,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Inst’l investor: it’s imp 2 have a seat @ the table w/ 4-profit prisons 2 drive change
Me: engagement hasn’t led 2 pos developments
Inv: not true; GEO passed a shareholder res on #HumanRights
Me: & days later they denied lawyers access 2 detainees
Inv: oh, we didn’t know that
🤦🏼♀️
Me: engagement hasn’t led 2 pos developments
Inv: not true; GEO passed a shareholder res on #HumanRights
Me: & days later they denied lawyers access 2 detainees
Inv: oh, we didn’t know that
🤦🏼♀️
U can’t insist on engaging w/ these cos if you aren’t even doing this VERY BASIC level of due diligence. The shareholder res @ GEO passed but was strongly opposed by GEO’s board, & their objection 2 a dif shareholder res on family detention meant that res wasn’t even put 2 a vote
So AGAIN, for the people in the back: this whole “engagement over divestment” approach is not an acceptable or realistic strategy with companies whose business model depends on their ability to to cut costs through human rights abuses like forced labor & medical neglect.
2 those who continue 2 frame this as a matter of politics, I have 2 ?: how many DEATHS, class-action lawsuits, contract terminations, & threats to the companies’ financial viability b4 u recognize the myriad of ways in which these cos are unsustainable & unacceptable investments?
