![]() |
![]() |
||
|
A Welcome ‘Shareholder Democracy’Posted on May 22, 2008By David Sirota The never-ending presidential campaign is enough to overload anyone’s senses. The themes and messages are mind-numbingly discombobulated—race, class, flag lapel pins, NAFTA, bowling photo ops, Iraq and, of course, endless promises of “real change.” It is like the head-pounding noise of bad heavy metal music, but the subliminal message isn’t a satanic code—it’s one telling us that presidential campaigns are always the most important arenas of democracy. But this week you may hear another sound. This one will come from ExxonMobil’s annual meeting in Dallas. The thrum may be quieter than the political din, but it is about something that can be more critical than even presidential elections—something called shareholder democracy. The concept is simple: By law, anyone owning at least $2,000 of company stock may file a shareholder resolution demanding a change in that company’s behavior. Investors then get to vote their shares of stock on the resolution. At ExxonMobil’s meeting on May 28, a group of shareholders is planning to offer resolutions asking the company to invest more in renewable and alternative energy. Though the move has garnered scant media attention, it could be far more significant than the presidential pandemonium. According to Friends of the Earth, ExxonMobil and its predecessors’ products are responsible for emitting roughly 5 percent of all human-generated carbon pollution since 1882. Forcing a company like this to even minimally change could have planetwide effects. But, then, with the company generating $40 billion in annual profits, ExxonMobil’s shareholders are making bank. So why would any of them vote to change the business? Because if they don’t, those profits could evaporate. Advertisement For example, citing their desire to “safeguard long-term shareholder value,” a group of shareholders with $5 billion in ExxonMobil stock excoriated company management in 2006 for “not sufficiently preparing for tomorrow’s energy” and running “the risk of lagging significantly behind” competitors. Many of these investors are expected to back this year’s alternative energy resolution, especially considering the boost from none other than the Rockefellers—the family that originally founded what would become ExxonMobil. The name Rockefeller has long been associated with pollution-belching smelters and landscape-scarring mines, but also with steady profits. It is that business sense—not tree-hugger idealism—that led a group of Rockefellers this month to embrace the environmental initiative. “If the next 20 years of the energy business were going to be just about oil and gas, we wouldn’t be holding this press conference,” said one Rockefeller kin at the event announcing the family’s position. ExxonMobil management could win out and defeat the resolution, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Executives would keep generating publicity that not only makes the company look bad but reminds the public about the untapped power of shareholder democracy that big business would rather people ignore. After all, through pension funds and 401(k) plans, ordinary Americans collectively own a lot of stock, and consequently a big chunk of shareholder resolution votes. These votes often go unexercised, but the more attention shareholder resolutions receive, the more citizens will “become educated about various corporation policies” because they will realize “they can do something about them,” as famed shareholder activist Saul Alinsky once said. That is what truly scares Corporate America—and what could bring the most “real change” of all. Note: David Sirota’s upcoming book, “The Uprising,” includes a chapter on shareholder activists’ long-running battle with ExxonMobil. The book will be released on May 27. Sirota is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By jackpine savage, May 25, 2008 at 9:35 pm #
Nice analogy…
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 24, 2008 at 11:37 am #
Without a doubt, the idea has a great deal of merit…but it is not an idea for the willfully ignorant more concerned with getting rich now than with increasing real wealth over a generational timespan.
And consumer activism works too. The EU has much stricter environmental laws because of consumer activism…not because its government is inherently more enlightened than ours.
The Left is foolish to abandon the “free” market to the Right, particularly because the Right doesn’t propose a free market. Which market is more free: the one in which the GMO ingredients in your food are unknown or the one where packaging must be labeled as containing GMO’s and let the consumer make a choice?
There’s no outlawing or regulation in the latter, only information.
Report thisBy G.Anderson, May 24, 2008 at 10:14 am #
See Exxon’s profit go up up up.
See America go down, down down.
See people hold onto their foolish political beliefs despite billions of dollars worth of evidence to the contrary.
Report thisBy Risk Averse Alert, May 24, 2008 at 10:00 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Although a crash of historic dimensions might still be some months away, a taste of things to come is probably at the doorstep. So, run Forest, run, that is if your vote should someday amount to something larger than your meager voice. Truth is very few come out on top ... and the choice, much like your voice, you alone determine. So, run Forest, run, because you’re about to be beaten…
Report thisBy Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 10:28 am #
The efficacy can be argued, but it’s an idea that could have some merit if a large number of people were working for a single cause in certain industries. Of course, they’d have to be able to understand compromise and have a sound platform.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 10:18 am #
Shareholder activism is a really nice phrase, and in some cases it may, in fact, work. Unfortunately, the way people structure their investments makes it difficult.
If you hold an IRA, 401K, or a mutual fund (or are lucky enough to have a pension) then you probably don’t even know which companies you’re a shareholder in. The system takes “limited liability” to the extreme in that not only is the shareholder not liable, but they don’t even know to what end their capital is being used.
On another thread, i posted that the Oil and Gas Industry is running a new ad campaign telling people to shut up and quit bitching about Oil/Gas profits because so many of us collect dividends on those profits.
Warren Buffet and Jack Kerkorian can be activist shareholders because they’ll come along and buy big enough chunks that their voice must be listened to. But when the shares are split up and tucked away the concept becomes more difficult to make reality.
Still, good luck with that.
Report thisBy Aegrus, May 23, 2008 at 10:14 am #
“It is like the head-pounding noise of bad heavy metal music, but the subliminal message isnt a satanic code”
1) True Heavy Metal is NEVER bad music.
2) Satanic code isn’t as prominent as Satanic themes, which speak to the working class and rebellious spirit of people in touch with their humanity.
But, back to the point. I’m pretty happy this article showed up here because I really think activism should cross-over to the market place, so long as it doesn’t manipulate market pricing. Really, free-market is something of an untapped resource for Lefties because it is so hard to get people to stop BUYING CRAP, and force companies to employ pragmatic and humanistic practices. Maybe if there were a new wave of Green Investors, we could develop the corporate world while demanding, through significant dollar amounts, change to ensure profit and sustainability.
It would also have the benefit of familiarizing a lot of Lefties of what the market place is really like instead of allowing them to have blind hatred of Globalization and corporations, which is not productive at all. Know Your Enemy!
Report thisBy Marc Schlee, May 23, 2008 at 9:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Representative democracy is obsolete…
Direct Democracy
Report thisBy TadK, May 23, 2008 at 9:31 am #
Shareholder democracy is an oxymoron.
Can the sale of shares be similiar to the sale of indulgences in the middle ages so we can enter the consecrated ground of the corporate church, and in the end achieve salvation? Maybe once we are blessed by his holiness (read CEO) and he consults the scripture (read Wealth of Nations) then we are able to exercise a modicum of control over the policies of the church (read corporation).
Report thisBy KISS, May 23, 2008 at 8:23 am #
on the Stevens textile mills years ago with varying degrees of success…today Stevens is an overseas entrepreneur. Could Exxon-Mobile do the same? Shareholders,like customers, are no longer served, it is the greed of the CEO’s and CFO’s that are served.
Report thisHowever, if you are right, this could have a whole new meaning of capitalism. As of this writing I see that Exxon-Mobile is quietly buying back billions of shares of their stock.Never mind, David, still same ol same ol
By i,Q, May 23, 2008 at 4:32 am #
Make some noise and ask for what you want from the people who can give it to you.
Everyone should click on Glenn Beck and sign the petition to chastise Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, and Bill o’reilly for their inaccurate hate mongering. If you’re going to monger hate, make sure you’ve got your facts straight.
i feel shareholder democracy at work already. Maybe Ayn Rand was right about capitalism all along….
Report this