Opinion

The Great Debate

To fight global warming, Stanford should have kept its coal

By Christine Bader
May 9, 2014

 coal88

On Tuesday, Stanford University announced that its endowment will not make direct investments in coal companies. Anti-fossil fuel campaigners declared victory.

But is divestment the right move if the goal is to compel companies to alter what they do? Divestment campaigns are great for raising awareness and sparking debate — but not for getting companies to change their practices.

In 2002, the Canadian company Talisman Energy divested from an oil project in Sudan under pressure from campaigners concerned about foreign investment propping up a repressive regime. ONGC, India’s state oil and gas company, bought Talisman’s stake in the project, stopped all communications with stakeholders interested in monitoring the situation there, and ended the community investment programs that Talisman had set up. Some activists cheered Talisman’s departure, but oil production increased — which was probably not the original vision of those calling for divestment.

A more effective strategy is to engage with a company as shareholders — not to divest. The Rev. David Schilling is the program director of human rights for the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a coalition of faith-based organizations that use their position as shareholders to convince companies to improve their environmental and social practices.

“There are others that will pick up the shares; that’s pretty clear,” Reverend Schilling told me. “Then you’re left with this other set of tactics, for sure,” such as lobbying policymakers to strengthen regulation. “But direct engagement is one that we have historically affirmed.”

Indeed, ICCR has a track record of results. In part due to ICCR member efforts, ExxonMobil agreed to disclose how it assesses financial risks from climate change. (No, they’re not getting out of the fossil fuels business, but it is an important step.) Other companies, including Cabot Oil and Gas and Archer Daniels Midland, agreed to set and disclose goals related to energy and climate change after ICCR pressured them to do so.

Such changes don’t come about quickly. “Our approach is to stay at the table and engage, engage, engage,” said Schilling, “and not for a year or two years but 10, 15, 20, 25.”

bp999I can personally attest to the efficacy of Schilling’s strategy of active engagement. I spent nine years with BP, mitigating risks to the communities living near major company projects in the developing world; commissioning expert assessments on issues ranging from human rights to impacts on fisheries; hiring community liaison officers, and partnering with nongovernmental organizations.

I had moral and financial support for my work from the top levels of the company, in part because BP’s investors were concerned about social risk. These weren’t solely faith-based or socially responsible investors like those in Schilling’s coalition, but mainstream investors who wanted assurance that BP could get these projects up and running on time and keep them operating smoothly — without the social strife that has plagued extractive projects around the world, causing harm to people and to corporate bottom lines.

Investors made us change our practices. Divestment campaigns did not.

I would like to see Stanford and other large universities join forces with the likes of ICCR to engage with the companies they invest in, and actively move all of us towards a more sustainable world. To me, that would be a real college try.

PHOTOS: A Chinese miner walks past a coal heap outside a mine near Datong February 22, 2005. REUTERS/Reinhard Krause

BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward looks on as crew members clean up the beach in Port Fourchon, Louisiana May 24, 2010. REUTERS/Sean Gardner 

Comments
4 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

So, you’re saying to not abandon fossil fuels for alternative energy, but to stick to them and hope the company changes its ways?

Posted by goat-on-a-stick | Report as abusive
 

Yes, by divesting shares, advocates are silencing their own voice.

I have always supported shareholder activism. That in fact, Citizens United decision is based on the willingness of shareholder to be diligent and vocal.

Posted by Flash1022 | Report as abusive
 

“shareholder activism” is almost an oxymoron. lowering the stock price gets attention.

Posted by harrykrishna | Report as abusive
 

Although its an industrial responsibility to implement ways to safeguard environmental issues; there should be some kind of additional taxes and fines on those industries that dont care or implement safety measures and every shareholder of such industries should pay back some portion of their return while even trading at stock exchanges to be used to reduce global warming.

Posted by BestDatingSites | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •