September, 17 2019, 12:00am EDT
Investment Giants BlackRock and Vanguard Fail to Live Up to Climate Commitments by Voting Against Shareholder Resolutions
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
Corporate governance nonprofit Majority Action released today its report analyzing asset managers' 2019 voting records on climate-related shareholder proposals and CEO pay at energy and utility companies. The report finds that influential firms like BlackRock and Vanguard repeatedly voted with corporate management in opposing climate risk mitigation proposals. In fact, BlackRock and Vanguard voted against every proposal supported by the Climate Action 100+, an investor coalition with $34 trillion assets under management; in 16 cases the asset managers' support would have led to majority votes. Instead, the report states, "BlackRock and Vanguard chose to shield management from accountability, serving as a blockade for global investor action on climate."
In contrast, the report noted Legal & General, BNP Paribas, and PIMCO supported more than 95 percent of the shareholder proposals analyzed in this study, as did DWS Group, voting in favor of improved emissions disclosures and reduction plans, transparency regarding corporate political influence activity, and governance reforms to improve accountability to long-term shareholders. In addition, Legal & General Investment Management, BNP Paribas Asset Management, PIMCO, and Standard Life Aberdeen had the highest rate of voting against management proposed director candidates and say on pay proposals in the oil and gas and utility industries. These large asset managers are choosing to set and enforce policies to hold corporate boards accountable if climate-related concerns are not adequately addressed.
Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"This year we saw many shareholder proposals encouraging companies to take action to mitigate the material climate risks facing their companies and the global economy. By voting against such proposals, BlackRock and Vanguard are demonstrating a profound inconsistency with their own stated purpose, while also jeopardizing shareholder value. There is little time left to change the trajectory of a warming globe, yet these firms are abdicating the power of their proxy vote to help protect the climate, the economy, and investor portfolios from systemic climate risks."
Lila Holzman, energy program manager of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"Transparency is key to investors' ability to assess climate-related risks. While firms like BlackRock and Vanguard have acknowledged climate change risks, they counterproductively vote against proposals that ask for enhanced disclosure and action and fail to transparently explain why. This exposes their clients to even greater risks."
Rosanna Landis Weaver, executive compensation program manager of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"BlackRock and Vanguard voted for 99 percent of U.S. energy and utility companies' proposed directors and 100 percent of their pay packages rewarding CEOs of companies that have underperformed the S&P500 for the past decade. Shareholders should be particularly focused on what behavior is incentivized in this industry, and whether compensation aligns executives' long-term interests with those shareholders."
Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, made the following statement:
"We are pleased to see some of the large asset managers, including BNP Paribas, Legal & General, DWS, and PIMCO, taking climate change seriously by supporting these resolutions. This sends a strong message that shareholders see business as usual by the energy sector no longer acceptable and negatively impacting the entire economy."
For more information on As You Sow's work on climate change, click here.
As You Sow is the nation's non-profit leader in shareholder advocacy. Founded in 1992, we harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit. Our mission is to promote environmental and social corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies.
LATEST NEWS
Spying Expansion Could Hand 'Stasi-Like Powers' to Trump, Privacy Advocates Warn
"In my opinion no country that has something like this to enter into force can still be considered to be free," said Edward Snowden.
Apr 15, 2024
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is among the privacy advocates sounding the alarm over a major expansion of mass surveillance that the U.S. House approved in a bipartisan vote last week, a step toward handing the federal government—and a potential second Trump administration—even more power to spy on Americans' communications without a warrant.
Sean Vitka, policy director of Demand Progress, used social media to press the top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) on the implications of an amendment that the lower chamber approved as part of a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Did you know your FISA [electronic communications service provider] amendment facilitates Stasi-like powers, very plausibly for [former President Donald] Trump? I asked your staff if you were lied to about it or if you knew. Can you confirm?" Vitka asked Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. (Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee, has postured as a FISA opponent, but as president he signed an extension of Section 702 authority.)
Vitka noted Sunday that Himes repeatedly characterized the amendment—which was led by HPSCI Chair Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio)—as narrow, even though it would dramatically expand the kinds of businesses that can be forced to help the government conduct surveillance operations under Section 702, possibly handing a would-be authoritarian chilling surveillance powers.
As the Brennan Center for Justice explained, "Although the amendment exempts hotels, libraries, restaurants, and a handful of other types of establishments, an enormous range of businesses could still be conscripted into service, including grocery stores, department stores, hardware stores, laundromats, barber shops, fitness centers, and countless other locations Americans frequent—even the offices in which they work."
"Moreover, although the targets would still have to be non-U.S. persons overseas, many of these businesses would lack the technical ability to turn over specific communications, so they would be forced to give the NSA access to entire communications streams—trusting the government to retain only the communications of approved targets," the group added.
Section 702 permits U.S. agencies to spy on non-citizens located outside of the country, but the communications of Americans—including activists, journalists, and lawmakers—have
frequently been swept up under the surveillance authority, sparking a bipartisan reform push.
Himes, an
opponent of reform efforts, responded dismissively to Vitka's question on Sunday, writing that "life is really too short to engage with people who need to use bombastic absurdities like 'Stasi-like.'"
"Yes I know exactly what is in there," Himes added, referring to the Turner-led amendment. "Some of it is classified. And none of it is remotely 'Stasi-like.' Sell your nonsense elsewhere."
Snowden, who in 2013 exposed the NSA's
illegal mass surveillance program, said in response that "the 'it's classified' dodge" by Himes "is a bright red flag."
"This amendment radically—and I repeat radically—expands the range of who the gov't can force to spy on their behalf. It may be law in DAYS!" Snowden wrote on social media.
Snowden went on to argue that Vitka's "invocation of 'Stasi-like' is not only a fair characterization" of the amendment, "it's probably generous."
"Frankly, it's hard to imagine any modern communication beyond the reach of this thing—which is, of course, the true reason they're trying to sneak it into law so quietly," he added. "It is unbelievably overbroad, and in my opinion no country that has something like this to enter into force can still be considered to be free."
"The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history."
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program,
said the "disregard for Americans' civil liberties" in Himes' reply to Vitka "is staggering."
"This provision allows the NSA to force a huge range of ordinary U.S. businesses to assist the NSA in Section 702 surveillance," Goitein added. "That's not 'nonsense,' that's a fact. And this is your response?"
URGENT: Please read thread below. We have just days to convince the Senate NOT to pass a “terrifying” law (@RonWyden) that will force U.S. businesses to serve as NSA spies. CALL YOUR SENATOR NOW using this call tool (click below or call 202-899-8938). 1/25 https://t.co/HAOHURZoJQ
— Elizabeth Goitein (@LizaGoitein) April 15, 2024
The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), described by some as "Patriot Act 2.0," passed the House in an overwhelming bipartisan vote last week after mass spying supporters—including the Biden White House—defeated an effort to add a search warrant requirement to the bill.
But the legislation still has to clear a procedural hurdle to reach the Senate. Later Monday, the House is expected to vote on whether to table a motion to reconsider RISAA's passage.
If the bill does reach the closely divided Senate, privacy advocates are expected to continue their fight for meaningful reforms.
"The House bill represents one of the most dramatic and terrifying expansions of government surveillance authority in history," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement following Friday's House vote. "It allows the government to force any American who installs, maintains, or repairs anything that transmits or stores communications to spy on the government's behalf. That means anyone with access to a server, a wire, a cable box, a Wi-Fi router, or a phone."
"It would be secret: The Americans receiving the government directives would be bound to silence, and there would be no court oversight," he added. "I will do everything in my power to stop this bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Cannot Let the Warmongers Win': US Progressives Reject Calls for Attack on Iran
"We must resist the U.S. becoming embroiled in another costly conflict abroad," said U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee.
Apr 15, 2024
Progressives in the U.S. Congress on Sunday urged the Biden administration to resist calls for an attack on Iran following the country's
retaliation against Israel for the deadly bombing of Tehran's consulate in Syria earlier this month.
The hawkish rhetoric came from both sides of the political aisle in the U.S.—Israel's main ally and weapons supplier.
U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), one of Congress' most fervent supporters of Israel's war on Gaza, claimed Iran is "the single most destabilizing force in the Middle East" and "must be held accountable for the aggression it has long shown toward Israel not only directly but also indirectly through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis."
U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), directing her message at President Joe Biden, was more explicit in demanding an immediate military response from the U.S.
"We must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran," Blackburn wrote on social media.
The number two Republican in the U.S. House, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.),
said Saturday that the chamber would "move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable."
"The House of Representatives stands strongly with Israel, and there must be consequences for this unprovoked attack," Scalise added. "More details on the legislative items to be considered will be forthcoming."
"As leaders in Washington jump to call for war with Iran and rush additional offensive weapons to the Israeli military, we need to exercise restraint and use every diplomatic tool to de-escalate tensions."
Iran's launch of hundreds of drones and missiles on Saturday marked its first direct assault on Israel, which has repeatedly engaged in covert attacks inside Iranian territory. On April 1, Israel bombed Iran's consulate in the Syrian capital, killing diplomats and a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander.
Iran said its retaliatory firing of missiles and drones—most of which were intercepted—was in line with international law. One person, a seven-year-old girl, was seriously injured in the attack.
Israeli officials immediately vowed revenge, a pledge that intensified global calls for restraint to prevent the regional war in the Middle East from spiraling further out of control.
As
The Intercept's Ken Klippenstein and Daniel Boguslaw noted Sunday, the conflict "now involves at least 16 different countries," including the U.S., which "flew aircraft and launched air defense missiles from at least eight countries, while Iran and its proxies fired weapons from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen."
U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), a vocal supporter of a cease-fire in Gaza, issued a statement Sunday condemning both Israel's attack on Iran's consulate and Tehran's response, which she said "threaten civilian lives and regional war."
"I also condemn the calls by members of Congress and others to initiate war with Iran; to do so without congressional authorization is blatantly unconstitutional," Bush said. "We cannot let the warmongers win; our country and our world are calling for restraint, de-escalation, a lasting cease-fire, and diplomacy. Our government must listen. That is how we save lives."
Bush urged the Biden administration to "take immediate steps, including at the U.N. Security Council and G7, to de-escalate and facilitate an immediate, lasting cease-fire in the region."
U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone congressional no vote against the war in Afghanistan, similarly called on the Biden administration to "lead efforts toward de-escalation, diplomacy, and securing a permanent cease-fire in Gaza."
"We must resist the U.S. becoming embroiled in another costly conflict abroad, but rather lead toward peace and security in the region," Lee added.
Axiosreported Sunday that Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly that the U.S. would not "support any Israeli counterattack against Iran." An unnamed official told the outlet that "when Biden told Netanyahu that the U.S. will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran and will not support such operations, Netanyahu said he understood."
Echoing her progressive colleagues, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)
said Sunday that "as leaders in Washington jump to call for war with Iran and rush additional offensive weapons to the Israeli military, we need to exercise restraint and use every diplomatic tool to de-escalate tensions."
"Civilians in not only Gaza, Israel, the West Bank, and Iran but also Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are bearing the brunt of this escalation, and there must be a cease-fire on all sides," said Omar. "I will continue to call for de-escalation, restraint, and lasting peace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UK Youth, Experts Occupy Coal-Sponsored Science Museum Gallery
"Why on Earth are we allowing a destructive industry to sponsor an educational exhibition whilst simultaneously setting fire to young people's futures?" asked Chris Packham.
Apr 14, 2024
A few dozen protesters from Youth Action for Climate Justice and Scientists for Extinction Rebellion this weekend occupied a new climate gallery at the Science Museum in London that is sponsored by the Indian coal and weapons giant Adani.
"To have a coal company sponsoring an exhibition on the future of energy is blatantly deceiving," Anya, a young person who occupied the Energy Revolution gallery, said in a statement. "Through this sponsorship deal, the Science Museum is helping Adani attach itself to the image of a positive and sustainable future when in reality it is a coal giant, weapons manufacturer, and genocide supporter. It's plain wrong for the Science Museum to be deceiving visitors, including young people like me, when it comes to the climate crisis."
The occupation came after over 150 people protested at the museum shortly before the gallery's opening last month. In response, an Adani representative claimed that the sponsorship—which has been condemned by climate action advocates since it was announced three years ago—was part of the company's effort to participate in the global energy transition. Ian Blatchford, director and chief executive of the Science Museum Group, defended the firm's involvement.
However, their comments didn't satisfy critics who participated in the weekend occupation. As Real Mediareported:
On Friday evening the activists smuggled in balloons and black paper which they used to create a large art piece—a mound of black coal—in the centre of the gallery. Their plan was to interact with the public on Saturday after their first night of occupation, including a People's Assembly to discuss the controversial sponsorship in the afternoon.
Police were called, but no arrests were made. However, perhaps embarrassed by the presence of the protest and their message about the climate-wrecking sponsors, the museum decided to prevent access to the gallery for the whole of Saturday, although supporters did come with more banners which they held near the entrance.
The protesters remained in the museum overnight on Saturday and ended their action on Sunday.
"It's not just Adani's brand that the Science Museum is greenwashing, they're also allowing the oil and gas giants BP and Equinor to sponsor their exhibits, disregarding the fact that these companies continue to expand fossil fuel production against the warnings of climate scientists," noted Aaron Thierry, one of the scientists who occupied the gallery.
"The latest science has shown we must leave the majority of fossil fuels unburned to prevent catastrophic changes to our climate," Thierry stressed. "That an institution like the Science Museum is working with such rouge companies is a disgrace. The museum's management needs to follow the example of Britain's other leading cultural institutions and drop all ties to the fossil fuel industry."
The young people and scientists were joined by naturalist and television presenter Chris Packham, who gave a speech Friday night.
"For me, science is the art of understanding truth and beauty and a lot of that beauty lies in the natural world. Science tells us that the fossil fuel industry is responsible for the accelerating destruction of our natural world," said Packham. "The Science Museum is a place to spark imagination, to provide answers but also to encourage us to ask questions."
"The question I'm asking today is a big one, 'Why on Earth are we allowing a destructive industry to sponsor an educational exhibition whilst simultaneously setting fire to young people's futures?'" he continued. "This is beyond greenwash—it's grotesque."
Packham emphasized that "we urgently need an 'Energy Revolution' to steer us away from the course of planetary destruction on which we are heading. We need a rapid, just transition to renewables—that revolution means an end to coal, and starts with the young people and scientists occupying this space this evening. Science tells us the truth, and the truth is that we must change."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular