Target 15.c: Global support against poaching
Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Global support against poaching and trafficking is mainly government, aid and NGO work. The Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online demonstrates a corporate role. Its 34 technology and e-commerce companies had removed or blocked more than 3 million trafficked-wildlife listings by March 2020. Alibaba, eBay, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Tencent are among them. They work with WWF, TRAFFIC and IFAW. Owners of these platforms can press for stronger enforcement and for extending such programs to payments and logistics. The community-livelihood component of the target stays with governments and donors. 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. The Coalition to End Wildlife Trafficking Online is a company and NGO partnership convened by WWF, TRAFFIC and IFAW, not an investor initiative. ICCR's resolution search returns nothing on wildlife trafficking. Nature Action 100 is an investor-led biodiversity engagement co-led by Ceres and IIGCC, but its own site does not state that it covers wildlife exploitation, protected species or illegal wildlife trade, so nothing was recorded for it. No Rule 14a-8 proposal, investor letter or proxy voting policy on poaching or wildlife trafficking met the sourcing standard.
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.