Target 3.6: Halve road traffic deaths
By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Why shareholder democracy is necessary
Road crashes kill 1.19 million people a year, and the death rate is three times higher in low-income countries. Only 35 countries legislate all key vehicle safety features. The safety specification that automakers choose for vehicles sold in low- and middle-income markets is therefore a necessary corporate input. It sits alongside government road design, enforcement and speed policy. Corporate political influence is documented on the drink-driving side. The American Beverage Institute opposed a 0.05 blood-alcohol limit, and the industry promoted programs of unproven effectiveness. Owners of automakers and alcohol producers can press on both. Infrastructure and enforcement remain public, so owners supply a necessary input and governments must also act.
How this was scoredNecessary
Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
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. Global NCAP and the FIA Foundation press automakers on vehicle safety specifications, but through consumer crash testing and letters to chief executives rather than through share ownership, so they fall outside the definition of shareholder advocacy used here. No 14a-8 proposal, investor coalition engagement or proxy voting policy on road traffic deaths, vehicle safety specification in low- and middle-income markets, or alcohol-related road harm was found that 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.