'Change from Within' v. "Do not Invest" - Both!
Some argue: the best way of accomplishing the changes we want is by being investors in all companies, and do "shareholder activism" to "change them from within".
On the other hand: shouldn't we stay away from unethical practices which violate our core principles? Can we still make profits from such behaviors?
Though there seems to be an opposition here, in the SRI world there is no conflict between these two approaches. Both "proxy voting / shareholder activism" and "restrictive screens" are SRI tools which can and should be used in conjunction.
We can do both, and we should do both.
Consider:
1. Would you buy stocks from a slave-holding company, and profit from it, so you can then "change it from within" ? I think we all agree there are "red-lines", which we cannot cross, and can never justify or rationalize. Why don't we invest in Darfur, and try "shareholder voting" there to make improvements? Because being involved in human rights abuses, and making profits from them, is a red line we cannot cross, and so RPB does not cross it. Similarly, URJ and CCAR have declared for a century that "unions and workers' rights" are "human rights issues", and are the one right that "prevents inhuman abuse of workers"! These too are red lines for us never to cross.
2.The ICCR, the organization in which RPB partners to do this "shareholder activism", states clearly that those who join them "believe they should not profit from production or sale of unsafe or harmful products; from exploitation of human weakness; from violation of human rights, production for war, racism, sexual exploitation or destruction of the environment and so on." (quote from their website, see in this website under "Sample SRI funds"). So, as long as we continue make profits from any of these, RPB is not following the very principles of the ICCR.
3. This is how true SRI is done, combining "proxy voting" and "restrictive screens" - Domini is one the leading "shareholder SRI activist" in the world, and this is what they do:
-Screens: you select those who are "worst offenders in their industry", and stay away from them, you should not profit from the worst abuses in each industry;
-"Activism": you can invest in a company who has still 'unacceptable practices', but it has shown willingness to engage with SRI issues and SRI shareholders concerns. Nike, Apple, and many corporations who have troubling workers' rights violations (health, safety violations, no-unions, coercion, forced-overtime, etc..) are still acceptable investments to Domini because they are continually engaged with SRI activists in reviewing concerns, and have shown that they take steps to respond to these concerns (for example, at the instigation and activism of Domini and others, these companies set up an organization to monitor and promote standards in their 3rd world factories). SRI analists, at SRI Funds, regularly review companies behaviors and responsiveness to activism, and if they see signs of progress, they would still invest and do "change from within".
4. The distinctions may seem difficult, but in fact are not hard to make by expert SRI managers: Apple is constantly engaging with SRI issues and activism (not ideally, but it does it) - so we can invest and be activists. Massey (and most mining and "extraction" corps., including oil and coal) has consitently shown that hey do not intend to engage in SRI, and have shown not to be responsive to SRI concerns and activism. Therefore, investing in them under the hope of "changing it from within" is not acceptable.
5. Another way - arguably the best way - of doing effective activism is by supporting with our money those companies whose practices are "the best in their industry". This is a "positive screen", where we favor and especially look for those who actually follow good behaviors aligned with our values, and invest preferably in them. RPB has such "positive screen" policy favoring investments in Israel, and in local communities, but does not have this type of "positive screen" for workers' rights, or environment, or other unethical behaviors we have condemned.
Since RPB does use both types of screens, positive (Israel), and negative (tobbaco)
- we just ask that RPB do the exact same thing regarding wrokers' rights, environment, and all those issues on which URJ/CCAR took a moral/ethical position. Stay away from the unacceptable worst, invest preferably in the best,
and invest in the 'middle' to do activism and change from within.
This what the Methodist Church does; this is what ICCR advocates; this what Domini does, and what leading SRI Funds do. Why don't we?
Final note: some industries may be considered altogether immoral, no matter the detail of behaviors, so no activism matters there.
* For the Methodist, that is the case with the Prison Business (see this website, under Methodist Church). The church considers unaaceptable and immoral the very principle that putting people in jail can be a source of profits for us; it considers unjustifable the operating principle of this business: 'the more people get in jail and stay in it - the more we profit'. In such a case, there is no activism that can make this better or acceptable.
The only ethical choice is to simply stay away from it - the Methodist plan screens this out of their investments. Shouldn't we?
* Jewish law makes it illegal - a violation of the Torah - to sell something harmful to others, even if they want it and know it is harmful, and even if you later compensate them for the harm caused. Shouldn't reform Judaism follow this fundamental Jewish ethical law, and stay 100% from industries making and selling products which are known to cause disease and illness?
Judaism doesn't call - and neither should we - for "prohibitionism". The issue for us is not whether "tobbacco" or other harmful products should be allowed to be sold - the issue is whether we should be the ones promoting such an industry, and making profits from it. The answer should be a clear 'no'.
Some argue: the best way of accomplishing the changes we want is by being investors in all companies, and do "shareholder activism" to "change them from within".
On the other hand: shouldn't we stay away from unethical practices which violate our core principles? Can we still make profits from such behaviors?
Though there seems to be an opposition here, in the SRI world there is no conflict between these two approaches. Both "proxy voting / shareholder activism" and "restrictive screens" are SRI tools which can and should be used in conjunction.
We can do both, and we should do both.
Consider:
1. Would you buy stocks from a slave-holding company, and profit from it, so you can then "change it from within" ? I think we all agree there are "red-lines", which we cannot cross, and can never justify or rationalize. Why don't we invest in Darfur, and try "shareholder voting" there to make improvements? Because being involved in human rights abuses, and making profits from them, is a red line we cannot cross, and so RPB does not cross it. Similarly, URJ and CCAR have declared for a century that "unions and workers' rights" are "human rights issues", and are the one right that "prevents inhuman abuse of workers"! These too are red lines for us never to cross.
2.The ICCR, the organization in which RPB partners to do this "shareholder activism", states clearly that those who join them "believe they should not profit from production or sale of unsafe or harmful products; from exploitation of human weakness; from violation of human rights, production for war, racism, sexual exploitation or destruction of the environment and so on." (quote from their website, see in this website under "Sample SRI funds"). So, as long as we continue make profits from any of these, RPB is not following the very principles of the ICCR.
3. This is how true SRI is done, combining "proxy voting" and "restrictive screens" - Domini is one the leading "shareholder SRI activist" in the world, and this is what they do:
-Screens: you select those who are "worst offenders in their industry", and stay away from them, you should not profit from the worst abuses in each industry;
-"Activism": you can invest in a company who has still 'unacceptable practices', but it has shown willingness to engage with SRI issues and SRI shareholders concerns. Nike, Apple, and many corporations who have troubling workers' rights violations (health, safety violations, no-unions, coercion, forced-overtime, etc..) are still acceptable investments to Domini because they are continually engaged with SRI activists in reviewing concerns, and have shown that they take steps to respond to these concerns (for example, at the instigation and activism of Domini and others, these companies set up an organization to monitor and promote standards in their 3rd world factories). SRI analists, at SRI Funds, regularly review companies behaviors and responsiveness to activism, and if they see signs of progress, they would still invest and do "change from within".
4. The distinctions may seem difficult, but in fact are not hard to make by expert SRI managers: Apple is constantly engaging with SRI issues and activism (not ideally, but it does it) - so we can invest and be activists. Massey (and most mining and "extraction" corps., including oil and coal) has consitently shown that hey do not intend to engage in SRI, and have shown not to be responsive to SRI concerns and activism. Therefore, investing in them under the hope of "changing it from within" is not acceptable.
5. Another way - arguably the best way - of doing effective activism is by supporting with our money those companies whose practices are "the best in their industry". This is a "positive screen", where we favor and especially look for those who actually follow good behaviors aligned with our values, and invest preferably in them. RPB has such "positive screen" policy favoring investments in Israel, and in local communities, but does not have this type of "positive screen" for workers' rights, or environment, or other unethical behaviors we have condemned.
Since RPB does use both types of screens, positive (Israel), and negative (tobbaco)
- we just ask that RPB do the exact same thing regarding wrokers' rights, environment, and all those issues on which URJ/CCAR took a moral/ethical position. Stay away from the unacceptable worst, invest preferably in the best,
and invest in the 'middle' to do activism and change from within.
This what the Methodist Church does; this is what ICCR advocates; this what Domini does, and what leading SRI Funds do. Why don't we?
Final note: some industries may be considered altogether immoral, no matter the detail of behaviors, so no activism matters there.
* For the Methodist, that is the case with the Prison Business (see this website, under Methodist Church). The church considers unaaceptable and immoral the very principle that putting people in jail can be a source of profits for us; it considers unjustifable the operating principle of this business: 'the more people get in jail and stay in it - the more we profit'. In such a case, there is no activism that can make this better or acceptable.
The only ethical choice is to simply stay away from it - the Methodist plan screens this out of their investments. Shouldn't we?
* Jewish law makes it illegal - a violation of the Torah - to sell something harmful to others, even if they want it and know it is harmful, and even if you later compensate them for the harm caused. Shouldn't reform Judaism follow this fundamental Jewish ethical law, and stay 100% from industries making and selling products which are known to cause disease and illness?
Judaism doesn't call - and neither should we - for "prohibitionism". The issue for us is not whether "tobbacco" or other harmful products should be allowed to be sold - the issue is whether we should be the ones promoting such an industry, and making profits from it. The answer should be a clear 'no'.