Target 15.6: Fair sharing of benefits from genetic resources
Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Benefit sharing from genetic resources is set by treaty, the Nagoya Protocol and the Cali Fund agreed at CBD COP16. The payers, though, are pharmaceutical, agricultural biotech and cosmetics companies. ISS notes the Cali Fund expects companies benefiting commercially from digital sequence information to contribute 1 percent of profits or 0.1 percent of revenue. ISS also notes that US-based firms are under no obligation because the United States is not a CBD party. Owners of pharmaceutical and biotech shares can press companies to contribute voluntarily, which ISS frames as attractive to biodiversity-minded investors. Governments set the rules, 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 coalition engagement was located asking pharmaceutical, agricultural biotech or cosmetics companies to contribute to the Cali Fund or to adopt access and benefit sharing policies for genetic resources and digital sequence information. The ISS commentary the rationale cites is sell-side analysis rather than a company engagement. WebSearch budget was exhausted before a dedicated Cali Fund search could be run.
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.