Franklin Resources should adopt a genocide-free investing policy to ensure that investments it makes are not tied to genocide.

Few of us want our personal savings connected to genocide. Even so, Franklin Resources, and other investment firms, invest their customers’ money in companies that help fund the ongoing genocide in Sudan. PetroChina and Sinopec, for example, not only support the government of Sudan, but also Syria, Burma and Iran.[1]

Strangely, Franklin Resources opposes genocide-free investing,[2] even though it is well aligned with their stated corporate values. As a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, they agreed to incorporate social issues such as human rights into investment decision-making processes and “better align investors with broader objectives of society.”[3] Their press release emphasized, “Franklin Templeton's various investment teams and strategies are very much aligned with the PRI Principles.”[4] States on its website[5]: “We believe that being a good corporate citizen is good business;" quotes the Franklin motto, “Do well by doing good;” emphasizes “integrity, trust and responsibility are essential to our continued success as a premier global investment management organization.”

Shareholders, customers (investors), and potential customers of Franklin Resources (and its Franklin Templeton funds) can send a strong message to draw the line at genocide. You don’t have to be an investor, since investment firms want your business now or in the future.

In addition, Franklin Resources shareholders can vote on Proposal 4, genocide-free investing, on the corporation's proxy ballot for the annual meeting on February 12, 2019![6]

[1]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2014-0716-White-Paper-on-genocide-free-investing.pdf

[2]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/38777/000120677418003548/franklin3460961-def14a.htm#proposal-no-4-stockholder-proposal-requesting-that-the-board-institute-procedures-on-genocide-free-investing

[3]https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles

[4]http://www.franklintempleton.com.au/downloadsServlet?docid=hh9y5nqu

[5]http://www.franklinresources.com/corp/pages/carousel/about_us/corpCitizenship.jsf

[6]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/38777/000120677418003548/franklin3460961-def14a.htm#proposal-no-4-stockholder-proposal-requesting-that-the-board-institute-procedures-on-genocide-free-investing

Vanguard should adopt a genocide-free investing policy to ensure that investments it makes are not tied to genocide.

Few of us want our personal savings connected to genocide. Even so, Vanguard, and other investment firms, invest their customers’ money in companies that help fund the ongoing genocide in Sudan.[1] PetroChina and Sinopec, for example, not only support the government of Sudan, but also Syria, Burma and Iran.

Strangely, Vanguard opposes genocide-free investing,[2] even though it is well aligned with their stated corporate values. As a signatory[3] to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, they agreed to incorporate social issues such as human rights into investment decision-making processes and “better align investors with broader objectives of society.”[4] Vanguard’s published “pledge” to clients promises to “Align our interests with our clients' interests” and “Hold ourselves to the highest standards of ethical behavior and stewardship.”[5]

Vanguard opposes genocide-free investing for all its funds, for actively managed and passive funds. Vanguard does not claim that its index funds are unable to comply. In fact, in 2009, Vanguard published that it had procedures that applied to all of its funds to consider social issues and “potential divestment” in cases of “crimes against humanity or patterns of egregious abuses of human rights.”[6] However, Vanguard took no action on its holdingsof PetroChina, stating, “The trustees have determined that no companies have warranted divestment.”[7] Shortly thereafter, Vanguard increased its holdings of PetroChina.[8]

Shareholders, customers (investors), and potential customers of Vanguard (and its mutual funds) can send a strong message to draw the line at genocide. You don’t have to be an investor, since investment firms want your business now or in the future.

[1]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2014-0716-White-Paper-on-genocide-free-investing.pdf

[2]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2017-1115-Vanguard-Shareholder-Meeting-Presentation.pdf

[3]https://investornews.vanguard/principles-for-responsible-investment-releases-vanguards-transparency-report/

[4]https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles

[5]https://about.vanguard.com/what-sets-vanguard-apart/why-character-counts/our-pledge.html

[6]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34066/000093247109000972/definitivefilingseccomments.txt

[7]https://web.archive.org/web/20090618151048/http:/www.vanguard.com/jumppage/proxy/prop3.html

[8]http://archive.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2009/04/14/group_vanguard_misled_on_investing/

Fidelity should adopt a genocide-free investing policy to ensure that investments it makes are not tied to genocide.

Few of us want our personal savings connected to genocide. Even so, Fidelity, and other investment firms, invest their customers’ money in companies that help fund the ongoing genocide in Sudan.[1] PetroChina and Sinopec, for example, not only support the government of Sudan, but also Syria, Burma and Iran.

Fidelity opposes genocide-free investing,[2] even though, as a signatory[3] to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, they agreed to incorporate social issues such as human rights into investment decision-making processes and “better align investors with broader objectives of society.”[4]

Fidelity's statement of opposition to genocide-free investing does not attempt to deny the connection between PetroChina and genocide, for example, nor argue that investing in genocide is somehow better. Instead, it simply notes that “this proposal would limit investments by the Funds that would be lawful under the laws of the United States.” [5]

Shareholders, customers (investors), and potential customers of Fidelity (and its mutual funds) can send a strong message to draw the line at genocide. You don’t have to be an investor, since investment firms want your business now or in the future.

[1]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2014-0716-White-Paper-on-genocide-free-investing.pdf

[2]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2015-0512-Fidelity-Shareholder-Meeting-Presentation.pdf

[3]https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/DefiningESG_Webinar.pdf

[4]https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles

[5]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/315700/000119312517306013/d452172ddef14a.htm

JPMorgan should adopt a genocide-free investing policy to ensure that investments it makes are not tied to genocide.

Few of us want our personal savings connected to genocide.[1] Even so, JPMorgan, and other investment firms, invest their customers’ money in companies that help fund the ongoing genocide in Sudan.[2] PetroChina and Sinopec, for example, not only support the government of Sudan, but also Syria, Burma and Iran. For years, JPMorgan has been one of world's largest shareholders of PetroChina[3] and Sinopec (aka China Petroleum).[4]

Strangely, JPMorgan opposes genocide-free investing,[5] even though it is well aligned with their stated corporate values. As a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, JPMorgan agreed to incorporate social issues such as human rights into investment decision-making processes and “better align investors with broader objectives of society.”[6] JPMorgan claimed it: “supports fundamental principles of human rights across all lines of its business and in each region of the world”;[5] uses “risk management processes and procedures to consider human rights and other reputational issues," [7] but disregards connections to genocide, an inherent risk factor; “fully abides by [U.S. sanctions] restrictions in letter and spirit,”[7] yet for years knowingly made investments that, while legal, were inconsistent with sanctions that prohibited transactions with Sudan and Burma’s petroleum industries.

Shareholders, customers (investors), and potential customers of JPMorgan (and its funds) can send a strong message to draw the line at genocide. You don’t have to be an investor, since investment firms want your business now or in the future.

In addition, JPMorgan shareholders can vote on genocide-free investing which should be on the corporation's proxy ballot for the annual meeting in May 2019!

[1]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/KRC-research-results-from-2010-and-2007.pdf

[2]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2014-0716-White-Paper-on-genocide-free-investing.pdf

[3]http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSForm2.aspx?fn=CS20190128E00184

[4]http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSForm2.aspx?fn=CS20180329E00146

[5]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961718000077/jpmc2018definitiveproxy.htm#s2C310866AC1155E4810BAC4F7AEA1E70

[6]https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles

[7]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/000001961712000185/jpmc2012proxystatement.htm

BlackRock should adopt a genocide-free investing policy to ensure that investments it makes are not tied to genocide.

Few of us want our personal savings connected to genocide.[1] Even so, BlackRock, and other investment firms, invest their customers’ money in companies that help fund the ongoing genocide in Sudan.[2] PetroChina and Sinopec, for example, not only support the government of Sudan, but also Syria, Burma and Iran. For years, BlackRock has been one of world's largest shareholders of PetroChina[3] and Sinopec (aka China Petroleum).[4]

BlackRock has opposed genocide-free investing,[5] even though, as as a signatory[6] to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment, BlackRock agreed to incorporate social issues such as human rights into investment decision-making processes and “better align investors with broader objectives of society.”[7]

To their credit, BlackRock has decided to engage with Investors Against Genocide about the problem of investments tied to genocide. BlackRock is making substantial progress in integrating ESG factors into its business. BlackRock's heavy focus on index funds highlights the problem of standard indices including companies such as PetroChina and Sinopec. BlackRock has agreed to discuss ideas of index reform as a potential way to address problem investments. This work is underway.

Shareholders, customers (investors), and potential customers of BlackRock (and its iShares funds) can send a strong message to draw the line at genocide.  Supporting the genocide-free investing campaign will strengthen our hand in discussions with BlackRock.

[1]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/KRC-research-results-from-2010-and-2007.pdf

[2]https://www.investorsagainstgenocide.org/files/2014-0716-White-Paper-on-genocide-free-investing.pdf

[3]http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSForm2.aspx?fn=CS20181117E00007

[4]http://sdinotice.hkex.com.hk/di/NSForm2.aspx?fn=CS20181219E00006

[5]https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000119312515135243/d891582ddef14a.htm#toc891582_31

[6]https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/publication/blk-profile-of-blackrock-investment-stewardship-team-work.pdf

[7]https://www.unpri.org/about/the-six-principles