Grassroots Update: Scotia Bank

Written by Japhet

Topics: Climate

share this story
facebook twitter email stumble upon
Get RAN Alerts

In case people forgot that shareholder activism works here’s a quick refresher. Actvists in Winnipeg, Manitoba attended Scotia Bank’s annual shareholder meeting last week and had an amazing response to their questions around corporate-social responsibility. Here are Beau and Shelagh’s report from Winnipeg:

Scotiabank held their Annual General Meeting in Winnipeg, Manitoba on March 3. My friend Beau and I attended the meeting armed with leaflets…The meeting took place in a fancy Winnipeg hotel, and there were cops everywhere. We decided to hold on to our leaflets until we got a chance to ask our questions. There were several hundred shareholders at the meeting, most of them white men. As we sat through speeches that praised capitalism and Scotiabank’s growth, we noticed that one of the men on the stage was Rick Waugh, President of Scotiabank, whose name appeared on our leaflets as the person to contact regarding the bank’s policies.

Just before the question and answer period, a short film about Scotiabank’s corporate social responsibility was shown. It outlined some of the projects that Scotiabank was engaged in, such as using recycled paper, raising money for various charities, and running leadership workshops for women. After the film came question period.

I stood up and told the executives that their social responsibility programs and their efforts to address the environmental impact of their operations were positive steps, but that they continued to finance companies such as Weyerhaeuser, a corporation that is destructively logging in the First Nation of Grassy Narrows. I asked them when they would follow the lead of top U.S. banks like JP. Morgan Chase and Goldman and Sachs and adopt policies on climate change, biodiversity and indigenous rights. Rick Waugh gave a vague answer, saying that the environment was important, but there was also a need for balance.

There was a huge response to my question and remarks from the shareholders, both positive and negative. One shareholder stood up and told Mr. Waugh that corporate social responsibility was a waste of his money, to which Mr.
Waugh replied that there had to be a balance and that many stakeholders were pushing for social responsibility. Another shareholder stood up and expressed the importance of preserving the environment for future generations.

As people left the meeting, Beau and I handed out our leaflets to the shareholders, and several people approached me to tell me that they supported my question and position.

Beau and I also had a chance to speak to Rick Waugh in person. We thanked him for his efforts to date, but told him that Scotiabank lagged far behind U.S. banks, and handed him some leaflets.

Another person who we had a chance to meet was a retired executive from Weyerhaeuser. He came up to me and told me that I had made misleading statements about Weyerhaeuser, and that the company was not doing anything illegal. We had a discussion about logging and the blockade in Grassy Narrows, and it turned out that he had never heard about the blockade and had no sense of the eco-system destruction that clear-cutting causes.

We mingled with people in the extravagant reception (free food, wine and champagne, a live pianist, and an ice sculpture of the Scotiabank logo) and had several more interesting exchanges with people who had been in the meeting.

We were eventually asked to leave by a Scotiabank usher backed up by a cop, who informed us that our leaflets were “upsetting shareholders”.

I have to wonder, exactly why were the leaflets upsetting shareholders? Was it because it brought the truth of Scotia Bank’s horrible investments in companies like Weyerhaeuser to light? I think so. Often, when faced with an uncomfortable truth our first reaction as human beings is to do anything to remove the “claim” that what we might be doing (or invested in) could be questionable. It sounds like lots of Scotia investors are steering clear of any responsibility on this one, which I have to admit, seems to be a rather contagious disease in today’s boardroom leaders.

7 Comments For This Post I'd Love to Hear Yours!

  1. Gail Towsley says:

    It is unfortunate that so many people who support responsible environmental practices feel compeled to let their left-wing views creep into their commentary, as Shelagh did in her report. There are lots of capitalists who support the environment — why intentioanlly turn them off with left wing, anti-capitalist comments? It really starts to cloud the debate, and brings the motivation of your group in to question unnecessarily.

  2. Brant says:

    Gail — Rest assured that friends of RAN (not to mention our critics) come in all shapes and sizes.

    Our supporters, of course, share one thing in common–belief in our mission to “campaign for the forests, their inhabitants and the natural systems that sustain life by transforming the global marketplace through education, grassroots organizing, and non-violent direct action.”

    You say that Shelagh’s report “clouds the debate”, but I think your post proves that it’s fodder for a valuable dialogue.

    There ARE lots of capitalists who support the environment–I count many among my colleagues and friends. It’s also true that many don’t.

    And why should they? A healthy environment caries no value in the current marketplace.

    A more responsible economic system would require and reward “responsible environmental practices”–ours doesn’t, at least not sufficiently. On the contrary, it frequently rewards the opposite.

    Take for example Grassy Narrows. Here’s a community that’s been living sustainably from the land for thousands of years–great for them and great for the land. Not great for “business”, however, according to Ontario. Why? Because the province awards logging licenses based on ability to reap “value” from the land–a very different “value” than what is recognized by Grassy Narrows, ecologists, and caribou lovers everywhere.

    In any case, even if you don’t agree with Shelagh’s complaints of “speeches praising capitalism”, it’s hard to fault somebody for sparking dialogue about the environment within such central pillars of our economy.

  3. eva says:

    In regards to the leaflets upsetting the shareholders: Tell the cop that the actions of the scotia bank shareholders, in terms of thier enviornmental ignorance and the harm they are doing to it – are upsetting YOU.

  4. Louise says:

    This is a wonderful wealth of information. Good Luck!

  5. David says:

    Hello there! Just want to say that I find your site enough interesting for me. Usefull information and all is good arranged. Thank you for your work. I will visit your site more ofter from now and I bookmarked it.

  6. Paulo says:

    Alleen onder Glamour versta ik wat anders maar dat moet kunnen.

Leave a Comment Here's Your Chance to Be Heard!

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.