OPINION
‘Green washing’ rife as ethical investing dollars roll in

Stephen Bartholomeusz

Senior business columnist
April 27, 2021 — 

The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors’ threat to vote against the re-election of directors of companies that don’t respond adequately to climate-related risks is another strand in a global and accelerating trend towards fund manager activism on environmental, social and governance issues.

While ACSI’s track record on activism is fairly solid – its predominantly industry fund base has tended to put its money where its mouth is – that’s not necessarily, however, the case for all funds that have joined the scramble in recent years to label themselves as ethical investors.

If companies want a social licence to operate and to lower their costs of capital and fund managers want to attract funds and generate income from ESG-aware investors they now have to have policies, and practices, that meet the new and strengthening community and investor expectations. CREDIT:JONATHAN CARROLL

Indeed, there is considerable “green washing” occurring as fund managers try to exploit the flood of investor money into ESG-labelled funds, particularly those that portray themselves as active on climate change-related issues.

The pace of that flow of funds into sustainable investing has accelerated sharply since 2019. In the US last year an estimated $US51 billion ($65.5 billion) flowed into ESG funds, twice the level of 2019. Globally the sustainable investment industry is now thought to manage more than $US3 trillion of funds.

The fund managers are being drawn to sustainable investing because the increased interest of investors in investing with a social conscience means that’s where the money and the management fees are heading.

It’s also where the superior returns are. There’s been a lot of research to show that ESG funds produce better returns than funds that don’t have an ESG overlay.

RELATED ARTICLE

Investing
‘Seismic shift’: Aussies grasp the power of ethical investing

It is unclear whether that’s because the companies they invest in have management more in tune with their communities; attract better employees or whether the flows of funds from “socially responsible” investors have a positive impact on share prices and funds returns.

With the Biden administration in the US planning to spend $US1 trillion on climate-related policies over the next eight years and most of the major economies committed to reducing carbon emissions the size of the ESG industry is likely to swell much further as fund managers look to get their share of the trillions of dollars that will flow into climate-related investment.

How true-to-label these funds are is going to be a question of increasing interest to companies, investors and regulators as the size and influence of the sector grows.

There are plenty of stories of large funds with supposed ESG investment credentials that hold shares in companies that don’t conform to their stated policies, or vote contrary to their stated ESG policies or don’t vote at all on contentious ESG-related issues.

The fund managers are being drawn to sustainable investing because the increased interest of investors in investing with a social conscience means that’s where the money and the management fees are heading.

Earlier this month the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued a “risk alert” for investment advisers and funds related to ESG investing.

The SEC has, for several years, been reviewing the practices of funds that profess to be socially responsible investors and which market themselves as investing only in companies that are pursuing ESG-supportive strategies.

In 2019 it wrote to fund managers and asked them for lists of the stocks they were invested in or their advisers had recommended; for the models and processes the managers used to assess the ESG credentials of the companies they invested in and for their proxy voting records on ESG-related issues.

RELATED ARTICLE

Climate policy
Where Australia stands as the world resets on climate change

It found inconsistencies between the funds’ practices and their public disclosures of their ESG approaches; weaknesses in their policies and procedures and inadequate controls to monitor and update clients’ ESG-related investing guidelines; differences between their proxy voting claims and their internal policies and procedures; unsubstantiated and misleading claims about their ESG investing and inadequate controls over their public disclosures and marketing materials to ensure they were consistent with the firms’ practices.

The disparities between what some fund managers preach and what they practice is an analogous issue to companies that claim to have ESG policies or emissions-reduction policies but, at a practical level, are doing nothing substantial to reduce their emissions.

They are all seeking the halo effect – and the capital – associated with being seen to be on the right side of the climate change debates, or meeting evolving societal expectations. For companies with otherwise less-than-green credentials, they are also trying to head off the threat of shareholder activism

“Green equity” and “green bonds” (there are about $US1.6 trillion of “sustainable finance” bonds on issue) are a relatively new reality for companies and investors.

Even the ultra-conservative US Business Roundtable has acknowledged the significance and permanence of the change in community attitudes and values.

In the US last year an estimated $US51 billion flowed into ESG funds, twice the level of 2019.CREDIT:AP

In 2019 it ditched its core principle that the paramount duty of boards and management is to their shareholders. It broadened that duty to include all stakeholders and issues such as diversity, social inclusion and the environment.

If companies want a social licence to operate and to lower their costs of capital and fund managers want to attract funds and generate income from ESG-aware investors they now have to have policies, and practices, that meet the new and strengthening community and investor expectations

Whether they do that cynically or with conviction is almost irrelevant. It’s in their self-interest to be seen to be socially responsible boards, managements and fund managers.

RELATED ARTICLE

Global warming
‘We will take action’: Investors target ASX’s climate-laggard directors

That makes it important that end-investors aren’t misled by either the companies or the fund managers and that regulators, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in our case, scrutinise the policies and behaviours they espouse and assess the extent to which they actually live up to those promises and have the internal policies and controls to ensure that they do.

The US SEC has a particular taskforce policing climate risk disclosures and said recently that it would boost its investigations of fund managers and companies this year to make sure that their public statements align with their strategies. It is also working on new and more consistent guidelines for companies and fund managers on ESG and climate-related disclosures.

There is a similar opportunity here for ASIC and the ASX to create a framework for consistent disclosure of ESG-related policies and actions as well as for ASIC (and perhaps the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) to ensure that investors aren’t misled by fund managers whose investing and voting practices are at odds with their publicly-stated policies.

ACSI’s actions add a layer of self-regulation for its members alongside the threat to boards but it represents only a relatively small, albeit influential, part of the larger market but more will need to be done if both companies and fund managers are to be held to account for their assertions on ESG-related issues.

Stephen Bartholomeusz
Stephen is one of Australia’s most respected business journalists. He was most recently co-founder and associate editor of the Business Spectator website and an associate editor and senior columnist at The Australian.

OPINION
‘Wolf pack’ attack win opens the door for more turmoil

Stephen BartholomeuszSenior business columnist
June 1, 2021 


The success of the activist shareholder assault on the Exxon board last week, along with a court ruling ordering Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon emissions faster than planned and a majority of Chevron shareholders voting for a reduction in its “scope three” emissions have been depicted as victories for climate activists.

While the Shell decision clearly fits into that category (although it will appeal) and Chevron probably also squeezes in, the Exxon experience isn’t quite as clear cut and illustrates the confusion and conflict, for companies and investors, that flow from the increasing aggression and impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds.

Larry Fink’s BlackRock, the world’s biggest money manager, lent its considerable weight to the Exxon push.CREDIT:BLOOMBERG

Exxon was targeted, ultimately successfully, by a small hedge fund with ESG credentials, Engine No.1, which campaigned on a mix of Exxon’s poor financial performance and its response - or the lack of a coherent one - to climate change.

Exxon’s financial record and its view that it could reduce emissions while increasing its oil and gas production made it a soft target for climate change activists.

It is the combination of an ESG issue and more conventional concerns about its returns to shareholders that makes the Exxon contest particularly interesting.

With the support of some of the world’s largest investors – BlackRock, Calpers, Calstrs, the New York Common Retirement Fund, Legal & General, the Anglican Church, and others – and armed with recommendations from the two most influential proxy advisers, Engine No. 1 succeeded in having two of its four nominees elected to the Exxon board.


BlackRock is the world’s largest investment manager, with about $US7.5 trillion ($9.7 trillion) of funds under management.

Last year it declared it would avoid investing in companies with high sustainability risks, exit investments in coal companies, launch funds that excluded fossil fuels and vote against managements that weren’t making progress on fighting climate change.

More than half the funds it manages are, however, passive or index-related funds that would have an exposure to their total market, including companies that fail key ESG criteria.

The Exxon vote brought together a coalition of investors who are concerned about ESG issues, and climate change in particular, with more traditional activists who were galvanised by the oil major’s lengthy track record of poor performance. Engine No. 1 cleverly exploited those two strands of discontent.

The outcome, however, doesn’t resolve the tensions – particularly visible in an oil major – between the ESG issues and near-and-medium term financial performance. It wouldn’t have been even if a majority of the Exxon board had been displaced, which it wasn’t.

Exxon’s financial record and its view that it could reduce emissions while increasing its oil and gas production made it a soft target for climate change activists.CREDIT:AP

In the long run, of course, Exxon may have to reinvent itself or be doomed but in the near term its profitability will be driven by its oil and gas output.

That highlights a dilemma for company boards and managements.

Opinion
Oil
The little engine that could: Exxon board tilt could reverberate around the world

While even the US Business Roundtable has backed away from its long-standing commitment to the Friedmanite conviction that their primary responsibility, apart from obeying the law, is to make money for shareholders, their new pledge to manage in the long-term interests of all stakeholders and take issue of diversity, social inclusion and the environment into account doesn’t exactly provide a neat formula for marrying financial imperatives with ESG outcomes.

The growth in ESG funds – there’s an estimated $US3 trillion-plus now managed by funds with an ESG or sustainable investments label – and increasing shareholder and consumer activism means that companies have no choice but to take notice of the changing investment environment.

It’s a complicated world when companies are being pressured to reduce their customers’ emissions, or protest changes to voting laws, or join campaigns against racial or gender discrimination. It is, however, the world that companies and their boards and executives now have to manage within.

It’s also a complicated world for fund managers and their investors.

The Exxon contest highlighted the conflicts facing some fund managers. BlackRock’s activist stance and its ESG funds will, if they vote in line with founder Larry Fink’s convictions and their label, damage the interests of investors in the passive funds the group also manages which will inevitably hold stocks that don’t have ESG-positive credentials.

The same dilemma would confront other big passive funds like Vanguard and State Street that, with BlackRock, increasingly dominate the share registers of the larger companies. Between them the three funds held about 21 per cent of Exxon.

Where in the past companies might have been able to see of the threat from environmental activists by appealing to shareholders more focused on financial returns, any company with ESG vulnerabilities that doesn’t have a good financial track record and isn’t performing strongly in the present could be susceptible to a pack attack.

There’s also confusion about what an ESG-impact fund actually looks like, given that there is no consensus and no definitions to guide end-investors.

Companies engaged in industries that one fund might find abhorrent might well have ESG fund shareholders because, for instance, they are actively taking steps to shrink their carbon footprint. It is quite conceivable that there could be ESG-labelled funds on both sides of proxy fight on ESG issues.

The ESG funds are growing in popularity and funds under management because they combine a “feel good” factor – a belief that the investor is investing in line with their own values and helping to drive positive change for the environment and communities – with an expectation of superior returns.

While the first might hold true the second isn’t as clear-cut. In recent years any fund that avoided carbon-intensive companies and invested in tech, whether they were an ESG fund or not, would have produced superior returns because of the remarkable performance of the tech sector.

With no clear definition or guidelines for what constitutes an ESG fund or portfolio – the label is self-awarded – and poor disclosure of voting records, it isn’t easy for investors to know whether their expectations are actually being met, although the Securities and Exchange Commission is seeking to improve ESG fund disclosures and measurement and validation of their claims.

The lack of larity around ESG investment has created an opportunity – which Engine No.1 took – for traditional profit-driven activist investors to cloak themselves in green and enlist ESG funds and investors in what has been termed “wolf pack activism” that is far more threatening to incumbent boards and managements but may not necessarily deliver what the ESG investors expect.


Opinion
Ethical investing
‘Green washing’ rife as ethical investing dollars roll in

Where in the past companies might have been able to see of the threat from environmental activists by appealing to shareholders more focused on financial returns, any company with ESG vulnerabilities that doesn’t have a good financial track record and isn’t performing strongly in the present could be susceptible to a pack attack.

Distinguishing between genuine ESG concerns and genuine ESG-impact funds and hedge fund opportunism is going to be a challenge for companies, shareholders and ESG funds alike.




Stephen Bartholomeusz
Stephen is one of Australia’s most respected business journalists. He was most recently co-founder and associate editor of the Business Spectator website and an associate editor and senior columnist at The Australian.

JUST ANOTHER TALK SHOP

P4G Seoul Declaration sounds call to global climate action
Monday
May 31, 2021


Korean President Moon Jae-in presides over the Leaders’ Dialogue during the 2021 P4G Seoul Summit Monday evening at the Dongdaemun Design Plaza (DDP) in central Seoul. The Seoul Declaration was later adopted by the second P4G Summit. [YONHAP]

 
World leaders adopted the Seoul Declaration at the second P4G Summit Monday, recognizing the climate crisis as a global threat and highlighting the international community's commitment to achieving green growth through inclusive public-private partnerships.

Korean President Moon Jae-in presided over a Leaders' Dialogue Monday evening at the Dongdaemun Design Plaza (DDP) in central Seoul, joined virtually by 13 world leaders and heads of international organizations to discuss "Carbon Neutrality through Inclusive Green Recovery" as part of the two-day 2021 P4G Seoul Summit.

P4G, or Partnering for Green Growth and the Global Goals 2030, is a global initiative that seeks climate action through innovative public-private partnerships and aims to deliver on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in 2015.

The Seoul Declaration adopted at the end of the summit called for the engagement of governments, businesses and civil society as part of "collective solutions" to global climate change and to achieve green recovery for current and future generations.

It stressed that a green recovery should steer efforts to rebuild the economy after the Covid-19 pandemic and limit the temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius, aiming for 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, in line with targets set by the Paris Agreement.

Government leaders and top officials from some 50 countries and heads of 20 international organizations, along with representatives from the business sector and civil society, took part in the conference, the first multilateral environmental summit hosted by Korea.

During the leaders' session Monday, participants discussed a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, the international community's joint response to carbon neutrality by 2050 and efforts to strengthen climate action through public-private partnerships.

Participants according to the Blue House included the leaders of Denmark, Colombia, Vietnam, the Netherlands, Thailand, Cambodia, Austria, Costa Rica and Peru. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and John Kerry, the U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, also took part in the session.

The summit covered five overarching themes on core sectors covered by the SDGs: water, energy, food and agriculture, cities and the "circular economy," or a system that does not dispose of consumed resources but puts them back into the economy.

"Carbon neutrality is about creating a sustainable green future," said Moon during the leaders' session, which can also be an opportunity to create new industries and jobs.

He added, "Korea stands ready to serve as a bridge between developing and developed countries to enhance international solidary and cooperation."

Moon proposed that the international community strengthen cooperation in technology, financial resources and capacity-building to achieve an inclusive green recovery, according to the Blue House.

Moon also revealed that Korea plans to strengthen cooperation with international organizations in Korea such as the Climate Technology Centre and Network, Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI).

The leaders recognized the climate crisis as an "urgent global threat whose impacts reach beyond the environment agenda to include economic, social, security and human rights-related challenges."

Addressing the key themes of the summit, the Seoul Declaration encouraged sustainable water management, a transition to renewable energy sources, achieving resilient agriculture and food systems and a pursuit of smart and resilient green cities in which humans coexist with nature in harmony.

It called for more international cooperation to increase solar and wind power and the use of clean hydrogen to transition away from coal, including halting public financing of overseas construction of coal-fired power plants.

The declaration also called for a transition to a "zero-waste society," to use resources in a sustainable and efficient way and reduce plastic pollution, encouraging a circular economic system "where consumed resources are not disposed of but re-invested into the economy across the value chain."

It urged an increase in public- and private-sector funding for green investments, especially to support green transitions in developing countries.

At the summit, Korea revealed a new $4 million grant for the P4G.

Korea plans to designate May 31 as the Day of the Seas, emphasizing the importance of ocean conservation, and urged the United Nations to enhance discussions on reducing marine debris such as plastics.

The summit, jointly organized by Korea's Environment Ministry and Foreign Ministry, also included the participation of relevant government agencies.

Five thematic sessions held earlier Monday were titled: "Carbon-Neutral Smart Water Management for Climate Resilience," "A Greener Planet with Innovative Energy Solutions," "Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems," "Partnership for Smart and Resilient Green Cities," and "Circular Economy Measures Towards a Zero Waste Society."

Notable foreign panelists from the private sector included James Quincey, CEO and chairman of the Coca-Cola Company, Michael Bloomberg, CEO of Bloomberg LP, and Andrew Marsh, CEO of Plug Power.

The P4G Seoul Summit closed with remarks from Moon and President Iván Duque Márquez of Colombia, the host country of the third P4G summit in 2023.

The inaugural P4G Summit was held in Copenhagen, Denmark in October 2018.

The Blue House said that it hopes for the P4G Summit to be a "stepping stone" for the success of the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, or COP26, to be held in November in Glasgow, Britain.

BY SARAH KIM [kim.sarah@joongang.co.kr]

Thai museum unveils 1,000-year-old artefacts returned from US
2021/5/31 1
©Agence France-Presse



Two ancient sandstone artefacts believed to have been stolen from Thailand during the Vietnam War were unveiled Monday at a Bangkok museum, greeted with a fanfare of traditional dancers and an elaborate worship ceremony.

The temple support beams -- which were returned Friday -- boast exquisite carvings of the Hindu deities Indra and Yama that date back to the late 10th or 11th century.

They had been on display for decades at the San Francisco Asian Art Museum, and their repatriation to Thailand followed a yearslong investigation by the US Department of Homeland Security.

On Monday, museum staff carefully unpacked the artefacts under the watchful gaze of Culture Minister Itthiphol Khunpluem as Thai traditional music played.

"These two lintels are evidence of our rich and prosperous history dating back many centuries ago," he said, thanking US authorities and the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry for the "relentless pursuit of the sandstones".

Itthiphol also said the government is still deliberating whether they would be taken to smaller, local museums in the provinces of Buriram and Sa Kaeo, which border neighbouring Cambodia.

The lintels have features that mirror famed Cambodian temples -- showing the influence and reach of the ancient Khmer Kingdom -- and are believed to have been stolen out of Thailand between 1958 and 1969.

As music blared, Thai traditional dancers in gold-flecked dresses donning plastic face shields performed during the unveiling ceremony for the artefacts.

Massive towers of fruit were also on display around flower wreaths -- an offering to the gods to protect the lintels.

Itthiphol said there are still "13 more Buddha statues and engraved artefacts waiting to be repatriated from the US".

The California museum had disputed investigators' allegations that the artefacts were stolen, and insisted it had long planned to return them.

US museums are not the only ones to be embroiled in art provenance scandals in recent years.

Australia has repatriated at least eight looted statues to India since 2014.

France has vowed to return items taken from Senegal and Benin, while the Netherlands is moving to repatriate artefacts stolen from its former colonies

Germany and France demand explanation after wiretapping allegations

DPA
June 01, 2021

Franco-German Council of Ministers from Berlin - German Chancellor Angela Merkel holds a press conference via video with French President Emmanuel Macron after a plenary session of the Franco-German Council of Ministers, held via video conference. - Michael Sohn/POOL AP/dpa

Franco-German Council of Ministers from Berlin - German Chancellor Angela Merkel holds a press conference via video with French President Emmanuel Macron after a plenary session of the Franco-German Council of Ministers, held via video conference. - Michael Sohn/POOL AP/dpa

Berlin and Paris on Monday called for an explanation from Copenhagen after a report that Danish authorities helped the US National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap some of their senior politicians.

"I want to say that this is unacceptable between allies. That's clear," said French President Emmanuel Macron after a meeting of the Franco-German council of ministers.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who had been among those wiretapped, said she could "only agree."

Macron demanded "complete transparency and resolution of the matter by our Danish and American partners."

Earlier on Monday, the Danish government distanced itself from certain spying practices, after investigative journalists reported that Denmark allegedly supported the United States' wiretapping of high-ranking European politicians about a decade ago.

"Systematic wiretapping of close allies is unacceptable," Danish Defence Minister Trine Bramsen told dpa.

Merkel said she was "relieved" that the Danish government clearly expressed its attitude towards the allegations. "In this regard I see a good basis not only for the resolution of the matter, but also to really come to trusted relations."

Investigative journalists from Danish broadcaster DR, together with German media outlets like NDR, WDR and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, on Sunday revealed that the NSA had allegedly wiretapped leading politicians' phones with the help of software created by the Danish military intelligence service FE.

The research was based on anonymous sources and an internal analysis of the FE, from 2012 and 2014.

Aside from Merkel, other German politicians - such as President Frank-Walter Steinmeier as well as leaders in France, Sweden and Norway - were targeted.

The investigation revealed for the first time the extent of alleged military intelligence collaboration between Denmark and the US, and expanded the list of names of the politicians targeted.

Bramsen said she could not comment on speculation about possible intelligence activity. FE also did not comment on the allegations.

US subsidiary of meat-packing giant JBS hit by cyberattack
AFP
June 01, 2021




JBS is a sprawling meat supplier with operations in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand and Britain

JBS is a sprawling meat supplier with operations in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand and Britain

Washington (AFP) - The American subsidiary of the world's largest meat processing companies said Monday it had been hacked, paralyzing some of its operations and impacting thousands of workers in Australia.

The intrusion was detected Sunday, forcing one of the leading producers of beef and pork in the United States to suspend affected systems, and call in its IT staff and third-party experts to deal with the breach.

"JBS USA determined that it was the target of an organized cybersecurity attack, affecting some of the servers supporting its North American and Australian IT systems," the unit said in a statement.

The hack comes less than a month after a major cyberattack shut down the Colonial Pipeline network, which transports about 45 percent of fuel consumed on the east coast of the United States.

Brazil-based JBS is a sprawling meat supplier with operations in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Mexico, New Zealand and Britain.

The company's Australian facilities were said to have been paralyzed by the attack, with up to 10,000 meat workers being sent home without pay, according to a union representative.

"It's affecting JBS processing facilities around (Australia)," AMIEU Queensland branch secretary Matt Journeaux told AFP. "They have stood down workers across JBS operations."

Journeaux said there was no word yet from the company on when operations will resume.

JBS Foods is one of Australia's largest meat and food processing companies and plays a key role in the country's agriculture sector, making $2.4 billion in livestock purchases each year.

In a statement to AFP, Australian Agriculture Minister David Littleproud said he was "aware of reports" of the attack but declined to comment "until further details are available."

JBS USA said it was "not aware of any evidence at this time that any customer, supplier or employee data has been compromised or misused," but the attack may cause delays for customers and suppliers.

It said its backup servers were not affected.

Cybersecurity vulnerabilities

Colonial's multi-day shutdown in May sparked panic buying in some eastern states, and ended when the company paid $4.4 million in ransom to the hackers.

The demonstrated online vulnerabilities of US pipelines led the federal government last week to impose cybersecurity requirements on petroleum pipelines for the first time.

The new rules, imposed by the Department of Homeland Security, require pipeline operators to designate a cybersecurity coordinator who must be available at all times, and report confirmed incidences to the agency's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Pipeline owners will also be required to review their procedures and identify cybersecurity gaps and ways to fix them, with the results reported to the department within 30 days.

"The cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving and we must adapt to address new and emerging threats," Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement Thursday.

Six US tech giants paid almost $100 billion less in taxes from 2011 to 2020 than reported: analysis

Common Dreams
June 01, 2021

Tim Cook (AFP)

Bolstering demands for a global minimum tax to rein in corporations' evasive tactics, a new analysis released Monday showed that a half dozen companies based in the United States paid almost $100 billion less in taxes over the past decade than stated in their annual reports.

Between 2011 and 2020, Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet (the owner of Google), Netflix, Apple, and Microsoft—known as the "Silicon Six"—paid roughly $219 billion in income taxes, which amounts to just 3.6% of their more than $6 trillion in total revenue, according to the Fair Tax Foundation. Income tax is paid on profits, not total revenue, and researchers said these tech giants are adept at reducing their tax liabilities by shifting profits to offshore tax havens.

Had the "Silicon Six" paid the prevailing tax rates in the countries in which they operate, they would have given global tax authorities over $149 billion more than they did over the past decade, researchers said. Moreover, not only did these corporate behemoths fork over nearly $150 billion less than would be expected under a stronger international taxation regime, but they also inflated the value of the tax payments they did make.

According to the Fair Tax Foundation, these six companies reported paying approximately $315 billion in income taxes between 2011 and 2020, which is 23.2% on nearly $1.4 trillion in profits. That's significantly higher than the 16.1% rate the companies actually paid over the past decade, however, resulting in a gap of more than $96 billion between tax figures cited in annual financial reports and real contributions to public revenues.

Paul Monaghan, chief executive of the United Kingdom-based nonprofit, said the study provided "solid evidence that substantive tax avoidance is still embedded within many large multinationals and nothing less than a root-and-branch reform of international tax rules will remedy the situation."

None of the six corporations "is an exemplar of responsible tax conduct," the report noted. "However, the degree of irresponsibility and the relative tax contribution made does vary. Amazon has paid just $5.9 billion in income taxes this decade, whilst Apple has paid $100.6 billion and Microsoft has paid $55.3 billion."

Source: Fair Tax Foundation


The Fair Tax Foundation identified Amazon and Facebook as the worst offenders, prompting responses from the two tech giants.

As The Guardian reported:
An Amazon spokesperson disputed the calculations as "extremely misleading."
"Amazon is primarily a retailer where profit margins are low, so comparisons to technology companies with operating profit margins of closer to 50% is not rational," the company said. "Governments write the tax laws and Amazon is doing the very thing they encourage companies to do—paying all taxes due while also investing many billions in creating jobs and infrastructure. Coupled with low margins, this investment will naturally result in a lower cash tax rate."T

A Facebook spokesman said: "All companies pay tax on their profits, not revenues. Last year we paid $4.23 billion in corporate income taxes globally, and our average effective tax rate over the last 10 years was 20.71%, which is roughly in line with the OECD average."

In response to the corporations' complaints, the Fair Tax Foundation said that the majority of Amazon's profits in the last three years were derived not from retail but from cloud services, where profit margins are between 25-30%. The Fair Tax Foundation also noted that over the past decade, Facebook paid an income tax rate of just 12.7%, resulting in substantially lower contributions than would be expected according to prevailing corporate tax rates as well as the company's effective tax rate.

The Fair Tax Foundation's new analysis comes just weeks after Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig admitted that tax dodging is depriving the U.S. government of as much as $1 trillion or more per year.

Monaghan said that U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's recent push for a global minimum tax on corporations "[lit] a fire beneath the multilateral discussions that have been slowly progressing under the auspices of the OECD."

According to Monaghan, the Biden administration's proposals for global tax reform "would see many of the incentives underpinning profit-shifting to tax havens removed, and would see the very largest multinationals taxed not just on where subsidiary profits are booked, but where real economic value is derived."

"This would have a seismic impact on the likes of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft (who have tax dodging hard-wired into their organizational structure), with billions of additional taxes paid across the world," Monaghan continued.

"We could be on the cusp of a once-in-a-generation moment," he added, "but world leaders at the forthcoming G7 and G20 world leader summits need to grasp the nettle, step up, and engage with the agenda much more positively—the benefit to public services across the world could be immense."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Democrats must 'become the nation's majority party' to save the US from Trumpism: conservative

Alex Henderson, AlterNet
May 31, 2021

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump (C) stands surrounded by his son Eric Trump (L) daughter Ivanka and son Donald Jr. (R) ahead of a press conference in Trump Tower, Manhattan, New York, U.S., January 11, 2017. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton

In the past, Never Trump conservative Bill Kristol was often highly critical of the Democratic Party. But in the 2020 presidential election, the neocon pundit enthusiastically rooted for now-President Joe Biden — and in an article published by The Bulwark (which he co-founded) over the 2021 Memorial Day Weekend, Kristol argues that Democrats need to seriously dominate government in the United States in order to protect U.S. democracy from Trumpism.

Kristol's piece is not an endorsement of all things liberal or progressive. Rather, Kristol believes that Trumpism is so toxic and destructive that Democrats must "become the nation's majority party…. at least for now." And he believes that suburban anti-Trump Republicans or ex-Republicans are an important part of Biden's coalition.

The 68-year-old Bulwark co-founder, formerly of the now-defunct Weekly Standard, cites a new Quinnipiac poll as proof that Trumpism's iron grip on the Republican Party isn't letting up one bit.



"The Republican Party remains Donald Trump's party," Kristol laments. "No fewer than 84% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Donald Trump. Two-thirds of Republicans want him to run for president. And most of the rest of the remaining third would prefer a Republican candidate who mostly agrees with, rather than disagrees with, Donald Trump."

Kristol continues, "Meanwhile, the most prominent recent Republican critic of Donald Trump — Liz Cheney — is now deeply unpopular with Republicans: 12% of Republicans have a favorable view of Cheney, while 52% of Republicans have an unfavorable view…. On the other hand, in what is surely Quinnipiac's most striking finding, Democrats — by 44% to 16% — have a favorable view of Cheney."

The Never Trump conservative calls for "the Democrats to become the nation's majority party as quickly and as decisively as possible."

"Trump is so much at the center of our politics that a conservative Republican such as Cheney can become, at least temporarily, a favorite of Democrats simply because she has straightforwardly and steadfastly criticized Trump," Kristol argues. "Now, hold in mind the fact that Democratic voters seem well-disposed to anti-Trump Republicans."

Kristol views anti-Trump Republicans as an important part of Biden's coalition, and he agrees with conservative columnist Mona Charen, a Bulwark contributor and fellow Never Trumper, that the Trumpified GOP has become "a danger to democracy."

Kristol writes, "Charen argues, it's important for the country, at least for now, that Democrats govern successfully and be able to win elections…. There is a pool of ex-Republican voters and conceivably, office holders available to the Democratic Party. Many current Democratic voters are open to including these future former Republicans in their coalition."

WALL STREET DEMS AND REPUBLICANS SHOULD FORM THEIR OWN CENTERIST PARTY

(WHITE) Christian pastors are 'exhausted' trying to stop parishioners from believing in QAnon: Evangelical leader

Brad Reed
May 31, 2021
THE RAW STORY

Qanon believers at a rally. (Screenshot)


Evangelical leader Russell Moore tells Axios that belief in QAnon is becoming an increasing problem within many Christian denominations throughout the United States.

"[I'm] talking literally every day to pastors, of virtually every denomination, who are exhausted by these theories blowing through their churches or communities," Moore says.

Moore also warns that QAnon is "taking on all of the characteristics of a cult, from authoritarian gurus ... to predictions that don't come true

Axios interviewed Moore about a recent poll result showing that roughly a quarter of white and Hispanic evangelical Christians believe in the discredited QAnon conspiracy theory that for years has falsely predicted Hillary Clinton's imminent arrest for leading a Satanic global child sex trafficking ring.

Kristin Du Mez, a Calvin University historian of gender, faith and politics, tells Axios that certain evangelical denominations may be particularly prone to falling for QAnon because they already emphasize searching for esoteric messages and prophecies within the Bible that they believe are hidden even to most Christians.

"There's also an emphasis in certain circles on deciphering biblical prophecies that bears some similarities to decoding QAnon conspiracies -- the idea that there is a secret meaning hidden within the text that can be discerned by individuals who have eyes to see," she explains.

Colonel fired by Trump offers to prosecute Michael Flynn after he called for violent military coup against US

Former national security adviser has become a prominent figure in the QAnon conspiracy movement since leaving the White House

Graig Graziosi

Lieutenant Colonel Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, a US Army officer fired and derided by Donald Trump, said he would be willing to prosecute a court martial of Michael Flynn, the former president's one-time national security adviser, over comments he made suggesting he wanted to see a coup in the US similar to the one that took place in Myanmar.

Mr Flynn made the statements during the "For God & Country Patriot Roundup," in Dallas on Sunday.

An attendee asked Mr Flynn "why what happened in Myanmar can't happen here?"


"No reason. I mean, it should happen here," he said, receiving cheers from the crowd.

Mr Vindman took to Twitter to denounce Mr Flynn and offer his services to prosecute the retired lieutenant general.

"With these seditious remarks Comrade Flynn may have crossed the line for recall to active duty and court-martial. As a JAG I'm qualified and also happy to prosecute this case," he wrote. "PS, US mil would NEVER support this. We love America."

“JAG” refers to the Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the military branch concerned with justice.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, pointed out on Twitter that despite being retired, Mr Flynn still is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"Yes, Flynn's still subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a retired Army officer. The constitutionality of jurisdiction over retirees for post-retirement offenses is something we're currently challenging in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces & the DC Circuit," he said.

Both Mr Flynn and Mr Vindman were ousted from their jobs, but for significantly different reasons.

Mr Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI concerning his deals with Russia's ambassador prior to Mr Trump taking office. He was later pardoned by Mr Trump.

Mr Vindman was fired from his role as the deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council after he raised concerns about Mr Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine in 2019.

His twin brother, Alexander Vindman, also a member of the NSC, was called as a key witness in Mr Trump's first impeachment inquiry.

The brothers were both fired from the NSC shortly after Mr Trump's acquittal in the Senate.

As for Mr Flynn, since leaving the White House he has become something of a celebrity in the world of QAnon and extremist right wing Trump supporters.

Some QAnon adherents believed Mr Flynn actually was Q, and he appears to have leaned into these whispers by occasionally signalling to the conspiracy theorists by using a phrase associated with the movement, "Where we go one, we go all."

He even began promoting a digital store where he sold QAnon merchandise including hats and T-shirts.

The coup Mr Flynn was referencing occurred in Myanmar, which is also known as Burma, and involved the military seizing power after the candidate it supported lost the country's election in a landslide.

The military claimed – without evidence – that widespread voter fraud had occurred, and used the dubious allegations to justify its undemocratic actions.

The international community has largely condemned the coup.