Shareholders Squeeze Cisco on Human Rights

Comatose51 writes "According to this article at Wired, Boston Common Asset Management, has filed a shareholders resolution asking Cisco to 'adopt a comprehensive human rights policy for its dealings with the Chinese government, and with other states practicing political censorship of the internet.' Cisco so far has asked the SEC to omit this proposal from the agenda for the next annual meeting, claiming that it already has a comprehensive human rights policy in place and that 'Cisco does not participate in any way in any censorship activities in the People's Republic of China ...' However, 'a report from the OpenNet Initiative watchdog group last April singled out Cisco for allegedly enabling the Chinese government's notorious "Great Firewall."' As a shareholder in Cisco, I would like to see this issue discussed and voted on."

Comments

Et tu, Microsoft

[Black Parrot]

You probably won't hear it on the evening news in the USA, but Microsoft is also actively engaged in helping China with political censorship.

Is anything more important than money?

[reporter]

such a resolution would impede the company's ability to do business in the single fastest growing tech market in the world.

Yet, are there things that are more important than money?

Fortunately, many of my peers in the United States of America feel that some things are more important than money. Consider the case of Stanford University. It is probably the most commercial of the elite universities and has strong ties to industry. Yet, Stanford University recently divested its investments in Chinese companies like PetroChina, which is commited to indifference to the Sudanese victims of human-rights abuses.

What surprises me about the lead article in this discussion is that Boston Common Asset Management, which (to my knowledge) is not an official advocate of socially responsible investing, has done such a clearly socially responsible act. Does anyone know of any funds managed by Boston Common Asset Management? I want to invest a significant amount of my 401K monies into those funds.

Like Stanford's Board of Trustees, I too am committed to the cause of human rights. I invest exclusively in socially responsible mutual funds.

By the way, there is a significant and measurable difference between Western society and non-Western society. In the West, you will often see incidents of this kind, where shareholders actually demand that companies support human rights. Cisco will change. Reebok has already changed and is now an official supporter of Amnesty International. Can anyone find examples of such shareholder activism in, say, the Chinese province of Taiwan?

as someone that actually lived in china...

[jjn1056]

for 18 months I can tell you the great firewall is a serious problem. Not only does it block news and political sites (as well as tons of other stuff that can only makes you say huh?) but the increased latency makes VoIP and IM quite spotty.

It slows down the entire internet outside of china, even if the website is not being blocked.

Even if you pay for a proxy server outside of China, this is a serious pain that impairs any Internet related business.

I will never buy Cisco products, or any other company that is involved in it.

Perhaps it would be better to boycott companies that are big buyers of Cisco products? This worked pretty well in Forcing the South African Aparteid Goverment to change.

Anyway, after living in China I am not convinced they are on their way to a huge bubble and collapse. Sure, I see tons of new buildings and businesses, but there are also tons of scams and empty buildings. I wonder if they will not soon overdevelop beyong their capacity to use? Well, I guess we will just see.

So now it is US companies also?

[cdrguru]

You folks complain about the US government sticking its nose into the business of other countries. Now you want US corporations to try to dictate internal policy to other countries as well? Why? Who made Cisco into World Policemen, Jr.?