Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2019: Corporate Social Responsibility

Jan 25, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

Increasingly, there is a recognition that CSR efforts have impacts well beyond reputational concerns and that they can, and do, impact bottom lines. Moreover, several non-U.S. jurisdictions have enacted legislation, for instance, mandating reporting on CSR-related considerations. The private sector, meanwhile, is organizing its actions in the absence of U.S. federal regulations in the environmental space, particularly with regard to addressing climate change. Across issues, shareholders, investors and limited partners are demanding action, often requiring policies and programs that engage with these issues.

The January 2018 “Letter to CEOs” from the chairman and CEO of BlackRock, Inc., Larry Fink, represents a crucial milestone where these trends are concerned. In this letter, Fink describes the fiduciary responsibility that BlackRock undertakes as including global stewardship concerns. He states affirmatively that Blackrock portfolio companies must be able to articulate their “strategic framework for long-term value creation,” which explicitly includes integrating the management of environmental, social and governance matters into the investment process. As noted elsewhere in this publication, BlackRock’s own voting and asset management strategies have already implemented these principles.

Topics raised in the Fink Letter have already had tangible impacts in 2018. For example, U.S. and international pension funds, in particular, have responded to pressures specifically related to gun control and immigration issues, with shareholder and investor pressure, in some cases, resulting in divestments by those funds from entities involved in those contentious debates. While issues such as a company’s efforts to address diversity and inclusion, including in the context of the #MeToo movement, have not yet produced the same effects, institutional investors are likely to seek information regarding such efforts in the context of their decisions going forward, as Larry Fink hints in his letter. Of course, as noted in more detail above, the very real reputational concerns engendered by failures to address diversity and anti-harassment issues remain at the forefront of the public mind.

The trend is towards greater efforts to address CSR issues, including from legal and regulatory perspectives outside the United States. 2018 saw the first round of reporting under the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive for companies subject to those laws. Disclosures related to companies’ risks and opportunities in the context of climate change are already required for some companies in the United Kingdom, and other jurisdictions such as Canada and Australia are considering measures to mandate certain disclosures in response to efforts through the G-20.

U.S. stakeholders, including state treasury officials, are advocating for the SEC to adopt a framework for mandatory reporting on environmental, social and governance issues, to build on and standardize what companies are already doing voluntarily. Legislation passed in Australia at the end of November 2018 requires reporting on human rights issues in an entity’s supply chain, similar to the law passed in the United Kingdom in 2016. With regard to the U.K. law, civil society has consistently pushed for greater detail in reporting from those obligated to do so, as well as suggested that the law be enhanced to include requirements that companies take proactive steps to address human rights issues, rather than merely report on their efforts.

It remains to be seen whether such efforts result in legislative changes, as well as whether penalties associated with these laws are enforced, but their presence sends a clear signal that regulators all over the world are taking CSR concerns seriously. Prudent boards will take proactive steps to develop or revise policies and programs that strengthen measures to address these hot-button issues, including those described in greater detail throughout this publication.

View the full report here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.