FossilFreeUMC

By William Meyers for Fossil Free UMC

Note: After studying Wespath’s recently released 2025 Sustainability Report, Fossil Free UMC coordinating team member William Meyers analyzed it and wrote this critique. The critique compares Wespath’s approach to climate change and climate justice (including human rights) to the approach taken by Fossil Free UMC. Fossil Free UMC appreciates Wespath’s creation and expansion of access to its Social Values Choice funds, its work on affordable housing, and its engagement on climate change with companies whose business models do not require ongoing extraction, processing, and burning of fossil fuels. Still, for some of the reasons mentioned in this article, Fossil Free UMC advocates for the full divestment from fossil fuels throughout the United Methodist Church. See Fossil Free UMC’s Ten Reasons for Wespath to Support Fossil Fuel Divestment.

Wespath in its 2025 Sustainable Investment Report dedicates one section (pp 20-31) to its activities regarding “climate change and biodiversity”. It highlights Wespath engagement with invested fossil fuels companies, encouraging them to reduce their operations emissions of methane, an especially powerful greenhouse gas especially connected to fossil fuels extraction, processing and transport. It says nothing about reducing the production or use of fossil fuels themselves. The report indicates that for this methane reduction purpose Wespath engages with fossil fuels companies through either the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership or the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance programs related to the United Nations. Also, as a member of an independent global investor engagement initiative, it supports corporate and investor activities to reduce nature and biodiversity loss, without reference to fossil fuels companies.    

While methane accounting for up to a third of GHG emissions is indeed an important target for reduction, one wonders about prioritizing it over the abolition of fossil fuels, which are recognized to account for over 80% of all GHG emissions driving the climate crisis. Why spend so much effort to clean up the process emissions of a product–fossil fuels–so much more damaging that climate science and policy leaders are calling for terminating its use as soon as possible? Might it not make more sense to simply disinvest from fossil fuels?  The Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance to which Wespath belongs notes that: “The NZAOA Position on the Oil and Gas Sector underscores the stance that it is necessary to transition away from activities that contribute to climate change, such as the combustion of oil and gas.”  So, why is Wespath involved ln harboring fossil fuels companies under this very program intended to discourage what they do? 

Another section (pp56-63) is dedicated to “Human Rights”. In the introductory section titled “Wespath on leading edge of assessing human rights risks to portfolio”, the Managing Director for Sustainable Investment Strategies notes at the outset that “assessing and mitigating human rights risks is still a nascent field for investors, and states that, “I am proud that Wespath is at the forefront of assessing how human rights risks can adversely affect investment portfolios–and working hard to mitigate the most problematic risks among our investments.” The article notes that, in partnership with others, Wespath has developed “a new way to assess where human rights harms may become financially material.” Investors can either avoid or resolve human rights issues as they see fit. Both options are open. 

Focusing on what is called the saliency-materiality nexus helps investors focus on the most serious human rights risks that could also impact a company’s bottom line. Saliency refers to how severe a human rights issue is, such as the violence involved. Materiality calculates whether that issue could cost the company money or damage its reputation, leading to significant potential risks for shareholders. This tool provides “a practical, human rights-based framework that can focus investors’ efforts on identifying and addressing the most severe social risks in their portfolios.” The description continues, “When a company is close to a serious human rights problem–especially in places with conflict or weak laws–it can face lawsuits, fines or public backlash. That’s where saliency and materiality overlap. This framework helps investors spot these risks early, so they can make better decisions and encourage companies to act responsibly.” 

The report describes various activities with companies in different industries, and even in higher education, exemplifying concern to competently assess and address human rights in the workplace.  It doesn’t delve into the complex sources of actionable human rights definitions, but the issue is critical to establishing authority and credibility that companies can credibly cite and use.

From the standpoint of FUMC interests, the most important focus might be on how human rights are affected by climate change and, especially, fossil fuels driving it. Substantial international attention has been devoted to this issue, and along the way I have provided a variety of documents pertaining to it. The most comprehensively authoritative international statement on the topic, released quite recently, is the report of the U.N. Human Rights Council special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, entitled The Imperative of Defossilizing Our Economies. This should be the foundational standard for any discussion of fossil fuels divestment from a human rights perspective. From that authoritative expert perspective, it is obvious that Wespath should focus its human rights concerns primarily on divesting from fossil fuels. One can easily surmise that is what this chapter should have been about, especially if human rights had logically been considered in connection with the chapter on climate change and biodiversity. Somebody might raise that possibility with Wespath.  

That brings me to my final comments. First, these sections of the report seem in some ways to come from la-la land. In secular life I have since 1992 been deeply and internationally involved in both climate change and human rights, including as they affect each other, involving lots of science, law and other factual stuff. There is just no way I could get the report to line up on even the most basic facts and realities I have experienced and worked with in these fields, Just plain weird. Reading this report reminds me of a recent remark that the UMC engages with climate change from an “isolated bubble” unrelated to the outer “real” world. Efforts in the report to cite involvement with others, including the UN, somehow struck me more as window dressing than as substance. Wespath certainly can have its own views, but it might do better to simply present them as such.

Second, I was struck by the lack of any particularly Christian viewpoint or influence, nothing about what being sustainable really entails in terms of basic values and actions one would associate with the Great Commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself, for instance. I read the long features essay on “The Saliency-Materiality Nexus,” and found it more ethically evasive than helpfully encouraging creative healing of broken people and societies–more about the money than the people or any Christian purpose. Why couldn’t these chapters have dealt more with fossil fuels divestment and the strong human rights reasons for doing so.  

When dealing with climate change, I find more and more courageous neighbor loving in the secular society that I normally work in than in our timid UMC bantering.  For instance, take a look at the new version of the international Charter for Compassion just being released this week (see especially pages 12-13). What if FFUMC, Wespath, or the UMC in general dared do something along that line of thinking? What if we decided that UMC programs, especially when touting a virtue word like “sustainable,” should observe Christian ethics? 

That’s enough for now. I can provide more details regarding these two sections highly pertinent to FFUMC if you are interested. I don’t feel a need to take on the others dedicated solely to investment details. 

Love, Peace, and Justice,

Bill