Perspectives on Social Issues
(July 2008)

Socially Responsible Investing: Greater Numbers and Scope
"There was a time that when a shareholder proposal received 3 percent, it was considered a success because it allowed the proposal to return the following year. This has changed. In 2007, approximately 30 percent of social proposals have received 20 percent support from shareholders, a significant jump from 2005 when only 12 percent received 20 percent support or more. The proposals with the highest support are in the area of sustainability, equal employment, sexual orientation, political contributions, climate change, and board diversity. The number of resolutions filed in certain areas include: 48 -- environment; 37 -- disclosure; 18 -- animal rights and sustainability reports; 17 -- climate change.

Seven proposals received over 40 percent of shareholder votes and 31 percent received at least 30 percent support. Companies in 2007 receiving five or more resolutions include: Exxon Mobil Corporation -- 9; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- 7; E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company -- 7; Chevron Corporation -- 5; ConocoPhillips -- 5; Ford Motor Company -- 5."

“Socially Responsible Investing: 2007 -- An Overview," JustPeace, Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes, March 2008.

Congressional Aides Misjudge U.S. Public Opinion of U.S. Policies
"Several years ago when the pollsters at the PIPA (Project on International Policy Attitudes) center asked congressional staff about the attitudes of the general public, they found a huge disconnect. 'In most cases, only minorities of staffers correctly perceived what the majority attitude was in districts,' reports PIPA.'Curiously, staffers whose views were actually in accord with their constituents tended to assume this was not the case.' But the same congressional staff said the constituents represented by their bosses would not support such policies.

If these polls are at all accurate, many congressional staff may be misperceiving public opinion in the congressional districts represented by their bosses. In fact, when PIPA conducted surveys in the congressional districts of members of Congress who consistently voted for more military spending and against the United Nations, they found majorities in those districts support reducing military spending and working with the United Nations, the Kyoto Treaty, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Yet nothing changed. Asked why not, PIPA Director Steven Kull explains that many constituents who support international engagement and working with the United Nations believe they are in a minority in their own communities. However, Kull's polls show that these constituents are actually expressing sentiments that have majority support."

“Good News: You Are Not Alone," FCNL Washington Newsletter, April 2008..

Fair Trade Brings Wonderfully Diverse Benefits
"Through Fair Trade, farmers are paid a guaranteed price for their products -- a price that covers their living costs while also helping to improve their communities.... 'Fair Trade certification ensures that sugarcane farmers receive a fair price for their harvest, helping farmers around the world put food on their tables,' says Anthony Marek, public relations director at TransFair USA, which certifies Fair Trade sugar for sale in the U.S.A.

Sugarcane farmers in the Chikwawa district of Malawi have put the Fair Trade premiums to life-saving use. Before the Kasinthula Cane Growers sugar cooperative was certified by the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International in 2002, people in the farmers' villages were beset by waterborne illnesses like bilharzias, cholera, and dysentery. The cooperative's first project using the Fair Trade premiums was the drilling of two wells, which now provide clean drinking water to two villages and help prevent these diseases. The cooperative has also used its Fair Trade premiums to bring electricity to the village of Chinangwa, and members are currently at work building a school. In addition to guaranteeing farmers a fair price, Fair Trade certification also helps farmers use environmentally sustainable farming practices."

"The Sweet Side of Fair Trade," Co-op America's Real Money, Mar/Ap 2008.

U.S. Standing at Critical, Pivotal Crossroads
"New direction is needed on many fronts. Why? Because it becomes all too evident that the 2008 election finds us standing at not just another critical moment in this nation's history, but a pivotal one, one that inexorably affects the whole global reality. Meg Wheatley sums up our present reality, the reality crying for new direction, in these words:

America has embraced values that cannot create a sustainable society and world. We organize too many of our activities around beliefs that are inherently life destroying. We believe that growth can be endless, that competition creates healthy relationships, that consumption need have no limits, that meaning is found in things, that aggression brings peace. Societies that use these values end up as do all predators in nature, dead. (Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time, 2005)

Admittedly, 'new direction' has countless facets, many of which our candidates seemingly fail to envision, much less address. What is clear is that our new direction must be accompanied by a new spirituality that Patricia Mische describes as 'far deeper and more far reaching than ever before in history.'"

“Election 2008" by Catherine Pinkerton, CSJ, NETWORK Connection, Jan/Feb 2008.

Corn for Cars: Unjust and Dangerous Consequences
"There were warnings from the beginning that the move toward biofuel would result in a food crisis on this planet.... Food riots have already broken out in Haiti, Indonesia, the Philippines, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.... Many factors contribute to this. Big agribusiness, interested only in big profits, along with free trade agreements, is putting small farmers out of business. Increased consumption of meat demands more grain for animals instead of people. The destruction of massive areas of the Amazon rain forest to grow corn or soybeans for biofuel contributes to global climate change. Changing climate causes the desertification of farmland. Meanwhile, rich countries have been cutting aid levels and demanding biofuel to sustain business as usual....

As vitally important as increased aid is, we must address the root causes of this crisis. Wealthy nations cannot sustain our level of energy consumption at the expense of other people's lives. We must return to locally sustainable agriculture that directly feeds people without using vast amounts of energy to mass produce and transport food long distances. Hungry people are desperate people, and we can expect to see the poor rising up around the world if we don't change policies now. This is a deeply moral issue."

"Corn for Cars or People?" by Julie Byrnes Enslow, The Mobilizer, Peace Action Wisconsin, May 2008.