Article 22: Right to social security and to the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for dignity
Helpful
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Social Security is almost entirely a government program: Congress sets the payroll tax, the benefit formula and eligibility rules, and no company's board or shareholders can change what a retired or disabled worker receives. The one clear corporate angle is political, not operational. In 2005, brokerages and asset managers stood to gain fee income if part of Social Security were converted into individual stock accounts, and some quietly backed the Bush administration's push for that change. Organized labor picketed the firms involved, at least one withdrew its support, and the plan collapsed in Congress that year. That episode shows corporations can try to influence this right, and can be pushed back by public pressure, but it also shows the outcome was decided by Congress and public opinion, not by company policy or shareholder votes. We found no shareholder-resolution campaign, at any company, addressing Article 22 directly.
How this was scoredHelpful
Helpful. Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Social Security retirement, disability and unemployment benefits are set, funded and administered by federal statute and trust funds. The amount a worker eventually draws depends on Congress and the Social Security Administration, not on any employer's or shareholder's decision. Corporate conduct is not a lever over the benefit itself.
In 2005, Wall Street brokerages quietly supported a White House push to divert Social Security payroll taxes into private stock accounts. That is a documented instance of the financial industry trying to reshape this right in its own commercial interest. The effort was not decisive. AFL-CIO picketing led at least one firm, Waddell & Reed, to publicly withdraw its support, and the whole privatization plan died in Congress in 2005.
0 and 1, higher of the two, gives Helpful
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: 30 Articles on 30 Articles – Article 22, OHCHR, 2018-12
- Labor Targets Wall Street On Private Accounts, NPR, 2005-04-01
- 2nd Firm Leaves Group Supporting Private Accounts, Cornell ILR Catherwood Library (news digest), 2005-03-07
- Why the 2005 Social Security Initiative Failed, and What it Means for the Future, Brookings Institution, n.d. (accessed 2026-09)
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Picketed Wall Street brokerages backing Social Security privatization in 2005, pressuring at least one firm (Waddell & Reed) to withdraw support.
Labor Targets Wall Street On Private Accounts, NPR, 2005-04-01
Related subjects on other maps
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is Universal Declaration of Human Rights's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.