I am an investor. I give out microgrants. I podcast (sometimes with EA aligned thinkers). I angel invest. I make theatre.
More on me: thendobetter.com/links
I am an investor. I give out microgrants. I podcast (sometimes with EA aligned thinkers). I angel invest. I make theatre.
More on me: thendobetter.com/links
This is the whole theory of change behind what the UK charity ShareAction do. While they rarely campaign on EA aligned topics (but cf. climate where they do), they have case studies where it can work. Also, depending on the region/company you do not need much capital to propose a vote (although for some areas you do). Check out here: https://shareaction.org/
Or, I also podcast with the CEO here:
and we chat about the shareholder activism campaigns. Sanjay is knowledgable here—but if you want more on the topics or details on fid duty—and it varies somewhat between US and UK interpretations—for instance—feel free to reach out.
As MaxRa suggest MattLevine has been speaking about this idea from time to time * and so I do think mainstream finance is at least some what aware.
I feel sure you are aware, but in case not, Ellen Quigley has written about this alot (Cambridge centre for existential risks). (I didn’t see her work mentioned as I read your paper, but I read it quite quickly).
eg. https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/5fadc442ad40b800113d6637
And to PRI
Also, Thomas O’Neil is working in this area too. I can connect you if interested.
https://www.universalowner.org/our-story
*I blog briefly on this re: climate standards here: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2022/3/27/carbon-standards-notes
Honestly, when I speak to friends in the wider disability community, the horror in which the Peter Singer viewpoint is taken (and I accept that the perception *might* be worse than what Singer is – I think – trying to say about his views on personhood and suffering; I’m not entirely sure) and the perception that Singer is a founding philosophical father to the EA movement means that EA is very much tainted by that. Nathan has picked up on some of this in his comment.
So the empathy point that Nathan makes does overwhelm, and that’s not even before you enter the discussion that medical models of DALY or QALY etc. are rejected by many in the disability community in favour of social models (or more complex. Cf Tom Shakespeare).
I don’t have super good advice here, perhaps to the extent you may not share Singer’s views on disability, you may want to strongly let disability people you talk with know, as from my conversations that viewpoint taints everything.
You may also try and have some disability people chat on podcasts, or take more seriously their views in discussion. For instance, I’ve not seen an EA discussion paper around the social model of disability.
Still, overall better comms would not be harmful at worst neutral, and increasing empathy, same.