Target 16.a: Institutional capacity to prevent violence
Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime
Owners voting their values help. Others must carry most of it.
Why shareholder democracy is helpful
Institutional capacity building is funded and delivered by states and international bodies. One documented corporate channel exists. Technology platforms cooperate with governments and civil society on counter-terrorism through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Founded in 2017 and now spanning over 35 platforms, the forum equips companies with tools to detect terrorist content. Platform conduct on terrorist content is decided by listed companies, so owners can help at the margin, though no shareholder resolution specific to this target is on record.
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 Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism is a company-led body, not an investor initiative. ICCR runs a Digital Rights and AI Accountability program pressing technology companies to adopt human rights due diligence, but the program page does not address terrorist or violent extremist content, so nothing was recorded from it. ICCR search returns zero results for extremist content. A post-Christchurch collaborative investor engagement with social media companies is widely referred to, but neither the NZ Super Fund news page nor its responsible investment page confirmed it, and no other source meeting the standard was reachable. ICCR does document a majority-supported gun safety resolution at American Outdoor Brands, which concerns corporate conduct on violence rather than national institutional capacity, so it was left out.
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.