Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
IR/PS CSR Case # 07-19

Building Coalitions:
An Evaluation of the Interfaith Center on Corporate
Responsibility

By Lance C. Huang

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND PACIFIC STUDIESUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Prepared for Professor Peter Gourevitch
Edited by Jennifer Cheng, MPIA 2008
Corporate Social Responsibility
Fall 2007

Abstract:
The movement of socially responsible investing (SRI) has steadily been picking up pace since
the founding of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). ICCR is a coalition of
institutional investors comprising of religious denominations, pension funds, asset managementcompanies, communities, and colleges. ICCR plays a crucial role by coordinating the activities
of its members, pooling their resources, and allowing them to share information. ICCR utilizes
shareholder resolutions as a primary tool to encourage changes in corporate policies. After
providing a brief background, this report seeks to evaluate the efficacy of ICCR as anorganization by assessing ICCR’s autonomy, evaluating process, record of imposing sanctions,and organizational transparency. This paper also details specific ICCR shareholder resolutions,suggests some possible critiques of the organization, and ends with a strategic recommendation
to make ICCR more effective in advocating its corporate social responsibility (CSR) goals in
corporate governance and labor rights.

2

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

Table of Contents
I. Background...........................................................................................................................3
A. ICCR’s Value......................................................................................................................4
II. Evaluation of ICCR’s Efficacy ............................................................................................5
A. Organizational Autonomy ...................................................................................................5
B. Organizational Strength/Capacity.......................................................................................6
C. Monitoring Practices..........................................................................................................6
D. Sources of Information .......................................................................................................8
E. Standards vs. Monitoring....................................................................................................8
F. Evaluations.........................................................................................................................9
G. Sanctions..........................................................................................................................11
H. Transparency of Monitoring Organization .......................................................................12
III. The Role of Government ..................................................................................................13
IV. Critique .............................................................................................................................14
V. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................15
VI. Suggested Items for Further Research ............................................................................16
VII. Discussion Questions ..............................................................................17_Toc201468162
VIII. Appendix ........................................................................................................................18

3

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

I. Background

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a 35 year old international
coalition of 275 institutional investors. ICCR has its roots in religious organizations, and eventoday most of its members are Catholic religious women.1 However, today ICCR’s membershipis much more diverse, having since incorporated other organizations interested in CSR goals. In
addition to the myriad of religious denominations and communities, ICCR now includes pension
funds, asset management companies, and colleges.
Since its founding in 1973, ICCR is widely considered by many as a pioneer in thesocially responsible investing (SRI) movement.2 Some of the CSR issues that ICCR concerns
itself with are corporate governance, human rights, global warming, healthcare, and many other
CSR issues. The focus of this paper highlights ICCR’s role and efficacy in improving corporate
governance and human rights. More specifically, the CSR problem associated with corporate
governance that ICCR deals with are primarily board independence and minority shareholder
protection. According to the Core and Global Principles of Accountability for Corporate
Governance set forth by CalPERS, an institutional pension fund investor widely recognized as aleading advocate for good corporate governance, separation between the CEO and Chairman of
the board of directors is essential to ensure board independence.3 One reason is that as a bodytasked with overseeing company management, if the CEO has occupies the Chairmanship for theboard of directors, there is a clear conflict of interest because the ability of the board to performthat duty is hindered. The second CSR issue that ICCR is greatly involved with is human rights.
1

ICCR website
Stephan Davis, The New Capitalists: How Citizen Investors Are Reshaping the Corporate Agenda, p179.
3
CalPER’s “Core Principles of Accountable Corporate Governance”
2

4

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Examples of ICCR human rights issues include changing corporate policies to improve laborrights and protection.
A. ICCR’s Value

As a coalition of many religious organizations and SRI institutional investors, ICCR
helps coordinate shareholder activism on the aforementioned CSR issues. It is important toclarify that although ICCR members as a whole boasts about $110 billon worth of assets under
its management4, ICCR does not itself manage any assets belonging to its members. The valuethat ICCR offers to its members is having the leverage to engage company management and urge
them to adopt CSR standards or change their corporate policies in these areas. As a single
organization, it is difficult for ICCR members to influence corporate management. As a memberof a widely known and large coalition however, ICCR members have more clout because ICCR
coordinates the CSR efforts of its members, pools their resources, and allows members to share
information. Coordinating the activities of organizations that share a common interest (e.g.
advocating better corporate governance in public companies) is essentially the greatest value that
ICCR brings to its members. Without ICCR, it is difficult for an institutional investor or
religious organization to coordinate such efforts and share information. ICCR offers value by
combining and coordinating the common interests of its members to pursue common CSR goals
in such issues as improving corporate governance. The advantage that ICCR offers to its
members it that ICCR members still maintain autonomy in managing their assets but uses ICCR
as a forum to coordinate with other organizations with similar interests in order to form enough

4

William Baue, “ICCR Online Database Eases Access to Information on Shareholder Resolutions,” Institutional
Shareowner (10/04/2005)
http://www.institutionalshareowner.com/news/article.cgi?sfArticleId=1825

5

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
clout to pursue CSR issues such as improving corporate governance at companies that they
invest in.
II. Evaluation of ICCR’s Efficacy
A. Organizational Autonomy

An evaluation of ICCR’s efficacy begins with determining the degree of autonomy fromthe “Target” of monitoring. Autonomy is important to the efficacy of the organization because it
can uncover potential conflicts of interest. For instance, if a monitoring organization derives
85% of its annual revenues from the companies that it monitors, then the monitoringorganization has an organizational incentive to be more slack because it wants to continue its
sources of funding.
An examination of ICCR’s funding reveals that about 50% of ICCR funding comes fromannual membership dues and other contributions provided by ICCR faith-based members (e.g.
religious organizations). Other sources of funding include fees paid by Associates & Affiliates,
grants from foundations, gifts from donors, and revenue derived from publications.5 None ofthese funding derives from target organizations, so from a funding point of view, ICCR isrelatively autonomous. This is akin to a monitoring organization such as Consumer Reports,
which derives most of its funding from its members who are willing to pay Consumer Reports
for its objective reviews of common consumer products because maintains autonomy from thecompanies that make those consumer products.
In addition to sources of funding, another evaluation of ICCR’s autonomy could be its
control of governance. The fifteen members of the ICCR governing board consists of people5

2005-2006 ICCR Annual Report, p1

6

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
from various religious denominations and organizations. For instance, Margaret Weber, thechair of the board, is from the Adrian Dominican Sisters and Congregation of St. Basil. The
Vice Chair, Patricia Zerega, is from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Because
almost all of ICCR’s governing board members are from religious organizations, there is no
direct representation from big multinational companies that ICCR is targeting for its CSR
corporate campaigns.6 These religious organizations have no direct ties with corporate America
or agendas that could compromise ICCR’s incentives or objectivity to advocate CSR goals in
corporate governance and labor protection. In terms of control of ICCR’s governing board,
ICCR is more autonomous than organizations that have industry representation.

B. Organizational Strength/Capacity

Oftentimes, organizational capacity is another evaluation of a monitoring organization’s
effectiveness. This is important if the monitoring process involves intensive technical expertise,such as monitoring a company’s environmental footprint. The monitoring organization in thiscase would need qualified personnel with the requisite education and training in order to conduct
the monitoring activities. However, in the case of advocating for board independence and labor
protection, an evaluation of ICCR’s organizational capacity is less appropriate. It is neverthelessimportant to mention that organizational capacity is another commonly used criterion to evaluate
the efficacy of a monitoring organization.
C. Monitoring Practices

62005-2006 ICCR Annual Report

7

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
For the most part, ICCR outsources its monitoring activities to ICCR member
organizations or other independent monitoring organizations or NGOs. For instance, in 1995,
the Independent Monitoring Working Group (IMWG) was formed to evaluate the progress of
independent monitoring programs in Central America. The IMWG comprised of three NGOs
and one public company, Business for Social Responsibility Education Fund (BSREF), Center
for Reflection, Education and Action (CREA), ICCR, and Gap, Inc.7 The Independent
Monitoring Working Group entrusts the actual monitoring activity to various local monitoringorganizations in each respective Central American country (e.g. the Honduran Independent
Monitoring Team [EMIH] in Honduras). These local monitoring organizations measurecompliance of Gap Inc. supplier factories with national laws and Gap Inc’s Code of Vendor
Conduct on issues relating to labor rights and conditions.8
The monitoring methodologies used by the independent monitoring organizations vary.
There is no definitive information regarding monitoring specifics such as the number ofinspections conducted or inspection site selection process. However, these monitoringorganizations are NGOs such as religious organizations and labor rights organizations (just to
name a few).9 Conflicts of interests between these independent monitoring organizations and thecompanies that they monitor are not readily apparent. However, a lack of obvious incriminating
evidence does not mean that conflicts of interests do not exist, so some caution should be
exercised regarding the credibility of these independent monitoring organizations that ICCR

7

“Independent Monitoring Working Group Final Report on Independent Monitoring in Central America,” ICCR
Press Release (05/24/2002)
8“Independent Monitoring Working Group Final Report on Independent Monitoring in Central America,” ICCR
Press Release (05/24/2002)
9
Independent Monitoring Working Group Final Report on Independent Monitoring in Central America,” ICCR
Press Release (05/24/2002)

8

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
employs occasionally. Further examination into these independent monitoring organizations isadvised.
D. Sources of Information

ICCR derives its information from its vast network of member organizations as well asother independent sources. They often work with other NGOs such as the Independent
Monitoring Working Group (IMWG) to obtain certain information. They rely on othermonitoring organizations for their published results about a target’s compliance. Additionally,
with 275 institutional investor ICCR members, ICCR also obtains information from shareholders
filing shareholder resolutions at target companies. Various independent organizations that ICCR
relies on to assess compliance do conduct field inspections. In the case of ICCR member
organizations, ICCR encourages a collaborative relationship between ICCR shareholders andcompany management.10 For instance, if the company management is responsive to shareholder
demands for implementing better CSR goals and outlines a concrete plan, ICCR shareholders
may withdraw the shareholder resolution (see Appendix 2). To that extent, ICCR members do
rely on management to furnish some information. However, they also contract independent
monitoring organizations to supplement or verify that information as well. As for ICCR itself
also provides information to its members through regular publications such as its monthly
Corporate Examination magazine.
E. Standards vs. Monitoring

10

ICCR website

9

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
The standards and monitoring activities are separate and independent from each other. In
fact, ICCR derives most of its standards used for compliance evaluation from other standard
setting organizations such as CalPERS, the United Nations, government, or NGOs.11 For
example, its human rights standards are based on the UN Human Rights norms, the International
Labor Organization (ILO), and religious organizations. On corporate governance issues, ICCR
defers to CalPERS, a pension fund that is a pioneer in corporate governance advocacy.
The monitoring activities are generally outsourced to ICCR member organizations or toindependent monitoring organizations. The Independent Monitoring Working Group (IMWG),
which ICCR as one of the IMWG’s members, is such an example. IMWG works with Gap Inc’s
supplier factories in several Central American nations to explore the viability of independent
monitoring in Central America. The IMWG was successful in that the factories agreed toindependent monitoring, but this monitoring was actually conducted by local independent
monitoring groups not affiliated with the IMWG or ICCR. There are no discernible conflicts ofinterest between Standard setters and the monitoring organizations because they haveautonomous sources of funding.
F. Evaluations

ICCR’s EthVest database documents more than a decade of shareholder initiatives by its
members and other faith-based and socially responsible investors. There are many instances of
ICCR member organizations finding violations at target companies. A few examples what ICCR
evaluates includes corporate governance issues such as board independence, shareholder rights,
executive compensation, and board diversity. ICCR also concerns itself with labor rights issues

11

ICCR website

10

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
that include sexual orientation discrimination, equal employment opportunity (EEO), and otherlabor standards.12 For example, at Bed, Bath, and Beyond Inc. in 2004, shareholders filed aresolution calling for annual elections to the company’s board of directors. The resolutionsubsequently passed with an actual vote of 67.5% of shareholders voting for the resolution.13
The EthVest database records not only the shareholder resolutions filed at various
corporations, but also reveals the result of the shareholder resolutions. Appendix 2 includes
shareholder resolutions and its results filed in the 2004-2005 season. If the company
management is responsive to these shareholder resolutions by outlining steps to address theirconcerns, then ICCR member organizations may withdraw their resolutions. This happened in
2004 when ICCR shareholders at Occidental Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: OXY) withdrew aresolution regarding human rights.14 After the resolution was withdrawn, Occidental’s chairman
made a public statement affirming the value of a human rights policy at the company andpromised to work with the proponents of the proposal toward the adoption of a formal humanrights policy.
The willingness for ICCR to make their shareholder activism activities transparent andreadily accessible improves ICCR’s credibility because it shows that ICCR is willing take action
instead of just paying lip service to the CSR movement. There are some CSR monitoringorganizations that rarely find violations because they primarily serve as a marketing organ forindustry giants to preempt government regulation and bad publicity. So willingness to findviolations improves ICCR’s credibility. In addition to a willingness to find violations, what anorganization does with that information is important as well. If an organization makes the results

12

For more details please see Appendix 1
Please see Appendix 2
14
Shareholder Win as Occidental Commits to Human Rights Policy,” ICCR Press Release (03/17/2004)
13

11

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
of its monitoring activities difficult to access, then that undermines the monitoring organization’s
efficacy and integrity. ICCR’s transparency in its information dispersal and its ease of access to
its shareholder resolutions again makes ICCR more credible. Once a monitoring organization
finds violations and publishes that information, how far it is willing to go in order to follow up
on these adverse results?
G. Sanctions

ICCR and ICCR member organization administer a number of sanctions in the form offiling shareholder resolutions, participating in public hearings, publishing special reports, andsponsoring letter writing campaigns. These are the primary ways that ICCR enforcesaccountability and implements sanctions.
Shareholder resolutions

This is the most common form of sanction that ICCR employs against companies that haveviolated certain CSR principles. For example, in 2004, ICCR filed a shareholder resolution
against Abbott Laboratories.15 The CSR issue at hand is concerning the separation between the
CEO & Chair. Unfortunately, the company management decided not to respond to ICCR’sshareholder resolution, and the resolution was put to a vote. Although the actual vote to separate
Abbott’s CEO & Chair only received 17.6% affirmative votes (it failed),16 filing shareholder
resolutions and ends up being officially documented is a way to pressure the company – even if
the resolution failed.

15
16

See Appendix 2
See Appendix 2

12

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
ICCR has utilizes other forms of sanctions such as engaging in corporate dialogues withcompany management, conducting public hearings, and sponsoring letter writing campaigns.17
Meeting with company management is an effective way to generate some publicity to spotlight
CSR issues that ICCR engages in. The company management risks bad publicity if they refuse
to even hold a corporate dialogue with such as large and respected organization. Even if the
dialogues turn out to be futile (as they often are), ICCR at least draws some needed publicattention to such CSR issues as corporate governance. The same rationale applies also to public
hearings, letter writing campaigns, and special reports. Generating publicity can increase publicconcern and awareness about the CSR issue, which can in turn give ICCR even more clout toinfluence company management to change their corporate policies to be more CSR friendly.

H. Transparency of Monitoring Organization

There is a good degree of transparency for ICCR. The website contains most of theinformation on the organization’s autonomy, capacity, information gathering, standards, and also
advocacy actions and results. The website has detailed biographies of the governing board andits practices. The same applies for even its the administrative staff. Contact information withthem is readily available. Additionally, ICCR’s organizational bylaws, annual reports,
publications, and membership list are easily accessed from its website. Information about
finances, board control and composition, staff, and recent ICCR activities are all contained in the
aforementioned online sources. Under each CSR issue (e.g. human rights), the objectives,
background, and links to other educational, NGO, or international organization’s websites are

17

2005-2006 ICCR Annual Report

13

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
listed so people can access more detailed information on the issue from third parties. Lastly,
ICCR’s two primary mechanisms for advocacy – filing shareholder resolutions and engaging in
corporate dialogues – are clearly documented on its website in the form of press releases and
EthVest, ICCR’s database that chronicles shareholder resolutions filed at various publiccompanies.18 On EthVest, not only can one easily identify what companies ICCR targeted, italso contains the actual shareholder resolution filed at the company and its subsequent voting
result.
Transparency is important because if an organization is not transparent, it may imply that
there are certain conflicts of interests that the organization would rather hide from the public.
For instance, if there are industry representatives sitting on its governing board, then theorganization’s objectivity is compromised. In this case, it is doubtful that the organization would
readily make the composition of its governing board easily accessible to the public. The fact that
ICCR makes its board composition and source of funding easily available to the public certainly
adds to ICCR’s credibility as an effective CSR organization that has few conflicts of information
to hide.

III. The Role of Government

ICCR does not generally rely on government regulation to force companies to furnish its
information. Rather, ICCR obtains its information from the private (ICCR and non-government
public sectors (e.g. international organizations and NGOs). This does not mean that the “shadowof the state” does not play a role in ICCR’s mission. In fact, the indirect influence of the18

Ethvest database:
http://www.iccr.org/shareholder/proxy_book07/07statuschart.php

14

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
government is critical because part of ICCR’s strategy is to pressure companies to adopt formally
adopt certain CSR standards. This means that once a company agrees states in writing that itsupports certain CSR goals such as good corporate governance, there is a degree of legal
accountability depending on the specificity of the standards that the company agreed to. For
instance, if Nike stipulates in writing that it will not employ child labor but one of its suppliers
violates this policy, then Nike can potentially be held liable in court. Thus, the threat of lawsuits
is a form of pressure on company management that depends on the efficacy of the government’s
judicial system. Likewise, ICCR also depends on the government to enforce corporate law as
well. Even if a shareholder resolution passes, the company can ignore it unless the governmentis willing to enforce the law.

IV. Critique

Speaking of the importance of government, there is much untapped potential for ICCR in
its advocacy efforts. Religious organizations are historically been very effective channels invoter mobilization and other grassroots movements. ICCR currently pursues its agenda throughtwo avenues – by exercising shareholder rights and by generating publicity in the court of public
opinion. However, one promising channel to affect change is through the political process.
ICCR member organizations consist of not only institutional investors but also numerous
religious organizations.19 These religious organizations encompass all major religious
denominations in the United States. Such religious organizations as the Episcopal Church, theEvangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church,

19

see Appendix 3

15

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
the Jesuit Conference, the Jewish Funds for Justice, and the countless ICCR Catholic
denominations all hold huge potentials for political mobilization.20 These religious organizations
have a receptive audience that care about CSR issues that ICCR advocates. ICCR has topotential to coordinate not only shareholder resolutions and public hearings, but it can also
coordinate with these religious organizations to lobby politicians to pass legislation that makes
CSR standards a matter or compliance rather than just preference.

V. Conclusion

Although not without its shortcomings, an evaluation of the Interfaith Center on
Corporate Responsibility reveals that ICCR is a fairly effective and transparent organization
when it comes to advocating such CSR issues as corporate governance and labor rights. ICCR
has a high degree of transparency and it has shown willingness not only in finding violations andalso implementing sanctions as well. ICCR is also enjoys a good degree of autonomy, as
indicated by its sources of funding and the lack of industry representation on its governing board.
However, there are more effective strategies that ICCR is currently failing to utilize. Although
ICCR files shareholder resolutions and conducts public hearings, ICCR has not tapped the vast
resources of its potential political base. The many ICCR religious denomination members all
share a common interest in advocating CSR goals and they also command a receptive audienceon a national basis. These conditions could potentially be channeled through the politicalprocess by coordinating ICCR members to lobby politicians for stricter regulations or turncertain CSR standards into matters of legislative compliance.

20

see Appendix 3

16

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.

VI. Suggested Items for Further Research
1. Who leads Shareholder Resolutions? How does the ICCR organize itself when taking action
against corporations? What does the sanction process entail? What is the decision-making
process? Why are some resolutions withdrawn or omitted?
2. How does an institutional investor join the ICCR? Are all institutional members faith-based?
Is this a prerequisite for membership?
3. What are the monitoring methodologies used by ICCR’s independent monitoringorganizations? How does ICCR monitor the monitors?

17

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
VII. Discussion Questions

1. How effective do you think the ICCR is at encouraging corporations to adopt more CSRdriven policies? Would it be more effective or less effective as a secular organization?
2. While faith-based, ICCR’s institutional members are investors out to make a profit in asocially-responsible manner. Do you believe ICCR’s CSR objective is credible?
3. Examine Appendix 2. What percentage of resolutions is actually voted upon? Withdrawn?
What are some possible reasons for this? Do you think ICCR has more clout in somecompanies/industries than others? Why or why not?
4. Check out ICCR’s EthVest database online. How much of it is public accessible? What typesof information does it provide? Do your findings change your opinion of ICCR?
5. The author states that the ICCR is “relatively autonomous” as it does not derive revenue fromits target corporations. However, are there any possible conflict of interest issues that arise from
ICCR obtaining revenue from members, donors and foundations?

18

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
VIII. Appendix
Appendix 1: Classification of ICCR Shareholder Resolutions (2005)
Types of ICCR Shareholder Advocate Sponsoring Proxy Resolutions:• Faith-based Investors: filed 123 resolutions to date at 80 companies• Asset Managers: 95 resolutions now filed at 74 companies• Banks: 2 resolutions / 2 companies• Foundations: 26 resolutions / 22 companies• Pension Funds: 48 resolutions / 47 companies• Labor Unions: 5 resolutions / 5 companies
Issues Addressed in ICCR Member and Associate 2006 Shareholder Advocacy:• Environment-Sustainability Issues: 78 resolutions now filed at 59 companies• Human Rights – Worker Rights: 77 resolutions filed at 66 companies• Health-related Issues: 42 resolutions / 28 companies• Inclusiveness-Diversity: 39 resolutions / 37 companies• Corporate Governance: 36 resolutions / 33 companies• Lobbying Activities: 18 resolutions / 17 companies• Military – Violence Issues: 6 companies / 6 resolutions
Appendix 2: Companies, Resolutions and Status (2004-2005 Season)
CORPORATIONISSUE

3M Company

China Principles

MTG.
DATE/STATUS
actual vote: 7.75%

Abbott Laboratories

HIV Reporting

actual vote: 6.90%

Political Contributions

actual vote: 8.10%

Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 17.60%

Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

actual vote: 0.37%

AFLAC Inc.

Political Contributions

Withdrawn

AGCO Corporation

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

Albertson's, Inc.

Sustainability Report

OmittedAlcoa Inc. (Aluminum Company
Sexual Orientation Discriminationof America)

Withdrawn

Allegheny Energy, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Allergan, Inc.

Global Warming - Emissions
Reduction

Withdrawn

19

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Alliant Techsystems Inc.

*Ethical Criteria For Military
Contracts

actual vote: 5.71%

Alltel Corp.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Altria Group, Inc.

Apply Fire Safety Standards
Nationwide

actual vote: 4.86%

Cigarettes - Risks to Pregnant
Woman

actual vote: 3.00%

Light/Ultra Light Cigarettes

actual vote: 4.20%

AMEREN (Union Electric)

Interim Storage Risk Reduction

actual vote: 9.01%

Americredit

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Ameritrade Holding Corp.

Board Diversity

Amgen Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity(EEO)

Withdrawn

Executive Compensation

actual vote: 8.09%

Amphenol Corporation

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Anadarko Petroleum Corp.

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &Withdrawn
Gas Sector

Analog Devices, Inc.

Global Warming - Emissions
Reduction

Withdrawn

Aon Corporation

Iran Operations

Withdrawn

Apache Corp.

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &Withdrawn
Gas Sector

Apple Computer, Inc.

Labor Standards

Withdrawn

Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company*Genetically Modified Organisms

11/3/05

AT&T

Executive Compensation

actual vote: 10.15%

Avery Dennison Corporation

Global Warming - Emissions
Reduction

Withdrawn

Avon Products, Inc.

Disclose Cancer Fund Raising &Distribution

actual vote: 6.44%

Product Safety

actual vote: 4.78%

Confidentiality of Personal
Information

Omitted

Derivatives

Withdrawn

Bank of Montreal

Equator Principles

Withdrawn

Bank of Nova Scotia (Int'l co.)Climate Change Report - Banks

reported vote: 8.56%

Bard (C.R.), Inc.

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 28.93%

Bank of America Corp.

20

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
BB & T Financial Corp.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.

Boards of Directors - Annual
Election

actual vote: 67.50%

BellSouth Corporation

Political Contributions

actual vote: 12.16%

Best Buy Co., Inc.

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

Violence in Video Games

Withdrawn

Black & Decker Corp.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 7.56%

Boeing Company

Ethical Criteria for Military
Contracts

actual vote: 7.69%

Human Rights -Develop and Adopt
Policies

actual vote: 21.22%

Brinker International Inc. (Chili's) Smokefree Facilities

10/20/05

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

HIV Reporting

actual vote: 7.41%

Political Contributions

Withdrawn

Separate CEO & Chair

Withdrawn

Broadcom

Exec. Compensation to Include
Social Criteria

actual vote: 5.94%

Burlington Resources, Inc.

Indigenous Rights Policy

Withdrawn

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

CACI International Inc.

Ethical Criteria for Military
Contracts

Withdrawn

Caremark Rx, Inc.

Political Contributions

reported vote: 5.00%

Carlisle Companies Incorporated

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

Caterpillar Inc.

HIV Reporting

actual vote: 7.41%

Sale of Equipment to Israel

actual vote: 4.07%

Cendant Corp.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 7.42%

Centex Corporation

Energy Efficiency Report

Withdrawn

Cerner Corporation

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

Chevron Texaco Corp.

Environmental Justice - Ecuador

actual vote: 9.19%

Global Warming - Renewable
EnergyWithdrawn

HIV Reporting

Withdrawn

Human Rights -Develop and Adopt
Policies

Withdrawn

21

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Circuit City Stores, Inc.

Violence in Video Games

Withdrawn

Cisco Systems, Inc.

*Pay Disparity

reported vote: 11.00%

Citigroup

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 6.67%

Derivatives

Withdrawn

Citizen's Communications

Exec. Compensation to Include
Social Criteria

Withdrawn

Claire's Stores, Inc.

*MacBride Principles

actual vote: 19.70%

Coca-Cola Company

Human Rights - Colombia

actual vote: 5.42%

Commerce Bancorp

Board Diversity

Computer Sciences Corp.

*Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Conoco Phillips

Drilling in protected/sensitive areas

Withdrawn

Cooper Cameron Corporation

Iran Operations

Withdrawn

Cooper Industries, Ltd.

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 8.56%

Corning Incorporated

Emissions Reduction Report Manufacturing Sector

Withdrawn

Costco Wholesale Corp.

Land Procurement

actual vote: 4.76%

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 6.44%

Cott Corporation

GRI Report

Withdrawn

Coventry Health Care, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Crane Co.

MacBride Principles

4/25/05

Crown Castle International Corp. MacBride Principles

Withdrawn

Cummins Inc.

China Principles

actual vote: 9.26%

Dana Corporation

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Danaher Corp.

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Director-Shareholder Dialogue

dialogue

Dean Foods Company

Sustainability Report

actual vote: 27.07%

Dell Computer Corp.

*China Principles

Withdrawn

Delphi Automotive Systems
Corp.

Global Standards

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

actual vote: 8.93%

Dillard's, Inc.

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 7.45%

Disney (Walt) Company / ABC

Human Rights - China

actual vote: 8.89%

Separate CEO & Chair

Withdrawn

Tobacco - Corporate Governance

Omitted22

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Health Impacts on Teens Watching
Smoking in Movies

Omitted

Dollar General Corporation

Executive Compensation - GenericWithdrawn

Dominion Resources, Inc.

Emissions Reduction Report - Poweractual vote: 8.25%
Companies Sector

Dow Chemical Company

BhopalOmittedEnvironmental Toxins

actual vote: 7.68%

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

Withdrawn

Emissions Reduction Report Manufacturing Sector

Withdrawn

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 6.08%

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 7.91%

EchoStar Communications
Corporation

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

EmersonSexual Orientation Discrimination

actual vote: 38.92%

EmulexBoard Diversity

Withdrawn

EnCanaGRI Report

WithdrawnEverestBoard Diversity

Withdrawn

Expeditors International

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Exxon Mobil Corporation

Drilling in protected/sensitive areas

actual vote: 8.13%

Global Warming - Board
Qualifications

actual vote: 4.07%

DuPont Company

Global Warming - Disclose Climate
actual vote: 10.27%
Data
Global Warming - Kyoto
Complianceactual vote: 28.44%

Human Rights - Adopt ILO Policies Withdrawn

FirstEnergy Corp

Human Rights - Indonesia

actual vote: 7.58%

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

actual vote: 29.47%

Shareholder Engagement

OmittedEmissions Reduction Report - Power
Withdrawn
Companies Sector

Fisher Scientific International Inc. *Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Fluor Corp.

Vendor Standards

Withdrawn

Ford Motor Company

Global Warming & Executive

actual vote: 5.26%

23

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Compensation
Auto Emissions Reduction

Withdrawn

Global Warming - Lobbying(member)

actual vote: 6.18%

Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Community Reinvestment Act Mortgage Corp)
Compliance

Withdrawn

Freeport-McMoRan Copper &Gold Inc.

Human Rights - Indonesia

actual vote: 7.14%

General Dynamics Corporation

Foreign Military Sales

actual vote: 6.23%

General Electric Company

Interim Storage Risk Reduction

actual vote: 7.72%

Iran Operations

Withdrawn

PCB Costs of Delay

actual vote: 27.47%

Political Contributions

actual vote: 10.54%

Public Interest Obligations

OmittedSustainability Report

actual vote: 7.91%

Tobacco - Corporate Governance

Omitted

Health Impacts on Teens Watching
Smoking in Movies

OmittedAuto Emissions Reduction

actual vote: 5.61%

HIV Reporting

Withdrawn

Gentex Corp.

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

GEO Group Inc.

Exec. Compensation to Include
Social Criteria

actual vote: 3.12%

George Weston Ltd.

Farmed Salmon - Health
Implications

5/11/05

Gilead Sciences, Inc.

HIV Reporting

actual vote: 31.69%

Halliburton Company

Executive Compensation

Withdrawn

Iran Operations

Withdrawn

Shareholder Nomin. of Board
Candidates

OmittedHarrah's Entertainment Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Hasbro, Inc.

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 10.24%

Health Care Property Investors
Inc.

Energy Efficiency Report

actual vote: 8.87%

Health Management Associates,
Inc.

Board Diversity

General Motors Corp.

24

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Heinz (H.J.) Company*CEO Compensation

dialogue

Home Depot, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity(EEO)

actual vote: 29.98%

Vendor Standards

Withdrawn

Hormel Foods Corp.

Water Sustainability Report - CAFO actual vote: 15.67%

Illinois Tool Works Inc.

China Principles

Withdrawn

International Business Machines
Corp. (IBM)

China Principles

OmittedRecycling - Computers

Withdrawn

International Paper Co.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 3.55%

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 7.63%

Use of Capital to Fund MicrofinanceWithdrawn/ International CRA
Climate Change Report - Banks

Withdrawn

HIV Reporting

Withdrawn

Political Contributions

Withdrawn

Separate CEO & Chair

Withdrawn

Kellogg Company

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 4.76%

Kellwood Company

Shareholder Engagement

actual vote: 4.45%

Key Energy Services

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 8.52%

Kinder Morgan, Inc

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

Kohl's Corporation

CEO Compensation

Withdrawn

Kraft Foods Inc.

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 0.44%

LandAmerica Financial Group,
Inc.

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 5.46%

Lennar Corporation

Energy Efficiency Report

actual vote: 2.33%

Liberty Property Trust

Energy Efficiency Report

actual vote: 7.45%

Lilly (Eli) and Company

Political Contributions

actual vote: 6.49%

Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 24.51%

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 4.43%

Ethical Criteria / Global Standards

actual vote: 4.22%

Apply Fire Safety Standards

actual vote: 2.03%

Johnson & Johnson

Lockheed Martin Corporation
Loews Corporation

25

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Nationwide
Environmental Tobacco Smoke

actual vote: 2.10%

Longs Drug Stores Corporation

Boards of Directors - Annual
Election

actual vote: 70.18%

Lowes

Sustainability Report

OmittedManulife Financial Corp. (Int'l.
co.)Global Warming - Insurance

Withdrawn

Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 5.51%

Maytag Corporation

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 11.84%

McDonald's Corp.

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 7.61%

Merck & Co., Inc.

HIV Reporting

actual vote: 9.01%

Political Contributions

actual vote: 8.77%

Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 46.58%

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 9.68%

Met-Pro Corp.

Board of Directors - Diversity

actual vote: 22.79%

Methanex Corporation

Emissions Reduction Report

5/5/05

Metro, Inc.

Fair Trade Coffee

OmittedMicrosoft Corporation

Political Contributions

Monsanto

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 7.62%

Human Rights -Develop and Adopt
Policies

actual vote: 8.38%

Exporting Pesticides

actual vote: 13.27%

Morgan Stanley

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 14.75%

New York Community Bancorp

Board Diversity

Withdrawn

Newell-Rubbermaid Inc.

Global Warming - Emissions
Reduction

Withdrawn

Newmont Mining Corporation

Human Rights - Indonesia

OmittedNucor Corporation

Emissions Reduction Report Manufacturing Sector

Withdrawn

Office Depot, Inc.

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

OmnicareSexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

PeopleSoft, Inc.

Stock Options Rec. in Income
Statement

26

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
PepsiAmericas Inc.

Recycling - Bottles

actual vote: 4.47%

PepsiCo, Inc.

Recycling - Bottles

Withdrawn

Petro-Canada

Emissions Reduction Report

Withdrawn

Global Warming - Renewable
EnergyWithdrawn

Human Rights

Withdrawn

HIV Reporting

Withdrawn

Pharmaceutical Price Restraint

actual vote: 11.12%

Pfizer, Inc.

Reimportation of Prescription Drugs actual vote: 10.98%
Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 41.01%

Primus Telecommunications
Group

Vendor Standards

Progress Energy, Inc.

Emissions Reduction Report - Power
Withdrawn
Companies Sector

Raytheon Company

Ethical Criteria for Military
Contracts

Withdrawn

MacBride Principles

actual vote: 9.76%

Reliant Energy, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

Reynolds American Inc.

Apply Fire Safety Standards
Nationwide

actual vote: 2.35%

Internet Sales

actual vote: 1.55%

Seek Approval of Reduced Risk
Product

actual vote: 1.03%

Rite Aid Corp.

Board of Directors - Diversity

actual vote: 8.13%

Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

*Genetically Modified Organisms

actual vote: 10.59%

Ryland Group, Inc.

Energy Efficiency Report

actual vote: 7.91%

GRI Report

OmittedGenetically Modified Organisms Report

Withdrawn

Shareholder Engagement

actual vote: 3.80%

Sustainability Report

actual vote: 16.72%

Safeway Inc.

Sara Lee Corp.

*Sexual Orientation Discrimination

SBC Communications Inc.

Executive Compensation

actual vote: 12.72%

Political Contributions

actual vote: 12.50%

Schering-Plough Corporation

Political Contributions

Withdrawn

SemtechBoard Diversity

Withdrawn

27

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Simon Property Group, Inc.

Energy Efficiency Report

actual vote: 7.51%

Smithfield Foods, Inc.

*Water Sustainability Reportreported vote: 24.84%

Smucker (J.M.) Company*Genetically Modified Organisms

Withdrawn

Southern Company

Political Contributions

actual vote: 13.13%

Stanley Works

Boards of Directors - Annual
Election

actual vote: 68.28%

Target Corp.

Violence in Video Games

Withdrawn

TeleTech Holdings, Inc.

MacBride Principles

reported vote: 4.90%

Terasen Inc. (Int'l co.)Emissions Reduction Reportco. refused to include
in proxy

Terex Corp.

Sustainability Report

5/1/05

Tesoro Petroleum Corporation

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &Withdrawn
Gas Sector

Texas Instruments Inc.

HIV Reporting

OmittedTextron Inc.

Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 51.44%

Time Warner Inc.

Pay Disparity

actual vote: 6.89%

Health Impacts on Teens Watching
Smoking in Movies

Withdrawn

Tobacco - Corporate Governance

OmittedTJX Companies, Inc.

Vendor Standards

actual vote: 9.27%

Torchmark Corp.

Inclusiveness of Board of Directors

actual vote: 11.63%

Toys 'R' Us, Inc.

Sexual Orientation NonDiscrimination

Withdrawn

Violence in Video Games

Withdrawn

United States Steel Corporation

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Withdrawn

United Technologies Corp.

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 4.91%

Ethical Criteria for Military
Contracts

actual vote: 3.82%

Universal Health Services, Inc.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination

actual vote: 2.89%

Unocal Corp.

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &Withdrawn
Gas Sector

UST Inc.

Internet Sales

actual vote: 3.47%

Verizon Communications

Political Contributions

actual vote: 14.98%

VF Corporation

Vendor Standards

Withdrawn

Viacom, Inc.

Board of Directors - Diversity

Withdrawn

Tobacco - Corporate Governance

Omitted28

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
Health Impacts on Teens Watching
Smoking in Movies

OmittedVintage Petroleum, Inc.

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &actual vote: 25.62%
Gas Sector

Vishay Intertechnology Inc.

Human Rights - Mexico

Withdrawn

Wachovia Corp.

Global Warming - Banks

Omitted

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Equal Employment Opportunity(EEO)

actual vote: 18.77%

Glass Ceiling Equity Compensation actual vote: 15.04%
Sustainability Report

actual vote: 16.16%

Violence in Video Games

Withdrawn

CEO Compensation

actual vote: 5.84%

Exec. Comp. Linked to Predatory
Lending

actual vote: 5.89%

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 5.11%

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

Werner Enterprises, Inc.

Board of Directors - Diversity

actual vote: 5.82%

Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 6.82%

Wyeth

Political Contributions

actual vote: 8.05%

Separate CEO & Chair

actual vote: 39.61%

Xerox Corporation

Exec. Compensation to Include
Social Criteria

Withdrawn

XTO Energy Inc.

Emissions Reduction Report - Oil &Withdrawn
Gas Sector

Yum! Brands, Inc.

Diversity Report

actual vote: 13.23%

Genetically Modified Organisms Report

actual vote: 7.58%

MacBride Principles

actual vote: 14.69%

Sustainability Report

Withdrawn

Wells Fargo & Company

Wendy's International, Inc.

Appendix 3: List of ICCR Members••••

Adorers of the Blood of Christ
Adrian Dominican Sisters
Advocate Health Care System
American Baptist Churches

29

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

American Friends Service Committee
Ascension Health System
Benedictine Coalition for Responsible Investment
Bon Secours Health System
Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America (Maryknoll Fathers & Brothers)
Catholic Health East
Catholic Health Initiatives
Catholic Healthcare Partners
Catholic Healthcare West
Catholic Relief Services
Christian Brothers Investment Services
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Church Foundation (Disciples of Christ)
Christus Health
Church of the Brethren Benefit Trust Fund
Community of Christ
Conference on Corporate Responsibility of Indiana-Michigan
Congregation of the Passion
Congregation of St. Basil
Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Houston
Congregation Sisters of the Holy Cross, Indiana
Congregation of the Sisters of St. Agnes of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
Deaconess Foundation
Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A.
Dominican Sisters of Springfield, Illinois
Episcopal Church Executive Council
Episcopal Church Pension Board
Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Felician Health Services, Inc.
Franciscans Friars of the Atonement - Graymoor
Friends Fiduciary Corporation
Illinois Committee for Responsible Investment
Immaculate Heart Missions Inc.
Jesuit Conference
Jewish Funds for JusticeJustice Organizers, Leadership & Treasurers Coalition (JOLT), California
KAIROS, Canada
Marianist Province of the U.S.
Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers
MMA Financial Services
Mercy Investment Program
Midwest Coalition for Responsible Investment
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment

30

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Order of Friars Minor of the Province of the Most Holy name of Jesus in the U.S.A.
(Franciscans, Holy Name Province of New York)
Philadelphia Area Coalition for Responsible Investment
Presbyterian Church (USA)Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order
Reform Pension Board
Reformed Church in America
Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment
School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative Investment Fund
Sinsinawa Dominicans
Sisters of Bon Secours
Sisters of Charity of Cincinnati
Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Dubuque
Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth of New Jersey
Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul of Halifax, Nova Scotia
Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul of New York
Sisters of the Humility of Mary
Sisters of Loretto
Sisters of Mercy of North Carolina Foundation
Sisters of Mercy Regional Community of Detroit
Sisters of the Sorrowful MotherSocially Responsible Investment Coalition
St. Joseph Health System
Trinity Health
Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment
Unitarian Universalist Association
Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Shelter Rock
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
United Church Foundation
United Church of Christ (PBUCC) - The Pension Boards
United Methodist Church, Board for Global Ministries, Mission, Context & Relationships
United Methodist Church Foundation
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
United Methodist Church, General Board of Global Ministries Women's Division
United Methodist Church, General Board of Pension and Health Benefits
WIMCRIYMCA Retirement Fund

Associate Members••••

Aquinas Associates
Boston Common Asset Management, LLC
Calvert Social Investment Fund
Canadian Shareholder Association for Research and Education (SHARE)

31

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Center for Political Accountability
Clean Yield Asset Management
Domini Social Index Fund
Ethical Funds
F&C Asset Management
Frontier Capital Management
Green Century Capital Management
Highland Good Steward Management, LLC
Institutional Shareholder Services
Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation
John E. Fetzer Institute, Inc.
KLD Research & Analytics
Legg Mason Investment Counsel
Luther King Capital Management
Meeschaert Asset Management
Mellon Asset Management
Miller/Howard Investments
Minlam Asset Management
The Nathan Cummings Foundation
New York City, Office of the Comptroller
Park Foundation, Inc.
Pax World Fund
Progressive Asset Management
Progressive Investment Management
Service Employees International Union, Pension Plan for Employees
State of Connecticut, Office of the Treasurer
Trillium Asset Management
Walden Asset Management, Boston Trust & Investment Management Company
Affiliate Members

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Amnesty International
As You Sow Foundation
Bahl & Gaynor
Barnard College
Catholic Community Foundation
The Catholic Health Association of the U.S.A.
Cavanaugh Capital Management
Center for Reflection, Education and Action
The Christopher Reynolds Foundation
Clearbridge Advisors, Legg Mason
Community Renewal Society
Dominican Alliance
Dover Management, LLC.
e. Capital Partners S.p.A.
The Educational Foundation of America

32

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ethos Investment Foundation for Sustainable Development
Etica Sgr.
F.L. Putnam Investment Management Company
Foundation for Deep Ecology
Fox Asset Management
Gabelli Asset Management
G.E.S. Investment Services
Hospital of San Rafael
Income Research & Management
Invesco Global Asset Management
J.A. Glynn & Company
Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge - Sustainability GroupLSV Investment Management
Malley Associates Capital Management, Inc.
Marquis George MacDonald Foundation
McHugh Associates
Mercer Investment Consulting
Morgan Keegan
National Association of Treasurers of Religious Institutes
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
Neuberger & Berman
New World Foundation
Oneida Trust FundOxfam America
Providence Fund
Proxy Vote PlusRock Point Advisors
Rockefeller & Company
RRSE
Santa Barbara Asset Management
SEI Investments
Sisters of Notre Dame, Toledo OH
Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt
Sisters of St. Francis of the Neuman Communities
Sisters of St. Joseph of Brighton
Sisters of St. Joseph, Holyoke, Investment Committee
St. Walburg Monastery Benedictine Sisters
State of Wisconsin
St. Labre Indian School Educational Assoc.
TIAA-CREF
UMB Investment Advisors
Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut
Vermont Community Foundation
Wentworth, Hauser, Violich
Westfield Capital Management Company, LLC
World Asset Management

33

Copyright 2007. No quotation or citation without attribution.
•

Yanni Partners, Inc.