CAHRAs – Conflict-Affected and High Risk Areas – is a term out of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High Risk Areas. Anyone involved in conflict minerals will be intimately familiar with this document – as well as the laws, regulations and related initiatives which reference it – including the SEC conflict minerals rule. Even though the document is around 10 years old, it has been relegated primarily to the context of minerals/metals and Africa (and Latin America to a lesser extent). Responsible Investor reported that CAHRAs may be experiencing a break-out moment:
“Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), the New York City Comptroller, KLP, AP4, AP7 and Storebrand Asset Management have announced plans to support a conflict-affected area shareholder proposal at Mondelez. The resolution calls on the confectionary giant to commission an independent third-party report assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of its human rights policy (HRP) for operations in conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRA), including Russia/Ukraine… the Norwegian pension fund believes Mondelez’s reporting is insufficient and wants increased transparency from the company on human rights due diligence in CAHRAs.
The two main proxy advisers [sic] are divided on the proposal. According to reports, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) has backed the resolution… Glass Lewis is recommending a vote against the proposal.”
Mondelez isn’t alone:
“JPMorgan Chase will also face a vote on a CAHRA-focused resolution, although investors are more divided. Filed by the Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Aberdeen, the proposal calls on the board to commission an independent third-party report on its due diligence process to determine whether the group’s lending, underwriting or other services in CAHRA expose it to human rights and other material risks.”
The article didn’t mention where proxy advisors stand on the bank’s proposal. I don’t recall CAHRA issues being included in shareholder proposals before. It possibly may have been a thing when conflict minerals disclosures first started, but the Mondelez and JPMorgan Chase proposals take it beyond that context and both are different. If one or both of these proposals gains substantial support, we might see more of them. At the moment, most due diligence related to CAHRAs is limited to minerals and conducted by industry programs that would have to expand greatly if this catches on.
If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here: https://practicalesg.com/subscribe/ for daily updates delivered right to you.