Amnesty International's position on divestment
Engagement | Challenging Assumptions | Will shareholder activism work? | Thinking long-term
Over its history, Amnesty International has taken a neutral stance on divestment, and has instead recommended alternatives, in particular engagement and shareholder activism. In the case of Sudan, we maintain this neutral position, and have tried to identify how Amnesty can best leverage its strengths – our unparalleled research and our powerful grassroots membership – to use economic pressure to increase the force and momentum of the Darfur movement.
Amnesty's efforts are being launched in the midst of a vibrant targeted divestment initiative, calling on large institutional investors to either engage with or divest their stock in particular companies operating in Sudan, including the Big 4 oil companies. The divestment movement has had success in terms of convincing some investors to engage and/or sell their shares, and a host of companies have pulled out of the country, while others have taken steps to change their behavior. This has undoubtedly sent a clear message to the Government of Sudan that these investors and companies will not tolerate the injustices in Darfur.
Yet increased pressure is urgently required. Given the growing lack of security on the ground – the rising number of attacks on civilians and humanitarian operations, bombings of villages, massive new waves of displacement, rebel and Janjawid offensives, interethnic violence – the need to move quickly on ensuring the deployment of peacekeepers is urgent, as is the need to leverage all pressure points to compel quicker action. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has a longstanding, consistent record of signing international agreements and then obstructing their implementation. Bashir needs to continue to move forward and it is mounting pressure – both economic and political – that will make that happen. Our approach is diplomatic and engages with some of Sudan’s biggest partners.
There has already been some success in engaging companies operating in Sudan. The Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net), who we are collaborating with on this initiative, has engaged with a number of companies that operate in Sudan. Though in some cases that engagement has led to a decision to cease operations in Sudan, GI-Net has reported that some of these companies have significantly changed their behavior in the country to support marginalized populations and others are currently developing business plans to take similar steps.
Yet there are some companies that seem to ignore the crisis raging around them– including the Big 4. And though there have been many high profile investors who have agreed to divest from these companies, there are many that have not (or have divested a token amount). Those investors generally claim they have no responsibility to respond to the crisis in Sudan in any way, and/or that their primary responsibility is fiduciary. Some investment firms have already embraced active engagement as a way to meet their responsibility to respond to the crisis. We strongly support these firms and call on the unresponsive financial institutions to join this effort.
We must challenge the assumption that the Big 4 companies are beyond reform when it comes to human rights. We need to do all we can to help encourage these companies to be ambassadors of peace and stability. Since there are many financial firms still investing in these oil companies there is a clear opportunity for broad based shareholder activism. We cannot allow these players to stand by the sidelines, claiming to be “passive” investors. By leveraging the significant economic power of some of the country’s largest socially responsible shareholders, we can further pressure the institutional shareholders who have refused to take a stand, and in doing so, influence the Big 4 to play a more direct role in helping to bring security to war-torn Darfur.
To stop the violence in Darfur, we must use a variety of strategies and tools. The divestment movement is already strong, and Amnesty International can help lead the way in engagement and shareholder activism.
Will shareholder activism work?
Shareholder activism on Sudan needs to be viewed within the context of a broad initiative to press for speedy implementation of UNAMID peacekeeping forces. No single strategy on its own will work, and economic activism can be used, alongside political activism targeting international leaders and the Sudanese government.
There are many reasons to believe that shareholder activism will be an effective strategy for pushing these companies to influence the Government of Sudan to act. Given Khartoum’s dependency on oil revenue to fuel and sustain its growth, the government will be particularly sensitive to economic pressure from this sector.
Economic activism like this reaches beyond the cessation of conflict in Darfur. Our goal in the short- and middle-term is to get a fully operational UNAMID on the ground in Darfur as quickly as possible. Our goal in the middle- and long-term is to build a human rights framework into the oil industry in Sudan. Given the role of oil in fueling growth, it is imperative that government and oil company operations comply with the highest standards of business and human rights norms. AIUSA will work to actively promote human rights frameworks within companies’ operations.
» Next: Learn more and use additional action resources to help stop the violence in Darfur
