Sign in to SRI-Connect

Latest buzzes

Market Buzz is a peer-to-peer news channel that communicates ‘what’s happening now in SRI’.  It enables users to publish news, research, reports, ideas and questions on issues that interest them to an audience of like-minded individuals and receive the same from others.

25 of 15,097 results

@
Marcela Pinilla

(https://www.zevin.com/news-views/our-stance-technology-and-human-rights)

Technology companies touch nearly every dimension of human life, and with that scale comes outsized potential for harm, and an equally outsized obligation to account for it. We believe the intersection of technology and human rights is one of the most consequential, and most underexamined risks in contemporary investing. 

 

Our position 

At Zevin Asset Management, human rights impacts in the technology sector are investment risks. Technology products deployed for surveillance, censorship, or military use without adequate governance oversight create measurable legal, reputational, and governance risks. These risks have real-world impacts and can erode the social, institutional, and market conditions on which long-term investment returns depend. We engage companies directly, file shareholder proposals, and coordinate with global investor coalitionsto press for effective due diligence processes that mitigate impacts on people, society and markets.

 

Why now 

As artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and platform infrastructure proliferate globally, the potential for misuse by state and non-state actors has expanded dramatically. Technology built for legitimate purposes can be repurposed to stifle dissent, monitor minority communities, or enable violations of international humanitarian law. The stakes have never been higher.  

 

Assessing the risks 

1. Harms to people

Technology's most immediate risks are felt by us as individuals who bear the consequences of systems designed without their interests in mind. 

  • Surveillance & censorship. Technologies deployed to monitor populations, suppress speech, or enable authoritarian control domestically and across borders — including commercial tools repurposed for immigration detention and border enforcement. 

  • Data privacy & surveillance capitalism. The harvesting, monetization, and third-party sharing of personal data — including location, biometric, and behavioral data — in ways users cannot meaningfully consent to or opt out of. 

  • Content moderation labor. Outsourced moderation workforces, often located in the Global South, exposed to graphic and violent content with inadequate mental health protections or labor rights. 

  • Labor displacement & economic harm. AI-driven automation that eliminates jobs without adequate transition support. 

  • Child safety & vulnerable populations. Algorithmic systems that expose minors to harmful content, enable predatory targeting, or fail to account for the particular vulnerability of children and youth. 

2. Harms to systems

Beyond individual harm, AI reshapes the institutions, markets, and democratic structures that societies depend on. 

  • Weapons & lethal autonomous systems. AI integration into weapons targeting, lethal autonomous weapons systems, and military decision-making, where algorithmic errors carry irreversible consequences and meaningful human control over the use of force is eroded. 

  • Conflict-zone presence. Presence in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRA), including potential facilitation of international humanitarian law violations through the misuse of a company's products and services. 

  • AI bias & misinformation. Generative AI systems that amplify discrimination, spread disinformation, or operate without adequate human or board-level oversight. 

  • Environmental footprint. The energy and water demands of AI infrastructure—data centers, model training, and inference (broad use) at scale—and the communities, often low-income, that bear the local environmental burden. 

  • Concentration of power. A small number of companies controlling foundational AI infrastructure creates systemic risk to markets, democracy, and the diversity of the information ecosystem. 

3. Governance failures

Governance structures that insulate decision-makers from scrutiny and leave investors with limited tools to drive change. 

  • Governance & disclosure gaps. Dual-class share structures and weak board oversight can concentrate decision-making power, insulate management from investor accountability, and obstruct meaningful evaluation of human rights policy.

  • Regulatory & legal exposure. Emerging and evolving mandatory due diligence frameworks, including the EU CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive) and CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and reputational risks when companies fall short of their stated commitments. 

     

How we advocate 

  • We file shareholder proposals asking that companies report on how they determine whether their products are used for surveillance, censorship, or military purposes in conflict-affected regions. 

  • We hold companies to their stated alignment with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). If companies claim alignment with international human rights standards, investors must be able to evaluate the effectiveness of those policies, not merely accept them at face value. 

  • We engage Microsoft on the effectiveness of its human rights due diligence and Accenture on the conditions facing content moderation workers in the Global South who filter graphic and violent material before it reaches social media platforms. Our engagement with Alphabet addresses the misuse of technology infrastructure in high-risk contexts, while our engagement with Home Depot focuses on third-party data-sharing practices that may expose customers to downstream privacy violations, including access by federal agents for immigration enforcement.

  • We partner with coalitions, including the Investor Alliance for Human Rights (IAHR) and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), Racial Justice Investing Coalition, and Center for Monitored and Ethical Investment to amplify investor pressure at scale across the technology sector. 

     

Why we stay invested in hyperscalers 

Technology is weaponized when commercial products and services built to connect, inform, or transact are turned into instruments of surveillance, enforcement, or censorship — a risk concentrated in hyperscalers, the companies whose massive cloud and digital infrastructure platforms make them the foundational layer of that transformation.

Clients reasonably ask: given what we know, why do we remain invested in companies like Alphabet, Amazon, and Microsoft rather than exit? Our answer rests on four considered judgments. 

1. Dual-use, not inherently harmful 

Unlike fossil fuel companies, whose core business is the source of harm, hyperscalers—companies that operate massive cloud and digital infrastructure platforms—produce general-purpose infrastructure. The same cloud platform that enables surveillance also powers healthcare AI, financial inclusion, and climate research. The harm lies in the misuse of technology and therefore theoretically can be changed. 

2. Divestment forfeits our voice 

Shareholder status is the legal basis for filing proposals, demanding board responses, and speaking at annual meetings. Divesting eliminates that access. For companies of this systemic importance, where governance failures carry global consequences, we believe the investor's seat at the table is worth more than the moral signal of exit. 

3. Risk drives accountability 

Staying invested does not mean accepting the status quo. We treat unmitigated human rights exposure as a financial risk that warrants escalating pressure: from private dialogue to public proposals to coalition action.  

4. Scale of influence demands presence 

Hyperscalers increasingly constitute foundational infrastructure for global commerce, communication, and governance. Ceding investor influence over these companies to shareholders less concerned with human rights does not reduce harm; it simply removes a committed voice. Collective engagement by responsible investors is among the few mechanisms capable of reaching inside these structures. 

 

Our Commitment 

Our framework distinguishes between companies actively suppressing accountability and those demonstrating credible, if imperfect, progress.

For hyperscalers that consistently obstruct meaningful human rights governance, divestment remains on the table as a last resort. 

We are living through a period when the architecture of digital life is being constructed. The decisions made now about who controls it, who is protected by it, and who bears its costs will prove very difficult to reverse. Investment capital is not neutral in that process. It either reinforces the status quo or helps contest it. Continued investment is not unconditional.

The companies we hold are not simply firms with promising growth prospects; they are actors shaping the conditions under which billions of people work, communicate, organize, and seek redress. Our responsibility as shareholders is to make that power visible, to press for its accountable exercise, and to make clear that the right to profit from this infrastructure comes with an obligation to protect the people it reaches. That obligation is neither secondary to our investment mandate nor separable from it.  

@
SE

(https://www.sustainablefinance.ch/api/rm/4S566D3GA6955BM/ssf-2026-investment-market-study-final.pdf)

Key messages

  • Switzerland stands out positively in terms of asset growth
  • Financial industry remains committed in action more than in words
  • Asset owners lead by commitment, especially on real estate
  • Artificial intelligence is reshaping sustainable finance
  • Nature-related investment opportunities are taking shape
  • Extreme weather events are most material nature-related risk

@
Gregory Elders

(https://proxypro.substack.com/p/bps-green-board-disarray)

BP's directors are struggling to re-focus the company, likely left vulnerable by a UK governance code adverse to long (steadying) tenure - something Exxon's old guard did not suffer after Engine No. 1

Only one BP director was around before its 2020 low-carbon pivot, and that lack of institutional memory may be playing an important role in its recent leadership turmoil. Two weeks on since BP fired its chairman on May 26 after less than eight months in the job, and less than two months under new CEO Meg O’Neill, investors still seem unsure what happened. Albert Manifold arrived last September, taking the chair in October, with the blessing of activist Elliott Management that had called for the company to get back to petroleum. He was hired, and then fired, by a board with average tenure under four years.

One important reason for the shorter tenure is the U.K. Corporate Governance Code’s nine-year independence clock that encourages companies to shuffle off directors. In the U.S. there are no longevity-based independence rules and companies will routinely have some directors serving over 10 years (sometimes too many).

There are many, many reasons ExxonMobil and Chevron have stuck to oil and gas while the European oil majors pivoted away and now pivoting back, but steadier board leadership is potentially one of the factors. A noteworthy comparison is even when Exxon lost three board seats in 2021 to activist Engine No. 1, the new directors were absorbed and the company’s strategy stayed largely unchanged – benefiting its stock performance over the period.

@
KP

(https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/publications/171/show_news_article)

The chemicals sector is the largest industrial consumer of fossil fuels and one of the world’s largest manufacturing industries by market capitalisation. 

This combination of broad economic influence and high emissions exposes the sector to transition risk and makes it a priority for credible decarbonisation pathways.

We are proud to launch our new Carbon Performance assessment for chemical producers, our 13th sectoral methodology, and one of the most complex we've tackled yet.

We've assessed 23 companies with a combined market cap of $1.02 trillion, comparing their historical and projected emissions against Paris Agreement-aligned benchmarks.

Given the sector's extraordinary heterogeneity, from petrochemicals to specialty materials, developing a credible, like-for-like framework was no small feat. Here's what we found, and how we got there. 

@
SE

(https://www.sustainablefitch.com/sovereigns/esg-regulations-reporting-standards-june-2026-highlights-02-06-2026)

Early 2026 Marks Another Step Towards an ISSB Baseline, with Uneven Implementation
  • ESG regulation broadened in early 2026 beyond corporate disclosure into fund labelling and taxonomies.
  • Sustainability reporting is increasingly coalescing around an ISSB baseline, though adoption timelines and requirements still differ materially by market.
  • Climate disclosures are being implemented first, while Scope 3 treatment, assurance standards and ISSB-EU alignment continue to constrain cross-border comparability.
... includes ...
  • Regulatory Focus Is Broadening Beyond Corporate Disclosure
  • ISSB Convergence Is Advancing, but Comparability Remains Limited
  • Notable ESG Regulatory Developments – 1 January to 15 May 2026
  • Global ESG Reporting Converges Around ISSB, with Uneven Implementation Paths
  • Europe Remains Shaped by the EU's Separate Reporting Framework
  • Upcoming ESG Regulations to Monitor

@
PS

(https://www.frenchsif.org/isr_esg/wp-content/uploads/FIR_Methode-Voice-GB_Interactif_08-06.pdf)

Following more than a year of intensive work, the FIR is publishing the first version of the VOICE method (Valuation of Influence in Corporate Engagement), a method for assessing the effectiveness and influence of shareholder and bondholder engagement.

This new VOICE method lays the solid foundations for a reference framework aimed at promoting a better understanding of engagement practices and to highlight high-quality engagements that have a real and lasting influence on companies. 

The method is structured around four tools designed to: 

  • clarify the accounting of ESG engagements  
  • assess the likelihood of engagement’s influence according to a proposed five-level scale
  • report on ESG engagement practices 
  • identify and mobilise the necessary resources

@
SE

(https://am.pictet.com/uk/en/responsible-investment/responsible-investment-report)

Published: 2026

Summary: Covers engagement, voting, investment solutions and responsible investment implementation, with a particular focus on stewardship outcomes and long-term investor dialogue.

Companies featured as case studies

  • American Water Works
  • China Construction Bank
  • Ecolab
  • GFL Environmental, Inc.
  • Haier Smart Home Co. Ltd
  • Lindt & Sprungli
  • Mankind Pharma Ltd
  • Roche
  • Toyota Motor Corp
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing

@
SE

(https://download.dws.com/download/asset/1dc13fd9-5f5f-445e-a8e0-3064712725d7)

Published: 2026 reporting cycle

Summary: Covers proxy voting, company engagement, climate stewardship, governance priorities and escalation activities. Includes detailed engagement statistics and case studies across global holdings.

... includes ...

During 2025, our engagement activities focused on three areas:

  • Climate change and nature-related risks, including climate-related governance and disclosure, greenhouse gas reduction targets and transition planning, as well as biodiversity, deforestation, water management and resource use.
  • Corporate governance, covering board composition and independence, succession planning, executive remuneration, audit quality and shareholder rights.
  • Human rights and social matters, such as labour standards, health and safety, supply chain management, data protection, cyber security and ethical business practices.

@
SE

(https://www.randstad.com/investor-relations/results-and-reports/annual-reports/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Published: 11 February 2026

Summary: Includes dedicated sustainability statements covering talent development, fair labour markets, employee wellbeing, governance and environmental performance. Also complemented by Randstad's Local Sustainability Initiatives Report focused on workforce inclusion and the green transition.

@
SE

(https://plc.pearson.com/en-GB/investors/2025-annual-report-accounts?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Published: 12–13 March 2026

Summary: Integrated reporting from the global education and learning company. Sustainability disclosures are linked directly to workforce skills, lifelong learning, AI-enabled education, employee development and social impact. Pearson also publishes additional sustainability disclosures, climate reporting and assurance documentation alongside the annual report.

@
SE

(https://www.adeccogroup.com/investors/annual-report?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Published: 10 March 2026

Summary: Focus on employability, workforce skills, diversity, sustainable employability and social value creation, supported by dedicated non-financial reporting disclosures and sustainability methodologies.

@
SE

(https://www.wsp.com/-/media/investors/reports/sustainability/en/2025/wsp-2025-global-sustainability-report.pdf)

Published: Spring 2026 reporting cycle

Summary: Focuses on climate advisory, environmental services, sustainable infrastructure and the firm's own operational footprint. Particularly useful given WSP's position as a major sustainability services provider.

@
SE

(https://www.haysplc.com/~/media/Files/H/Hays/Sustainability/Sustainability%20Report%20FY25.pdf)

Published: April 2026

Summary: Covers workforce development, diversity, employee wellbeing, human capital outcomes and the firm's role in supporting green and sustainability-related employment markets. The report also discusses sustainability governance and operational emissions.

@
SE

(https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/podcast/bps-agm-was-contentious-this-proxy-season-could-be-too)

With the SEC no longer vetting shareholder proposals, companies have started self-certifying their own exclusions. As shareholders push back and turn to litigation, this proxy season may prove to be a defining one for shareholder rights.  

@
SE

(https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/blog-post/usd-22-billion-points-to-future-carbon-market-demand)

Key findings

  • Capital committed and deployed into the global carbon-credit market reached a record USD 22 billion in 2025, a 72% increase on 2024 and more than five times 2021 levels.
  • Buyers contracting today are locking in future price and quality, while opportunities for investors, banks and project developers continue to expand.
  • Waiting for spot demand to materialize risks leaving buyers with what remains, rather than what is highest quality. Financing structures to act earlier are becoming increasingly available.
... includes ...
  • Capital committed to carbon-credit investment and offtake agreements
  • From transactions to commitments
  • Investment by deal sub-type
  • Offtake by share of deal sub-type
  • Confidence growing, even as participation narrows
  • Future demand is building
  • Positioning for future demand

@
SE

(https://www.msci.com/research-and-insights/podcast/hormuz-and-the-fertilizer-fault-line)

When conflict disrupted gas exports through the Strait of Hormuz earlier this year, attention focused on gas prices and shipping lanes. But the shock travelled further — quietly rippling through fertilizer markets, where some producers were hit far harder than others, revealing how location-based risk can emerge deep within a supply chain.

@
SE

(https://influencemap.org/insight/The-Battle-over-Energy-Security-Challenging-the-Fossil-Fuel-Playbook-37937)

In the wake of war in Ukraine and now in response to war in Iran, the fossil fuel industry has deployed a playbook of misleading narratives that push fossil fuels as the key to global energy security and affordability.

InfluenceMap’s research indicates that this strategy is more than just an opportunistic reaction to a global energy crisis.

In 2021, the fossil fuel industry predicted such a “black swan event upending the global political agenda” in the first half of the decade, and for years, it has acknowledged the likelihood and implications of the geopolitical and economic instability that might accompany a delayed global energy transition.

While the industry's strategy succeeded post-Ukraine, leading to new investments in fossil fuels, world leaders are beginning to recognize that fossil fuel reliance leaves countries vulnerable to future crises.

As geopolitical instability plunges the world into the second major energy crisis of the decade, the renewable energy and utility sectors are wresting back control of the energy security narrative, pushing back on decades of fossil fuel industry-driven misconceptions.

@
SE

(https://influencemap.org/insight/Vehicle-Manufacturer-s-Contribution-to-Regulatory-Instability-in-the-US-38064)

In response to the Trump administration’s repeal of major US environmental regulations and federal subsidies, automakers are reporting losses of tens of billions of dollars as they retreat from EV production. The industry’s lobbying against environmental regulations, however, may have contributed to the regulatory instability that it now faces.

US automakers have often emphasized the need for stable environmental regulations, citing the substantial time required to develop and manufacture new vehicles. Despite this, many of these automakers have lobbied for years to roll back US emissions regulations, either directly or through their industry associations, counter to a strong global trend towards the electrification of road transport, further accelerated by high oil prices resulting from the conflict in Iran, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s warnings that ambitious government regulations are needed to decarbonize the industry.

At the same time, they have inadequately disclosed these lobbying activities, keeping their own investors in the dark about their lobbying for the rollbacks that are causing regulatory chaos for the industry.

@
SE

(https://influencemap.org/insight/BP-and-Shell-Hit-the-Gas-on-Fossil-Fuel-Expansion-Despite-Growing-Investor-Scrutiny-38437)

An Investor Note

This insight draws on InfluenceMap's assessment of BP and Shell's climate policy engagement from 2021–2025, using publicly available data and company disclosures up to the end of 2025.

With investor scrutiny intensifying ahead of both companies' 2026 AGMs, it considers what that record reveals about their positioning on the energy transition.

... includes ...
  • Shareholder Scrutiny
  • BP & Shell Regressing on Climate Policy Engagement
  • Climate Policy Engagement Disclosures
  • Advocacy as an Indicator of Strategy

@
SE

(https://indexes.morningstar.com/insights/analysis/blt3b830a41f15a4cfa/asset-owner-perspectives-survey-2026-qualitative-insights)

The Takeaway

  • Now entering our fifth year for this survey, this year’s qualitative phase gathered perspectives and insights from a series of live, in-depth interviews with 25 asset owners from around the world.
  • This year, we recorded plenty of shifts in the market environment, global investment standards, regulatory standards, and policy in our conversation with global stewards of capital.
  • Notable observations were a concerning yet necessary concentration in US market, increasing diversification to build resilience across global portfolios, a healthy caution around AI and growing interest in private markets.

@
SE

(https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-research/resource/podcasts/sustainability-in-conversation---testing-markets-and-building-esg-resilience)

Host:
Catalina Secreteanu, Managing Director, ESG Solutions, Europe, Morningstar Sustainalytics
Melissa Chase, Senior Content Marketing Manager, Morningstar Sustainalytics

Guest:
Bin Dong, Lead Analyst, ESG Methodology, Morningstar Sustainalytics
On the Evolution of Sustainable Investing and Constructing More Resilient Portfolios
In this episode of Sustainability in Conversation, we welcome our new co-host, Catalina Secreteanu. Catalina has worked in the sustainable investment space for the past 17 years, holding roles at UKSIF and Sustainalytics in the UK and Australia. During that time, she’s had a front row seat to how the industry has evolved. She shares her thoughts on where the market has been and where it’s going, as well as the challenges and opportunities along the ways.  

@
SE

(https://connect.sustainalytics.com/esg-resilience-in-focus?_gl=1*xcvkhx*_gcl_au*MTYwMTUyNDQxMS4xNzgxMTE3NjYz*_ga*MTc4MDI3MzAwMy4xNzgxMTE3NjYz*_ga_C8VBPP9KWH*czE3ODExMTc2NjIkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODExMTc2NzUkajUwJGwwJGgw)

Markets respond differently to risk. So does portfolio performance.

Portfolio resilience, return potential, and purpose‑aligned priorities are not mutually exclusive.

Our latest research examines how different regions price risk, how investors can evaluate trade‑offs between resilience, returns, and sustainability, and how these dynamics shape portfolio construction with lasting performance implications.

Building on our 2025 analysis, we study stress‑tested US and EU equity market data across multiple major market shocks to demonstrate how portfolios perform under pressure—and why outcomes differ by market structure and regulatory environment.

Download the report to see how these risk signals can be applied across regions to strengthen portfolio resilience in any market.

Video here

@
SE

(https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors)

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are rapidly warming the planet. But where do they come from? WRI experts explain which sectors emit the most GHGs.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come from 5 Sectors

To understand where emissions come from, it's helpful to break them down by both sectors (such as energy or agriculture) and "end uses," or the specific activities that emit greenhouse gases.

... also ...
  • Industry Is the Fastest Growing Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • Carbon Dioxide Makes Up Most, but Not All, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • Understanding Emissions Flows Is Essential to Developing Climate Solutions
  • Higher Ambition Starts with Clear Information
  • Explore Emissions Data by Sector and Gas

@
SE

(https://www.wri.org/insights/super-el-nino-impacts-explained)

"We asked four experts how this year’s El Niño may differ from past events."

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), or El Niño, weather pattern occurs naturally every two to seven years, making some parts of the world drier and others wetter. But this year’s El Niño is shaping up to be a different beast.

Scientists predict an increasingly likely “Super El Niño,” where ocean temperatures in the Pacific rise higher than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above average and alter atmospheric conditions more than usual. The result could be stronger, more persistent impacts around the world in the form of droughts, floods, cyclones, extreme heat and more.

@
SE

(https://www.wri.org/insights/forest-loss-drivers-data-trends)

Data on Global Forest Watch reveals that 34% of tree cover losses worldwide from 2001-2025 were likely the result of permanent land use change, meaning trees won’t grow back naturally.

This percentage nearly doubles in tropical primary rainforests, to 60%.

... includes ...
  • Different Drivers of Tree Cover Loss Have Different Impacts
  • Some Drivers Have Outsized Impacts in Specific Locations
  • Different Drivers of Forest Loss Require Different Solutions

Load more

Tagged sector
None
Tagged sustainability issue
None
Tagged sri interest
None
Tagged companies
    Tagged authors

      Supporters & friends

      SRI-C's supporters enable our mission to deliver high-quality sustainable investment research & efficient company-investor communications. Become a supporter today.
      Environmental Defense Fund