It’s been a while since your writer began reporting on religious shareholder activism in this space. The term “religious” is used here to describe the vocations of the priests, nuns, clergy and other religious involved in shareholder activism – rather than serving as an accurate descriptor for essentially progressive political and social activities. These shareholder activists pursue agendas having little to do with the true nature of the faiths they no doubt believe, but too often relegate beneath their pursuit of liberal causes.

The above occurred to your correspondent upon following a link on the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility homepage. A quick click later, I was immersed in the progressive banalities of Rev. Jim Conn, “Spring Awakening: Uniting Against Climate Change” over at the website Capital & Main: Investigating Power & Politics. Rev. Conn’s essay champions what he perceives as a Risorgimento – a resurgent unification of political and social efforts. In essence, the Risorgimento Conn envisions applies to mitigating climate change by any means necessary, including shareholder activism as practiced by ICCR:

People with surplus es have been investing ever since the first stock market was invented, but now networks of socially responsible investors have gained clout in the marketplace. The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment acts as a research tool and clearinghouse of information for such funds. Their list includes a number of regular mutual panies that have established green or socially responsible investment services.

es with action as well as conscious investment strategies. Organizations like the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility file shareholder resolutions to urge appropriate corporate decision-making. They urge stockholders to divest from the bad guys and invest panies not hurting the Earth, exploiting workers or creating harmful products. They have had a significant impact on corporate behavior — from food and water issues to workers’ rights.

Note the binary Conn creates between “bad guys” and panies not hurting the Earth.” The retired United Methodist minister might do well to read Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel – or any number of essays published by The Acton Institute championing cheap and plentiful fuel for raising living standards throughout the world – before demonizing panies.

Conn also mischaracterizes ICCR’s activism as primarily focused on fossil-fuel divestment. Instead, ICCR resolutions directed at the energy sector are a bit more of a rear-flank maneuver that attempt to force energy and panies adopt practices that harm the profitability of panies as well as dividends for fellow shareholders. In some sectors, such activists are referred to as “Corporate Gadflies” – because of the nominally religious nature of ICCR proposals and those of other such groups as As You Sow, your writer coined the phrase “Corporate God-flies.”

Thus far, contrary to Conn’s claims, these God-flies haven’t “had a significant impact on corporate behavior.” Reporting in this space last June, your writer noted that God-flies accounted for 29 percent of all shareholder proxy resolutions at the nation’s 250 panies. These resolutions received, on average, only 22 percent of shareholder votes. Furthermore, according to James R. Copland in the 2015 Proxy Season Wrap-Up, published by the Manhattan Institute’s Proxy Monitor project:

Among social investors, only As You Sow introduced more than five proposals in 2015 (seven). Many other socially oriented investors sponsored multiple proposals, however: social-investing platforms Arjuna Capital (three), Domini Social Investments (three), Green Century Capital Management (three), Investor Voice (five), Northstar Asset Management (two), Trillium Asset Management (four), and Walden Asset Management (four); religious investors Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes (two), Sisters of Mercy (five), Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order (two), Sisters of St. Dominic (two), Sisters of St. Francis (three), and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (two); the public-policy group National Center for Public Policy Research (two); and the Nathan Cummings (two) and Park (three) charitable foundations.

It’s doubtful 2016 will be any different. God-flies will continue to badger and pester panies and shareholders while serving to diminish investment returns and Conn-men will continue to exaggerate the significance of their activities.