A- A A+

Building social justice through shareholder advocacy

4 Comments
Ann Deslandes |  25 May 2017

Concerned citizens build a 'voting bloc' out of the shares of wealthy companies. Cartoon by Chris Johnston

As I noted earlier this year, wealth inequality in Australia is flourishing. The top one per cent of household wealth in Australia is moving toward being 20 per cent of total wealth, and the country is a preferred destination for millionaires.

With a government that prefers to impoverish and vilify the disadvantaged and spend big on coal mines while locking up refugees, this does not look likely to shift any time soon.

But there are always other paths to social justice, and in Australia one may be through the millionaires — or at least the companies on which their fortunes are built.

Shareholder activism, the practice of using (including deliberately buying) shares in a company in order to have a voice in decisions the company makes, has been growing in Australia for some years. And it has had an increasing influence on matters of serious consequence, such as Indigenous land rights, the human rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, and the protection of the environment.

Shareholder activism is not a new practice in Australia. In late 1998 for example, opponents of the Jabiluka uranium mine led by the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation successfully protected the land rights of the Indigenous Mirrar people in the Northern Territory.

Shareholder activism was a concerted part of this movement. A group of opponents bought shares in mining company North Ltd and used their ensuing voting bloc to put pressure on North, who eventually pulled out of the project, which was abandoned by the company who inherited it, Rio Tinto, in 2003.

More recently, in 2014 the Canberra-based Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) led a shareholder campaign to force the Big Four banks (Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, NAZ and Westpac) to tell shareholders how much carbon they finance.

In the words of the ACCR, 'faced with having to distribute carbon-related resolutions to millions of shareholders, all of the big four banks have improved their carbon disclosure'.

 

"This kind of pressure, directly applied in the boardrooms of the corporate partners of Australia's abusive immigration detention practices, has created a situation where corporations cannot enter into such partnerships without considerable reputational and financial risk."

 

In 2015 the activist group No Business In Abuse formed to place direct pressure on shareholders in Transfield Services, now known as Broadspectrum, by revealing their profitable relationship with the Australian government as the contractors that run the immigration detention centers on Manus Island and Nauru. As Chloe Hooper noted in the Monthly, an associate of NBIA bought the minimum number of Transfield shares needed to vote at Transfield's Annual General Meeting, and sent two proxies to the meeting to question the directors and inform the shareholders. One of the proxies was Mohammad Ali Baqiri, a young Afghan Hazara man who was detained in the Nauru centre as a child, who questioned the company about its complicity in his abuse and that of so many other refugees through its contracts with the Australian Government.

Alongside this campaigning carried out 'inside the tent'of corporations, independent activist and union organising targeted other companies involved in immigration detention such as Wilson Security, and had a major win that same year when community services superannuation fund HESTA divested its shares in Transfield in the name of ethical investment.

This kind of pressure, directly applied in the boardrooms of the corporate partners of Australia's abusive immigration detention practices, has created a situation where corporations cannot enter into such partnerships without considerable reputational and financial risk. Spanish infrastructure giant Ferrovial, who took over Transfield Services following their re-brand as Broadspectrum, announced last month that it will not work on the camps on Nauru and Manus Island beyond the end of its current contract set to expire in October. Amnesty International subsequently advised that any company taking over 'management' of the camps will be unambiguously complicit in human rights abuse.

As the ACCR puts it, we are all stakeholders in corporate Australia. This is particularly the case in the time of contracted-out government, policy-making, and mass services. It's worth remembering that we can exercise power as consumers and shareholders in such a scenario — after all, the millionaires' millions have to come from somewhere.

 


Ann DeslandesAnn Deslandes is a freelance writer and researcher from Sydney. Read her other writing at xterrafirma.net and tweet her @Ann_dLandes.

 



Comments

Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

Power is where the money is. It has been attempted by the less radical left to recognise this basic principle and move some of the power away from the elites. For too long the left operated on the idea that if you have nothing they can’t take it away from you. Compulsory superannuation and home ownership are the means for the left to eke back some of that power. A family with no assets is hardly strong enough to stand against billionaires. If we think common people are losing this battle look at history. A little over a hundred years ago the vast majority of workers lived in houses owned by their employers, had no pension to look forward to and definitely had no such thing as superannuation. These areas are the social and moral battleground of the future. Rapidly advancing technology is smashing the workers main strength, their labour. The two left to them are their economic power as owners of assets and their might as consumers. The ideas of the past are exactly that in a modern world, anachronisms

Bruce 28 May 2017

It takes money to have an impact on money-makers. That being said, it's a laudable goal to hold corporate Australia to account for their decisions. Philanthropy is alive and well in this country (at times) and the corporate sector can, and should, do much more ethical thinking.

Pam 29 May 2017

Should not our superannuation funds also be asked to base their voting at AGMs based on the best attitudes of their investors? They should send annual surveys to their customers whose money they invest to determine the companies they want to be invested in and how to vote on issues like director wages based on median wages etc.

Ravi Samson 29 May 2017

Transfield Services contracts with our government are commercially acceptable, legal documents. The writer is in error claiming that companies performing duties in accordance with contracts "are complicit in abuse". Our government is democratically elected and carries out policies in accordance with the platform presented.

Peter 01 June 2017

Similar articles

Children's flourishing inside and outside the nuclear family

3 Comments
Andrew Hamilton | 12 May 2017

Little girl playing TwisterPublic celebrations of family life such as the International Day of Families should be uncontroversial. But they sometimes focus on the definition of the family, with the claims of the stable nuclear family of father, mother and children set against the claims of other kinds of family groupings. These discussions should not distract from such larger questions as: why are families of any description important, and what qualities are needed if they are to be effective?


Seeking a fair go on budget night

7 Comments
Frank Brennan | 07 May 2017

Scott MorrisonPart of the cost of the double dissolution election last July has been the creation of a Senate with the largest, most diverse group of crossbenchers ever. This will make the passage of any new contested Budget measures difficult, particularly given the Prime Minister’s vulnerability on his right flank, and the Labor Party's propensity to mimic the Opposition tactics adopted previously by Tony Abbott. The government needs to create a clear narrative as to how it will achieve equitable and sustainable growth through this Budget.


Businesses need to get serious about gender diversity

4 Comments
Neve Mahoney | 03 May 2017

Chalk outline man and womanWhether to have targets or quotas is a hard question to answer. Quotas have been employed by several European countries to great effect. But in Australia companies are encouraged to set themselves targets, which are optional. Businesses are moving towards targets at a glacial pace, with women in senior executive roles increasing by 2 per cent per annum since 2012. As long as it is up to businesses to create a diverse workplace, they need to put in the effort.


Cry if you want to as mandatory detention turns 25

10 Comments
Kerry Murphy | 03 May 2017

Bleak looking birthday candlesFriday 5 May is the 25th birthday of the introduction of mandatory detention in Australia by the Keating government. It is by no means a 'happy birthday'. Rather it is a sombre reminder of how control, power and political vilification can be used for political ends. There are now more sections in the Migration Act dealing with statutory bars, mainly directed at asylum seekers, than the total number of sections in the whole of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901.


Steering SS Australia through the doldrums is serious work

11 Comments
Andrew Hamilton | 08 May 2017

Malcolm Turnbull steers the SS Australia through turbulent watersIn Australian public life we are becalmed in a sea where the trade winds of political will, imagination, ability to agree, trust and firm direction do not blow. We search for portents in the US skies and hope for wind from the budget. The challenge facing the serious person on the ship is to avoid responding to each rumour and proclamation and focus on what matters. What is needed is to sustain the spirits of the crew and to plan the continuation of the journey when the wind again fills the sails.