Target 14.a: Marine research and technology
Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Marine research capacity and technology transfer are led by governments, the IOC and philanthropies. Schmidt Ocean Institute, a private non-profit established in 2009, operates the research vessel Falkor (too) and commits to open data sharing. A documented corporate contribution exists. Global Fishing Watch, founded by Oceana, SkyTruth and Google, led 69 trainings across 46 countries in 2024. Its data supported enforcement outcomes in Papua New Guinea, Costa Rica and Senegal. Owners of technology company shares can encourage such open-data provision, but the contribution is voluntary and modest, so owners help at the margin.
How this was scoredHelpful
Helpful. Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
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
No shareholder advocacy found yet
We looked and found nothing that met our standard, which is a source we opened and confirmed. No shareholder proposal, investor letter or engagement was located asking any company to fund marine research, transfer marine technology or build research capacity in developing states. Global Fishing Watch, Schmidt Ocean Institute and Oceana operate as non-profits and philanthropic funders rather than through share ownership, and the Google role in Global Fishing Watch is a voluntary corporate partnership with no documented shareholder campaign behind it.
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 UN Sustainable Development Goals's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.