Here are some words from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to reflect upon on this “day after” the violence in Arizona:

“When evil men (and women) plot,

good men (and women) plan.

When evil men (and women) burn and bomb,

good men (and women) must build and bind.

When evil men (and women) shout ugly words of hatred,

            good men (and women) commit themselves to the glories of love.

Where evil men (and women) would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo,

            good men (and women) MUST seek to bring into being a real order of Justice.”

 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING

Let’s all hope that the coming days will renew our collective efforts to PLAN, BUILD and recommit ourselves to seeking “a REAL ORDER OF JUSTICE.”

Peace,

Bob Edgar

President of Common Cause

www.CommonCause.org

* IPS correspondent.

Toyota’s announcement followed three years of dialogue with a coalition of investors, including, Trillium Asset Management Corporation (“Trillium”), Domini Social Investments (“Domini”), Boston Common Asset Management and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.

In December 2006, research by Domini Social Investments uncovered an equity partnership between Toyota Tsusho and the Burmese military regime. Investors delivered a letter shortly thereafter to Toyota Motor’s Chairman, Fujio Cho, raising concerns about the company’s business ties to the repressive regime. Toyota Motor responded by confirming it had asked Toyota Tsusho to reconsider its business activities out of concern for the current environment in Burma.

In an August 12, 2010 letter to the investors, Group Vice President James Wiseman of Toyota Motor North America wrote “[W]e are pleased to report to you that as of June 2010, TTC had sold all of its shares in its Myanmar Suzuki joint venture… TTC is now fully divested from its joint venture operations in Burma.”

Holding over 20 percent of Toyota Tsusho’s shares, Toyota Motor is Toyota Tsusho’s largest shareholder. Toyota Tsusho partnered with the Burmese government to sell motorcycles, light trucks and cars. The Burmese government, which stands accused of systematic violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, tightly restricts the domestic market for these vehicles to its wealthiest citizens and those with military connections. Burma ranks among the poorest countries in the world, with the majority of the Burmese population living in poverty.

“We commend Toyota and the role it played in persuading its affiliate to reconsider its ties to the Burmese military rulers. As long as human suffering persists in Burma at the hands of the junta, companies cannot ignore their responsibility to insure their or their affiliate operations do not aid the regime’s offenses,” commented Susan Baker, a research analyst at Trillium who studies the impact of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors upon investment performance. “Any link to building vehicles to aid the military government’s misrule and brutal suppression of its own people raises moral and reputational issues that present risks to the long term value of the Toyota brand,” she continued.

“Toyota Motor has taken an important step to acknowledge and address human rights concerns within its sphere of influence,” said Shin Furuya, Lead Research Analyst, Global, for Domini. Although Toyota Tsusho has ended its only known direct joint venture with the Burmese government, it continues involvement in other operations in Burma including agricultural and apparel production, which could have significant human rights impacts.

“Toyota Motor and its group needs to continue to address these concerns whether the particular operations have direct business ties with the military regime or not. All companies operating in Burma need to review their relationships with their trading partners and carefully consider whether their company’s operations could directly or indirectly contribute to human rights violations,” he continued. Domini has consistently excluded Toyota Motor from its mutual fund portfolios, partially due to its involvement in Burma.

“The corporate responsibility to respect human rights is becoming the international norm,” commented Rev. David M. Schilling, director of human rights, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. “The UN Human Rights Council adopted recommendations of the UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights in June 2008, including the commitment that companies need to demonstrate respect for human rights, not just adopt statements. Toyota’s action to influence its affiliate to divest from Myanmar Suzuki Motor is a good example of its human rights commitment.”

Toyota’s formal acknowledgement of divestment came a day before the Burmese government announced its first elections in 20 years. News of the election drew widespread criticism as it imposes many restrictions, including barring Aung San Suu Kyi, imprisoned leader of the National League for Democracy and winner of the 1990 elections, from participating.  The investor group will continue to encourage Toyota Motor to address these issues and to develop human rights risk and impact assessment tools, particularly in countries considered to have substantial human rights risks such as Burma and Sudan.

Trillium Asset Management Corporation is a Boston-based, independent investment management firm devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing.

Domini Social Investments is a New York City-based investment firm specializing exclusively in socially responsible investing. Domini manages funds for individual and institutional investors who wish to integrate social and environmental standards into their investment decisions.

Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) has been a leader of the corporate social responsibility movement for nearly 40 years. ICCR’s membership is an association of 275 faith-based institutional investors, including national denominations, religious communities, pension funds, foundations, hospital corporations, economic development funds, asset management companies, colleges, and unions. Each year ICCR-member religious institutional investors sponsor over 200 shareholder resolutions on major social and environmental issues.

The Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday approved changes that make it easier for shareholders to nominate directors of public companies.

The 3-2 vote allows groups that own at least 3 percent of a company’s stock to put their nominees for board seats on the annual proxy ballot sent to all shareholders. The new financial overhaul law enacted last month formally gave the SEC the authority to make the change.

Under the current system, investors must appeal to shareholders at their own expense if they seek new directors on a company’s board or a bylaw change.

The new policy was long sought by investor advocates. But business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a group representing CEOs of large corporations, oppose it. The panel’s two Republican commissioners voted no. One of them warned that it would likely be overturned by a court.

The change comes as investors are angry about risks corporations are taking for short-term profit gains and extravagant compensation packages for executives. Getting candidates on the board gives supporters a better shot at influencing company policy. For a majority of public U.S. companies, the policy change will be in place in time for next spring’s corporate elections season. But it will be put off for three years for the roughly 5,000 companies deemed small, with $75 million or less in market value, of the total 10,000 to 12,000 public companies.

SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro has said the vote was one of the most contentious issues ever addressed by the agency. The change is “a matter of fairness and accountability,” she said at Wednesday’s meeting.

But Commissioner Kathleen Casey called it “so fundamentally and fatally flawed that it will have great difficulty surviving judicial scrutiny.” The new rules favor big institutional shareholders over individuals, she said.

Casey and Commissioner Troy Paredes, the two Republicans on the panel, maintained the rules will trample states’ rights. States are allowed to establish their own procedures for companies based within their borders for conducting shareholder elections. That’s an area where court challenges could come in, Casey suggested.

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce official called it “a giant step backwards for average investors” and said the organization plans to fight it. He didn’t say specifically whether the Chamber would mount a legal challenge to the new rules.

Supporters say the change was necessary, especially in light of the risks taken that led to the financial crisis. The new rules are likely to be used “only in egregious cases where boards have ignored shareowners’ concerns,” said Amy Borrus, deputy director of the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents public pension funds. Yet the fact that the tool is there could make directors more responsive, she added.

Under the new rules, the shareholders will need to have held the minimum level of stock for at least three years. In addition, shareholders won’t able to borrow stock to meet the minimum 3 percent level. And they will have to certify in writing that they don’t intend to use the new rules to change control of the company or gain more seats on the board than the one or 25 percent of the board – whichever is greater – permitted in the new regime.

Until now, the SEC hadn’t made a thorough review of the proxy system in 30 years. In that time, there have been numerous changes in technology, shareholder demographics and the structure of share holdings.

“Corporate accountability is important, particularly for the small number of runaway CEOs who can wreck our economy,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who wrote the provision in the financial overhaul law giving the SEC authority to make the change. “This proposal strikes the right balance by specifically empowering those shareholders who take a long-term perspective.”

• Makes the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Investor Advisory Committee (IAC), first established in 2009, a permanent body.  This is a clear “win” for INCR members, since the members must include representatives of “the interests of institutional investors, including the interests of pension funds and registered investment companies.”  The IAC has been useful to INCR as a forum for publicly discussing and advancing climate and other ESG disclosure issues.  While no recommendations on ESG issues have yet come out of the IAC, they are expected within the next year.

• Establishes a new Federal Insurance Office within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.  The duties of this new Office include “monitor[ing] all aspects of the insurance industry, including identifying issues or gaps in the regulation of insurers that could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance industry or the United States financial system.”  These responsibilities could theoretically include assessing the impacts of climate change and the risks it poses to the insurance sector and its financial stability, such as losses due to extreme weather events. INCR members have engaged with insurance companies and state insurance commissioners for years, and federal involvement with this issue could accelerate insurers’ activities to address climate risk.

• Establishes an interagency working group – composed of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Treasury Department, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) – to conduct and complete within six months “a study on the oversight of existing and prospective carbon markets to ensure an efficient, secure, and transparent carbon market, including oversight of spot markets and derivative markets.”

• Establishes an Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee to conduct public meetings (at least twice a year), submit recommendations to the CFTC, and “serve as a vehicle for discussion and communication on matters of concern to exchanges, firms, end users, and regulators regarding energy and environmental markets and their regulation by the Commission.”  The Committee is to be made up of members “who represent a broad spectrum of interests, including hedgers and consumers.”

• Creates a new Office of the Investor Advocate within the SEC, which will, among other things, “identify areas in which investors would benefit from changes in the regulations of the Commission or the rules of self-regulatory organizations” such as stock exchanges.

• Gives the SEC authority to grant shareholders proxy access to nominate directors.  This has the potential to be a significant development affecting the make-up of corporate boards, as it could give large shareholders the opportunity to directly nominate directors (including directors with ESG expertise) on corporate ballots.  The actual requirements for gaining proxy access will be determined by the final version of the SEC’s proxy access rules, expected this month.

• Adds reporting requirements regarding coal and other mine safety, including requiring companies to disclose the total number of violations of mandatory health or safety standards at each coal or other mine they or a subsidiary operate.  This supports INCR members’ efforts to obtain SEC disclosure guidance on material environmental, social and governance risks that affect shareholder value.

• Directs the SEC to issue rules requiring companies that extract oil, natural gas, or minerals and that are required to file annual reports with the SEC to disclose information relating to any payments made “to a foreign government or the Federal Government for the purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.”  This should increase transparency for investors regarding the actual costs and beneficiaries of resource development.

Friends Fiduciary is a member of INCR, which is a project of CERES.

In today’s ruling the Court officially “vacated” the USDA “deregulation” of Monsanto’s biotech sugar beets and prohibited any future planting and sale pending the agency’s compliance with NEPA and all other relevant laws.  USDA has estimated that an EIS may be ready by 2012.

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of plaintiff and co-counsel the Center for Food Safety, stated, “This is a major victory for farmers, consumers and the rule of law.  USDA has once again acted illegally and had its approval of a biotech crop rescinded.  Hopefully the agency will learn that their mandate is to protect farmers, consumers and the environment and not the bottom line of corporations such as Monsanto.”

Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, commented: “Time and again, USDA has ignored the law and abdicated its duty to protect the environment and American agriculture from genetically engineered crops designed to sell toxic chemicals.  Time and again, citizens speaking truth to power have taken USDA to court and won.”

In his order, Judge White noted that USDA’s “errors are not minor or insignificant, and his “concern that Defendants are not taking this process seriously.”  He also pointed out that “despite the fact that the statutes at issue are designed to protect the environment,” USDA and the sugar beet industry focused on the economic consequences to themselves, yet “failed to demonstrate that serious economic harm would be incurred pending a full economic review….”

The Court held in part: …the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to vacate APHIS’s decision to deregulate genetically engineered sugar beets and remands this matter to APHIS.  Based on this vacatur, genetically engineered sugar beets are once again regulated articles pursuant to the Plant Protection Act.  This vacatur applies to all future plantings…

This is the second time a Court has rescinded USDA’s approval of a biotech crop.  The first such crop, Roundup Ready alfalfa, is also illegal to plant, based on the vacating of its deregulation in 2007 pending preparation of an EIS.  Although Monsanto took that case all the way to the Supreme Court and the High Court set aside part of the relief granted, the full prohibition on its planting – based on the same remedy granted here, the vacatur – remains in place.  In the past several years federal courts have also held illegal USDA’s approval of biotech crop field trials, including the testing of biotech grasses in Oregon and the testing of engineered, pharmaceutical-producing crops in Hawai.

Report from the Center for Food Safety

http://nyti.ms/daMm7q

The report, *Assault on America: A Decade of Petroleum Company Disaster, Pollution, and Profit,* provides a sampling of thousands of on- and off-shore disasters of all types, large and small. These examples from each year shed light on how the oil and gas industry has continued to show negligence and experience accidents all over the country. While not exhaustive, the listing offers a cross-section of spills, leaks, fires, explosions, toxic emissions, water pollution, and more that have not occurred in the last decade * the post- Exxon Valdez era, the post- Oil Pollution Act of 1990 era, when the industry claimed to have mended their dangerous ways.

Source: National Wildlife Federation – for the full report: 

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/News-by-Topic/GlobalWarming/2010/~/media/PDFs/Global%20Warming/Reports/Assault-on-America-A-Decade-of-Petroleum-Company-Disaster.ashx

August 4, 2010

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Democratic Task Force and the lone Hispanic Senator, today unveiled the results of his survey on women and minority representation among the senior management of Fortune 500 companies, as well as their use of minority and women-owned businesses in the contracting and procurement process. The survey found that women and minority representation on corporate boards continues to lag far behind the national population percentages. Menendez’s survey was one of the most successful of its kind, garnering input from 219 corporations on the Fortune 500 list and 71 on the Fortune 100 list.

The study found minorities to represent a total of 14.5% of directors on corporate boards and overall have less representation on executive teams than they do on corporate boards. Hispanics are least proportionately represented on boards and fared even worse on executive teams. They comprise 3.28% of board members and 2.90% on executive teams, about one-fifth of the 15% they represent in the U.S. population. Among minority groups, African Americans have the highest representation on boards compared to their population, but saw greatest decline in representation from boards to executive management teams, from 8.77% to 4.23%. Women on the other hand fared better on executive teams than on corporate boards, with 18.04% and 19.87% of representation respectively, but these figures still represent less than one-half of their proportion of the national population.

Senator Menendez and others also offered concrete recommendations, including the creation of a task force with select corporations, executive search firms, board members, and other experts to help companies move in this direction.

“As Chair of the Senate Democratic Hispanic Task Force, one of my top priorities has always been promoting and expanding diversity at all levels of our economic, political and social sectors, and the basic understanding that has resulted from this survey will help guide us in doing so,” said Senator Menendez. “This report clearly confirms what we had suspected all along – that American corporations need to do better when it comes to having the board rooms on Wall Street reflect the reality on Main Street. We need to change the dynamic and make it commonplace for minorities to be part of the American corporate structure. It is not just about doing what’s right, but it’s a good business decision that will benefit both corporations and the communities they’re tapping into and making investments in. That’s why I’m offering my recommendations and to work one-on-one with companies who want to move those numbers and company executives who want to make a difference in the community.”

“At the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) as an organization that represents more than 200 local Hispanic Chambers across the United States, and speaks for 3 million small and minority-owned businesses throughout the nation, we believe that embracing diversity is not just the right thing to do, but is a smart business decision. To us, diversity is not an abstract concept – we measure success by the qualified Hispanic employees hired, developed, advanced and flourishing with their corporate employers and we applaud Senator Menendez’s leadership in holding corporate America accountable to their commitments to diversity.” Said Javier Palomarez, President & CEO of the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“A diverse workforce is critical to providing the best service to our global clients, supporting our business initiatives and creating a workplace environment that promotes respect and fairness,” said Jose Manuel Souto, Chief Financial Officer for Visa in Latin America.

“Our country is very rich in diversity, and our economic progress resides largely in our ability to harness that diversity. In our industry we experience first hand the enormous amount of untapped investment talent, thirsty for opportunities to prove to institutional investors its ability to compete and deliver. We commend Sen. Menendez for his vision and leadership, and invite corporate America to see these efforts as an opportunity to find new competitive advantages. By exploring the utilization of fresh and capable diverse talent Corporate America wins and our country’s economic progress accelerates.” Said Monika Mantilla, President & CEO of Altura Capital, and New America Alliance Board Member.

“Ethnic diversity on public company boards is ultimately good business. When 40% or more of your customers in America are going to be minorities, companies, to be competitive, need the insights and expertise of Board members who understand how to market to those segments.  Senator Menendez is to be commended for making this issue one of public discussion and dialogue.” Said Roel Campos, former SEC Commissioner and Board member of the New America Alliance.
This survey is one of the largest studies of women and minority diversity among corporate leadership with one of the highest response rates. A total of 219 Fortune 500 companies participated, including 71 Fortune 100 companies, making this one of the largest surveys on women and minority representation in corporate leadership ever. It requested the following information from corporations: 1) whether or not they have written diversity plans with targets, 2) data on diversity at the Board and executive management level, and 3) information on supplier diversity.

Click here to view a PDF of the survey: http://menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Menendez%20Diversity%20Survey2.pdf

Click here to read a PDF of the findings and recommendations report: http://menendez.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CorporateDiversityReport2.pdf

Most important findings of the survey and recommendations based on this data:

KEY FINDINGS

Diversity on Corporate Boards

-Women represent 18.04% of Directors; 1 out of every 5 Board members is female. The proportional representation of women on Boards is less than one-half of their proportion to the overall U.S. population. 

-Minorities represent 14.45% of Directors; 1 out of every 7 Board members is a minority.  Minorities represent less than half of the 35% of the population they comprise overall in this country.

-Blacks/African Americans have the highest representation at 8.77% compared to their population, reporting a Board ratio of about 69%. 

-Hispanics have one of the poorest representations on Boards.  They comprise about 3.28% of Board members, one-fifth of the 15% they represent in the U.S. population.
Native Americans made up about .04% of Board members, approximately 5% of their actual population.
Diversity on Executive Teams (CEO and direct reports)

-Women represent 19.87 percent of Directors; 1 out of every 5 Board members is female. Although women fared slightly better on executive teams than on corporate Boards, they still represent less than one-half of their population. 

-Minorities overall have less representation on executive teams than they do on corporate Boards, representing 10.44% of executive managers, compared to 30% of their actual proportion to the U.S. population.

-Blacks/African Americans saw the greatest decline in representation from Boards to executive management teams, 8.77% to 4.23%.  In fact, they went from about one out of every 11 Board members to one out of every 24 executive team members.  When compared to population statistics, Blacks/African Americans on executive boards represented only about one-third of their U.S. population.

-Hispanics/Latinos fare worse on executive teams versus corporate Boards at 2.90%, Asians and Native Americans do slightly better at 2.55% and .25% respectively. 
Supplier Diversity

Only 98 corporations (less than half of respondents) provided some form of data on supplier diversity, whether it was by racial/ethnic category or just overall procurement with Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs).  118 corporations either chose not to answer the question or said they do not track this data at all.

Of the data collected:

•    Hispanic/Latino-owned firms represent 2.69% of total procurement. 
•    Black/African American-owned firms represent 2.58% of total procurement.
•    Asian-owned firms represent 3.21% of total procurement. 
•    Native American-owned firms represent 0.83% of total procurement.
•    Other minority-owned firms represent 3.31% of total procurement

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are recommendations that corporations can implement today if they are serious about improving diversity at the top:

-Develop Relationships with Expert Organizations Outside of Traditional Networks.  Nominating committees should never use the excuse that they cannot find a qualified minority or a woman to nominate to their Board.  This was actually a common response over the course of this survey.  There are numerous organizations that may be outside of the traditional network but have extensive contacts, resources and expertise in different communities and know who the right people are.  Those organizations should be engaged to the fullest extent.

-Do Not Recruit Solely at the Ivy League Schools. Expanding recruitment from Ivy League schools to other top schools can be another way to get qualified diverse candidates into the corporate pipeline. Also, developing relationships with professional organizations that can help identify qualified people through their memberships.

-Utilize Executive Search Firms with Expertise in Diverse Communities or Require Them to Seriously Consider Diversity.  The survey showed that a discussion of diversity when using executive search firms did not necessarily correlate with improved diversity. Therefore, steps should be taken beyond just a simple discussion.  All search firms should be obligated to look for and provide companies with diverse, qualified candidates rather than simply pulling from traditional pools of candidates.  For example, diverse candidates who have experience running large non-profits or government agencies should not be ruled out, especially if their issue expertise aligns with the company mission. A search firm should be able to provide detailed information on what they are doing proactively to recruit diverse candidates.  In addition, search firms that have unique expertise with diverse communities should be recruited to help identify candidates for Board and executive management positions.  Insight into diverse communities can create a lot of business for a search firm that is effective in a niche space.

-Interview at Least One Diverse Candidate When Filling Board or Leadership Positions.  Similar to the National Football League’s self-imposed “Rooney Rule,” where at least one minority candidate is interviewed for head coaching and senior football operations opportunities, nominating committees, CEOs and Human Resources personnel should aim to interview at least one minority candidate when looking to fill leadership positions.  These interviews should be done in a serious and meaningful manner, not simply to check a box.

-Link Success with Diversity to Bonuses. Corporations should link diversity among each business department to the bonuses and annual performance reviews of business leaders.  The survey found that corporations that do this tend to have better diversity among their workforce and among the top leadership.  

-Hire Chief Diversity Officers from Diverse Communities.  It is crucial that diversity chiefs at a company come from the communities they are recruiting from and working with.  These individuals are more likely to have ties to the communities they represent and can use those relationships to recruit diverse candidates for positions at all levels.

-Hold More than Human Resources and Chief Diversity Officer Accountable for Diversity. Diversity should be a goal in every aspect of a company’s operations not only in the areas of procurement, Board and senior management levels, but also in a company’s treasury office where financial oversight lies.  Diversity should be considered among brokerage fees that extend to professional services like legal fees, mergers and acquisitions, pension fund management, and other services.  Many times the budget for these types of services significantly exceeds that for suppliers.  These areas should be part of a corporation’s diversity plan. While this particular survey did not ask questions related to brokerage fees and professional services, the next one will.

-Create External Advisory Councils to Assist with Diversity.  Forming an external advisory council to focus on diversity is a good step to developing relationships within specific communities and identifying potential candidates for positions.  These Councils should not be formed only when there is a crisis.  There should be a separate council for each diverse group, i.e. women, Asians, etc, and each should report to the CEO.  These councils should be composed of outside community leaders that do work and have extensive networks with these communities. 

-Be Clear on the Difference Between U.S. Employees and Foreign Employees When Filling Directorships and Other Leadership Positions. Although this survey did not ask corporations to differentiate between U.S. and foreign employees, future surveys will.  Foreign Nationals should be considered separately from the levels of diversity for U.S. employees.

-Groom Senior Employees for Top Positions.  It is critical that corporations implement meaningful succession planning, whether in the form of a mentoring program or other similar mechanism, for senior employees of a company who can be groomed for top leadership positions in the future.  Such a program should require a significant time investment from the CEO and his or her leadership team.  These programs help identify people who not only could be future leaders of the company, but could be tapped for Director positions on other corporate Boards.

-Track Supplier Diversity So It Becomes a Priority. The lack of data shared regarding diverse suppliers, specifically in terms of a breakdown by ethnic/racial category, proves that this is an area that needs work.  According to the latest census figures, there are more than 7.8 million women-owned businesses and 5.8 million minority-owned businesses.  It is important to make an effort to procure with diverse suppliers and track this progress over time. If a corporation does not know where it stands, it cannot take action to improve.

-Philanthropy is Good, but Not Enough. This survey showed two things, among others: that there is much philanthropy, but less diversity.  Although philanthropy is good and should be part of a corporation’s diversity plan, philanthropy alone is simply not enough. Diversity at all levels should be made a priority not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is a good business decision.

-Opportunities for Board Diversity When Companies Go Public.  Some companies have been bought by private equity firms that will take them public very soon.  In the process, companies will have to rename an entirely new Board of Directors.  This provides a prime opportunity to seek the most diverse, qualified candidates for Director positions and can have the quickest impact on improving Board diversity.  Corporations that fall into this category will be watched closely over the coming year.

-Do Not Rely Solely on Written Diversity Plans. While corporations with written plans are more likely to have better diversity among their leadership as well as with suppliers, the gains were only slight. Therefore, corporations should not rely solely on written diversity plans, but should also implement more far-reaching changes that can have an even greater impact.  Implementing some of the aforementioned recommendations should provide corporations a good step in the right direction.

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE65N02220100624?sp=true