 |
| Activists in front of City Hall, Portland, Oregon |
Portland (OR) had the chance to make history this week. The City Council of what is widely recognized
as one of the most progressive cities in the United States could have made a
statement that said it was putting its investments in line with its values,
that it was going to put companies that were acknowledged as the “worst of the
worst” on a “Do Not Buy” list.
The stage was set. Two
years ago, the City Council compiled a list of criteria for “socially
responsible” investing, and set up a Socially Responsible Investment Committee
(SRIC) to review the city’s investments and make recommendations as to
businesses that should be included on the “Do Not Buy List.” The criteria included companies for which
there were:
- Environmental concerns
- Health concerns including weapons production
- Concerns about abusive labor practices
- Concerns about corrupt corporate ethics and governance
- Concerns about extreme tax avoidance
- Concerns about exercise of such a level of market dominance so as to disrupt normal competitive market forces
- Concerns about impacts on human rights
Even before the SRIC held its first meeting, the city’s Human
Rights Commission (HRC) was approached by a group of human rights “activists”
and asked to endorse a request that the SRIC include Caterpillar on its “Do Not
Buy” list, based upon its human rights violations in Palestine, among other
things. Initially, the HRC voted
unanimously to make this endorsement; after “push back” from the Jewish
Federation and other “anti-BDS” activists, a second meeting was devoted to this
endorsement with the result that two HRC members backed away from their initial
positive votes, while the majority held firm.
 |
| Caterpillar violates 6 of 7 Socially Responsible Criteria |
The issue then went to the SRIC, which took testimony on
Caterpillar and other “bad actors” brought to its attention, including Wells
Fargo Bank for its support of the private prison industry and other violations
of the city’s criteria. Again, there was
lengthy testimony and heated debate – especially about the inclusion of
Caterpillar – but ultimately the SRIC found that Caterpillar violated six of
the seven criteria listed above, and put it on the list of “do not buy”
companies. Wells Fargo was also on this
list, which then went to the City Council for approval about a month ago.
The City Council then held a lengthy hearing, during which
activists on all sides repeated much of the testimony that the
HRC and the SRIC had already heard. Additional
testimony was given concerning Caterpillar’s participation in the Standing Rock
pipeline, which had become a major issue in the intervening months, and its
proposed use to build Donald Trump’s intended “wall with Mexico.” After taking more than four hours of testimony,
one Commissioner decided that the SRIC had not done what he expected them to do
(which was to single out two or three companies that were “the worst of the
worse"!), so he prepared a resolution that would discount the work of the HRC
and SRIC and put the three companies that HE thought were the “worst” (which did
not include Caterpillar or Wells Fargo) on the “do not buy” list.
 |
| Inside Council Chambers, Portland (OR) City Hall |
The vote was scheduled to take place last week, but an unusual
(for Portland!) snow storm precluded a quorum of City Commissioners attending
that meeting, so the vote was re-scheduled for December 21. And on that day, the above-mentioned Commissioner
– who was (defeated in his bid for re-election and) attending his last meeting
before leaving office, did an “about face” and announced his support for the
inclusion of Caterpillar and Wells Fargo on the “do not buy” list. This courageous move (albeit one with few
political consequences) was immediately superseded by a so-called “friendly
amendment” by another Commissioner to suspend city purchases of ANY corporate
bonds for a four-month period, in order to give the city (including the
newly-elected Mayor and Commissioner, who would take office in January) a
chance to “study” the bigger issue of city investments.
In other words, in my eyes (and those of other activists), the
city declined to make a statement about corporate responsibility and socially
responsible investing, and merely “kicked the can” down the road to be dealt
with later. It was a solution that
pleased everyone by pleasing no-one – very political (and very “un-Portland
like” in my humble view!). And it means
that Portland lost its opportunity to take its place in history – to take a
stand for justice through its investments at a time when such a sign was urgently needed.
