsuits against other companies contend that manufacturers and retailers failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

Companies, including Hain Celestial, ConAgra, and H.J. Heinz use BPA-free can linings for certain products, and have timelines to transition to BPA-free packaging across all products. Nestle and Kroger also publicly stated they will remove BPA from their products. General Mills and Campbell’s have publicly stated that they are conducting hundreds of tests looking for alternatives to BPA can linings.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2012, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, its role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.

Tags: bisphenol-A, BPA, Coca-Cola, Product Safety, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Chubb Corp (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:23:21 +0000

Resolved, that the shareholders of Chubb Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

2. Monetary and non-monetary contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used to participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and used in any attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, with respect to elections or referenda. The report shall include:

a. An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above; and

b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

As long-term shareholders of Chubb Corp., we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.

Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with federal ethics laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision recognized the importance of political spending disclosure for shareholders when it said “[D]isclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Gaps in transparency and accountability may expose the company to reputational and business risks that could threaten long-term shareholder value.

Chubb Corp. contributed at least $415,000 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)

However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Merck, MetLife and Microsoft that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Tags: Chubb, Chubb Corporation, Political Contributions, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Halliburton (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:22:56 +0000

Resolved, that the shareholders of Halliburton Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semiannually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant board oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

As long-term shareholders of Halliburton, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.

Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Prudential, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets.

In 2011, this proposal received support from more than 46% of shares voted. We urge you to vote For this critical governance reform.

Tags: Halliburton, Halliburton Corporation, Political Contributions, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – CenturyLink (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:22:24 +0000

Resolved, that the shareholders of CenturyLink (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semiannually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant board oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

As long-term shareholders of CenturyLink, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.

CenturyLink contributed at least $1.3 million in corporate funds since the 2006 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)

However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Exelon, Merck and Microsoft that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Tags: CenturyLink, Political Contributions, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Report On Safer Flame Retardants – Newell Rubbermaid (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:21:42 +0000

Whereas:

Over the past decade, there has been growing scientific, regulatory, and public concern about the exposures of pregnant women, infants, and children to various chemicals of concern. These include, for example, halogenated flame retardants, polyvinyl chloride, phthalates, cadmium, and Bisphenol A.

A study of children’s car seats in August 2011 described hazardous flame retardants and chemical additives in over half of the car seats tested. Child car seats produced by Newell Rubbermaid subsidiary Graco, the Snugride 35 in Edgemont Red/Black and SnugRide 30 in Asprey, were among the most toxic seats tested.

A second study, published in Environmental Science and Technology examined 101 samples of polyurethane foam samples from a variety of baby products and found 80% contained either a chlorinated or brominated flame retardant.[1] The products, whose purchase dates ranged from 2000 to 2010, included car seats, changing table pads, portable mattresses, and 13 other categories of products.

In the United States, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) addresses a handful of chemicals of concern in toys. Individual states are also beginning to address children’s products. For example, Maine and Washington adopted legislation in 2008 that, among other provisions, requires companies to submit data to the state on toxic chemicals in children’s products.[2]

These and other laws in the US and especially in the European Union are motivated in part by growing recognition that exposures of children to toxic chemicals are especially concerning because many of their bodily systems and organs are undergoing rapid growth and development and they can be exposed to toxic chemicals through frequent hand to mouth activity. For example, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, who directs the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH, has commented, “with regard to flame retardants, I am concerned about not only cancer, but the developing brain and reproductive and neurological effects as well.”

RESOLVED: The shareholders urge the Board of Directors to issue a report to shareholders, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary and confidential information, within six months, evaluating the company’s policy options for phasing-in safer alternatives to halogenated flame retardants.

Supporting Statement:
Shareholders believe the report should include a characterization of the product categories for which these chemicals of concern occur in company products, and potential policies and practices to deploy safer alternatives to these chemicals.

We believe that the increasing attention being paid by policy makers, investors, and consumers to the presence of potentially harmful chemicals in products necessitates adopting safer alternatives as they become available. Safer alternatives policies have been adopted by many consumer product manufacturers such as SC Johnson and Nike. Companies have adopted such practices to build public trust, protect brand reputation, and anticipate prospective regulation.

[1] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2007462

[2] These and other regulatory developments are summarized in Monica Becker, Sally Edwards, Rachel I. Massey. Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children’s Products: Limitations of Current Responses and Recommendations for Government and Industry. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010; 44 (21): 7986 DOI: 10.1021/es1009407

Tags: child car seats, children's products, flame retardants, Newell Rubbermaid, Rubbermaid, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Report on Bisphenol A in Thermal Receipt Paper- Panera Bread Company (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:19:21 +0000

WHEREAS:

The value of Panera Bread Company’s brand is based in part on customer trust. We believe that if the company’s cash register thermal receipt paper contain bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical, that trust could be put at risk.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated “Some receipts made of thermal paper may now contain as much as 10 mg. of BPA, which could pose a risk for human exposure, as well as account for substantial environmental releases of BPA.” http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/bpa/index.htm

BPA reportedly mimics estrogen in the body; a number of animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and to tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Experts are particularly concerned about exposure to BPA by the very young and pregnant women.

A scientific study published July 11, 2011 found that BPA transfers readily from receipts to skin and can penetrate the skin to such a depth that it cannot be washed off. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d5j507113141120h/
In a 2008 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health report, BPA was shown to penetrate skin in laboratory studies. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390801906824#preview
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/300/11/1303.full
The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research. http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.htm

Proponents believe the use of BPA may also pose regulatory risk. The Connecticut legislature passed the first state law barring the manufacture, distribution or sale of thermal receipt paper containing BPA. More than 20 states and multiple federal bills have introduced legislation to ban or limit the use of BPA in food and beverage containers.

Currently, the EPA is engaged in an alternatives assessment for BPA in thermal receipt paper with the goal of helping to reduce environmental releases of and subsequent exposures to BPA.

Companies, including Yum! Brands, Whole Foods and Chipotle reportedly use BPA-free thermal receipt paper. And a 2010 report by the Environmental Working Group found Bank of America, Target and Starbucks were using BPA-free thermal receipt paper

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors publish a report by September 1, 2012, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential and proprietary information, on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA.

Supporting statement: We believe the report should include a summary of what the company is doing to maintain public trust on this issue, its role in adopting or encouraging development of safer alternatives to BPA in thermal receipt paper, and any risks to the company’s reputation created by the continued use of thermal receipt paper containing BPA.

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending- Ford Motor – (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:18:01 +0000

Resolved, that the shareholders of Ford Motor (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

As long-term shareholders of Ford Motor, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.

Ford Motor contributed at least $1.9 million in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)

However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In many cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Merck, Microsoft and Prudential that have adopted disclosure and accountability of their political spending.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Tags: Ford, Ford Motor, Political Contributions, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Lobbying Disclosure – UnitedHealth Group (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:17:35 +0000

Resolved: Shareholders of UnitedHealth Group (“UNH” or the “Company”) request that the Board of Directors (the “Board”) authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:

1. Company policy and procedures governing the lobbying of legislators and regulators, including that done on the Company’s behalf by trade organizations. The disclosure should include both direct and indirect lobbying and grassroots lobbying communications.

2. A listing of payments (both direct and indirect, including payments to trade organizations) used for direct lobbying as well as grassroots lobbying communications, including the amount of the payment and the recipient.

3. Membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation.

4. Description of the decision making process and oversight by the management and the Board for (a) direct and indirect lobbying contribution or expenditure; and (b) payment for grassroots lobbying expenditure.

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that: (a) refers to specific legislation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation. Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels. The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee or other relevant oversight committee of the Board and posted on the Company’s website.

Supporting Statement

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, corporations are considered persons having the right to express opinions on public policy issues. However, corporations can exert significantly greater influence than single individuals or groups and may promote interests unknown and contrary to the interests of their own shareholders.

For example, many companies in the health care industry have told their shareholders they are in basic support of the federal health reform law known as the Affordable Care Act, albeit with a desire for necessary changes. However, many of these corporations are members of groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”) and other organizations which are actively working to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.

It is important that our Company’s lobbying positions, as well as processes to influence public policy, are transparent. Public opinion is skeptical of corporate influence on Congress and public policy. Questionable lobbying activity may pose risks to our Company’s reputation when controversial positions are embraced. Hence, we believe full disclosure of UNH’s policies, procedures and oversight mechanisms is warranted.

UNH has spent nearly $23 million from 2008 through Q1 2011 on direct federal lobbying activities, according to public records. These figures may not include its grassroots lobbying to directly influence legislation by mobilizing public support or opposition. Also, not all states require disclosure of lobbying expenditures to influence legislation or regulation and UNH does not disclose contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as a $50,000 contribution to ALEC’s 2011 annual meeting (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/05/288823/alec-exposed-corporations-funding/).

Tags: lobbying, lobbying disclosures, political activity, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions, Unitedhealth Group

Network Neutrality On Wireless Networks – Verizon (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:17:05 +0000

WHEREAS:

The open (non-discriminatory) architecture of the Internet is critical to the prosperity of our economy and society. Non-discrimination principles are commonly referred to as “network neutrality” and seek to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment for all content.

As President Obama and Federal Communication Commission Chairman Genachowski have pointed out, an open Internet plays a pivotal role in solving critical national problems such as healthcare, education, energy, and public safety and is necessary “to preserve the freedom and openness that have allowed the Internet to become a transformative and powerful platform for speech and expression.”

Network neutrality rules are also needed to “facilitate the growth of the Internet and give private companies the correct incentives to continue investing in this significantly valuable good,” according to a January 2010 report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University. This report and others find that an open Internet accounts for billions of dollars of value for the economy.

We believe this economic and social value is an important factor in the growth of our economy and widely diversified investment portfolios.

Open Internet policies on wireless networks (the fastest growing segment of the Internet) have particular importance for minority and economically disadvantaged communities. People of color access the Internet via cell phones at a much greater rate than their white counterparts, according to a report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2010, the report found, 33% of whites accessed the Internet on cell phones compared to 51% of Latinos and 46% of African-Americans; 30% of whites sent or received e-mail on cell phones compared to 47% of Latinos and 41% of African-Americans.

In 2011 Pew reported “Smartphone owners under the age of 30, non-white smartphone users, and smartphone owners with relatively low income and education levels are particularly likely to say that they mostly go online using their phones.” It found that almost a third of the “mostly cell” users lack any traditional broadband Internet access. The author of the report concluded, “For businesses, government agencies and nonprofits who want to engage with certain communities, they will find them in front of a four-inch screen, not in front of a big computer in their den.”

According to Colorofchange.org, an organization representing African-Americans, “The digital freedoms at stake are a 21^st century civil rights issue.”

For all these reasons, we believe network neutrality on wireless networks is needed to protect open access to the Internet by millions of Americans.

Resolved, shareholders request the company publicly commit (while not conceding or forfeiting any issue in litigation related to network neutrality) to operate voluntarily its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles – i.e., operate a neutral network with neutral routing along the company’s wireless infrastructure such that the company does not privilege, degrade or prioritize any packet transmitted over its wireless infrastructure based on its source, ownership or destination.

Tags: Internet, network neutrality, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions, verizon, wireless networks

Sustainable Palm Oil Policy – YUM! Brands, Inc. (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:16:36 +0000

Whereas:

The environmental and social impacts of palm oil, an ingredient in our Company’s supply chain, make it highly controversial. Accordingly, we believe the Company’s failure to procure certified sustainable palm oil is a brand risk, to both our Company’s reputation and long-term to the security of supply.

Approximately 85% of palm oil is grown in Indonesia and Malaysia, much of it on industrial plantations. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, palm oil plantations are a large source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) because they are often established on land converted from swamp forests (“The Root of the Problem: What’s Driving Deforestation Today, Ucsusa.org, June 2011).

Due to high levels of continuing deforestation and the burning of peatlands in land clearance, Indonesia is now the 3^rd largest emitter of GHGs globally. A 2010 report commissioned by Indonesia’s National Development Planning Agency found that the conversion of peatlands alone accounts for 50 percent of Indonesia’s GHG emissions but only 1% of GDP. (“Indonesian Government Report Recommends Moratorium on Peatlands Conversion,” Mongabay, January 19, 2010) Agricultural expansion, much of it for palm oil production, can be better managed by using other land types than standing forest.

Palm oil plantations that are not sustainably managed have been shown to destroy habitats of endangered species, such as the orangutan (UNEP-WCMC.org). Consumers have demonstrated concern for orangutan welfare by campaigning against companies that have failed to source sustainable palm oil. Failure to manage the reputational risk of deforestation in supply chains has been disruptive for a number of high profile brands including Mattel and Nestle.

The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil was formed in 2004 to address the social and environmental concerns associated with palm oil production and promote sustainable palm oil products. Leading companies have committed to source only certified sustainable palm oil by 2015, including SC Johnson, Wal-Mart, General Mills, McDonalds, Mars, Nestle and Unilever. Our company has not made such a commitment and we believe has not addressed the risks described above.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the board of directors adopt and implement a comprehensive sustainable palm oil policy.

Supporting Statement: We believe that in order to effectively address this issue, the Company should adopt a policy that includes:

a target date for sourcing 100% Certified Sustainable Palm Oil or for purchasing GreenPalm certificates covering 100% of sourced palm oil,
plans to verify suppliers’ compliance with the policy,
supporting a moratorium on palm oil expansion in rainforests and peatlands, and
a commitment to disclose the company’s progress on this issue.

Tags: deforestration, Environment, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, palm oil, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions, YUM, YUM! Brands Inc

Executive Compensation – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:16:12 +0000

WHEREAS:

Income inequality is a growing problem in the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010, 46.2 million Americans lived in poverty—including more than 1 out of every 5 American children. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/ incpovhlth/2010/highlights.html) Many in America’s once robust middle class are now struggling to make ends meet.

While the bottom 99 percent of Americans face increasingly tough times, the share of income going to the top 1 percent, especially the top 0.1 percent, continues to grow. An October 2011 report from the Congressional Budget Office found that in 1979, the top 1 percent received about the same share of income as the bottom 20 percent; in 2007 the top 1 percent received more income than the bottom 40 percent combined. (http://www.cbo.gov/ doc.cfm?index=12485) According to the economist Joseph Stiglitz, the richest 1 percent of Americans now takes in nearly a quarter of our nation’s income. (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105)

The compensation packages of Chief Executive Officers and other senior executives play a significant part in the growing income inequality in the United States. A 2010 working paper by professors at Williams College and Indiana University, entitled “Jobs and Income Growth of Top Earners and the Causes of Changing Income Inequality”, found that executives, managers, supervisors, and financial professionals account for about 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent of income earners in recent years, and about 70 percent of the increase in the share of national income going to the top 0.1 percent. (http://ideas.repec.org/p/wil/wileco/2010-24.html)

Growing income inequality and the level of senior executive compensation at JPMorgan Chase & Co.—the Company’s Chief Executive Officer was given $20.8 million in total compensation for 2010, roughly 420 times the real median household income in 2010—combined with its perceived role in the 2008 financial crisis, has focused public ire on the Company. (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/ cb11-157.html) The Occupy movement, with its focus on the inequalities between the extreme wealth of the top 1 percent and the struggles of the other 99 percent of society, held demonstrations outside of our Company’s offices. Our Company has also been a primary focus of the Move Your Money project, a campaign that aims to encourage divestment from Wall Street banks. (http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/our-story)

A Watson Wyatt survey conducted before the 2008 financial crisis found that 85 percent of institutional investors believed that the prevalent executive compensation system in the United States was damaging to Corporate America’s image. A separate Watson Wyatt survey of 50 directors serving on corporate boards found that 61 percent believed that most executives were dramatically overpaid and 79 percent believed the executive pay model had damaged Corporate America’s image. (http://www.watsonwyatt.com/render.asp?catid=1&id=16180)

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that a committee of independent directors of the Board assess how the Company is responding to risks, including reputational risks, associated with the high levels of senior executive compensation at our firm and report to shareholders (at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information) by December 31, 2012.v

Tags: Executive Compensation, executive pay, income inequality, JP Morgan Chase, JPMorgan Chase, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) – Home Depot (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:12:22 +0000

WHEREAS: Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is a fair employment practice and an investment issue. We believe that companies with a good EEO record have a competitive advantage in recruiting/retaining employees. We believe Home Depot customers are increasingly diverse; therefore a similarly diverse work force is more likely to anticipate and respond effectively to consumer demand. EEO reporting has economic relevance.

Home Depot shareholder votes in favor of a Diversity Report surpassed 23%, 26%, 22%, and 25% in 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008 respectively – sending a consistent signal to management that shareowners desire increased accountability.

The Company annually files an EEO-1 report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This information could be made available to shareholders at a minimal additional cost.

Allegations of discrimination in the workplace burden shareholders with costly litigation that can damage a company’s reputation.

Home Depot has paid out more than $100 million to settle discrimination lawsuits in the last 15 years. The most significant EEOC settlement of $87 million was in 1997. In 2004, Home Depot agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle charges of class-wide gender, race and national origin discrimination at more than 30 Colorado stores. In 2009, Home Depot paid $84,750 to settle retaliation charges related to a 2004 discrimination suit.

RESOLVED: The shareholders request that Home Depot prepare a diversity report, at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information, available to investors by September 2012, including the following:

1. A chart identifying employees according to their gender and race in each of the nine major EEOC-defined job categories for the last three years, listing numbers or percentages in each category;

2. A summary description of any affirmative action policies and programs to improve performance, including job categories where women and minorities are underutilized;

3. A description of any policies and programs oriented specifically toward increasing the number of managers who are qualified females or minorities.

Supporting Statement: In 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported racial minorities comprised 34% of the private industry workforce, but just 11% of executives and managers. Likewise,women represented 48% of the workforce, but just 28% of executives and managers. Employment and advancement barriers persist.

Several major U.S. corporations provide diversity reports with detailed EEO information including Walmart, Hewlett Packard, Nike, Costco and Intel.

In 2001, Home Depot began providing EEO information to investors upon request. Since then, Home Depot reversed its policy on disclosure of this information.

We agree with a recommendation of the 1995 bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission that “public disclosure of diversity data—specifically data on the most senior positions—is an effective incentive to develop and maintain innovative, effective programs to break the glass ceiling barriers.” Home Depot has demonstrated leadership on many corporate social responsibility issues. We ask the company to again demonstrate leadership in diversity by committing to EEO disclosure.

Tags: diversity, EEO, equal opportunity employment, gender discrimintion, Home Depot, racial discrimination, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions, workplace diversity

Canadian Oil Sands – ExxonMobil (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:11:46 +0000

WHEREAS:

ExxonMobil has significant investments in the Canadian oil sands.

ExxonMobil owns 69.6 percent of Imperial Oil, one of Canada’s largest oil companies. Imperial is 100 percent owner of the Cold Lake oil sands project and is the operator and 25 percent owner of Syncrude. ExxonMobil and Imperial jointly own and operate 100 percent of the Kearl oil sands project.

According to ExxonMobil’s 2010 10-K, oil sands represent approximately 11 percent of proved reserves, demonstrating our company’s significant reliance on Canada’s oil sands for long term growth.

There are significant environmental, social and economic risks associated with oil sands.

The resource-intensive and environmentally damaging nature of oil sands development have introduced regulatory, operational, liability and reputational risks to oil sands companies.

The persistence of tailing ponds, which can leak toxic pollutants into groundwater, may present risks along with significant reclamation costs not currently carried on our balance sheet. While companies are required to provide reclamation costs to the Alberta government, investors still have very limited information on the full costs associated with the reclamation liabilities companies carry.

Lawsuits filed by Aboriginal peoples against the Canadian government challenge oil sands and pipeline projects even after approval. One thousand five hundred project components related to ExxonMobil are included in the Beaver Lake Cree case, one of the high-profile cases which could potentially shut down oil sands operations.

Developing the oil sands’ tar-like bitumen is expensive, with multi-decade payback horizons. Volatile oil prices and changing demand can impact the viability of these projects.

In its 2010 10-K, Nexen, another company in the oil sands, states, “[o]ur oil sands projects face additional risks compared to conventional oil and gas production,” and references risks related to “Aboriginal claims” and “Public perception of oil sands development.”

Shareholders believe ExxonMobil has not adequately reported on how possible risks associated with oil sands projects may impact our company’s long term financial performance, given our company’s significant investments in this area.

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board prepare a report discussing possible short and long term risks to the company’s finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost, omit proprietary and legal strategy information, address risks other than those associated with or attributable to climate change, and be available to investors by August 2012.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

The Board shall determine the scope of the report. Proponents believe risk information of interest to shareholders could include, among other things, assessing the impact of worst-case along with reasonably likely scenarios regarding:

Environmentally-related restrictions and requirements that might hinder or penalize operations, including those associated with water, land, non-carbon air emissions, reclamation and tailings;
Aboriginal lawsuits against the Canadian government; and
Public opposition throughout the lifecycle of oil sands operations –from exploration, to extraction, to transportation of the extracted bitumen.

Tags: Canadian oil sands, Environment, Exxon, Exxon Mobil, ExxonMobil, oil pipeline, Oil Sands, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Policy – ExxonMobil (2012)

salpern — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:11:18 +0000

Whereas: ExxonMobil does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in its written employment policy;

Over 89% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 95% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and 43% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression;

We believe that corporations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool;

According to an October, 2009 survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs, 44% of gay and lesbian workers in the United States reported an experience with some form of job discrimination related to sexual orientation; an earlier survey found that almost one out of every 10 gay or lesbian adults also stated that they had been fired or dismissed unfairly from a previous job, or pressured to quit a job because of their sexual orientation;

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia and more than 160 cities and counties, have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; 12 states and the District of Columbia have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity;

Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles have adopted legislation restricting business with companies that do not guarantee equal treatment for gay and lesbian employees;

Our company has operations in, and makes sales to institutions in states and cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

National public opinion polls consistently find more than three quarters of the American people support equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals; for example, in a Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 89% of respondents favored equal opportunity in employment for gays and lesbians;

Resolved: The Shareholders request that ExxonMobil amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and to substantially implement the policy.

Supporting Statement: Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity diminishes employee morale and productivity. Because state and local laws are inconsistent with respect to employment discrimination, our company would benefit from a consistent, corporate wide policy to enhance efforts to prevent discrimination, resolve complaints internally, and ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees. ExxonMobil will enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.

Tags: Exxon, Exxon Mobil, ExxonMobil, Sexual Orientation in the Workplace, sexual orientation non-discrimination policy, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending -State Street Corp (2012)

salpern — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:17:41 +0000

Resolved, that the shareholders of State Street Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

As long-term shareholders of State Street, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.

Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with federal ethics laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision recognized the importance of political spending disclosure for shareholders when it said “[D]isclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Gaps in transparency and accountability may expose the company to reputational and business risks that could threaten long-term shareholder value.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Tags: Political Contributions, political spending, shareholder advocacy, shareholder resolution, Shareholder Resolutions, State Street Corporation

Trillium Asset Management Corporation

First Peoples Worldwide Announces Partnership with Trillium Asset Management

Research and Advocacy Collaboration To Promote Indigenous Voices in the Boardroom

Related posts

Trillium Urges Washington State Corporations to Support Marriage Equality Legislation

On 2nd Anniversary of Citizens United, Trillium, Green Century Capital Management & Advocacy Groups Launch Drive to Stem Corporate Political Spending

Related posts

Prohibit Political Spending From Corporate Treasury Funds – Bank of America (2012)

Related posts

Hydraulic Fracturing – Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (2012)

Related posts

Report on BPA Use – Coca-Cola Company (2012)

Related posts

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Chubb Corp (2012)

Related posts

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Halliburton (2012)

Related posts

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – CenturyLink (2012)

Related posts

Report On Safer Flame Retardants – Newell Rubbermaid (2012)

Related posts

Report on Bisphenol A in Thermal Receipt Paper- Panera Bread Company (2012)

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending- Ford Motor – (2012)

Related posts

Lobbying Disclosure – UnitedHealth Group (2012)

Related posts

Network Neutrality On Wireless Networks – Verizon (2012)

Related posts

Sustainable Palm Oil Policy – YUM! Brands, Inc. (2012)

Related posts

Executive Compensation – JPMorgan Chase & Co. (2012)

Related posts

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) – Home Depot (2012)

Related posts

Canadian Oil Sands – ExxonMobil (2012)

Related posts

Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Policy – ExxonMobil (2012)

Related posts

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending -State Street Corp (2012)

Related posts