EC05.03.09
 

4.02c. Serve in response to God’s love to meet human needs, caring for the sick and the aged, advocating dignity and justice for all people, working for peace and reconciliation among the nations, and standing with the poor and the powerless and committing itself to their needs.

4.03g. Lift its voice in concord and work in concert with forces for good, to serve humanity, cooperating with church and other groups participating in activities that promote justice, relieve misery, and reconcile the estranged.

4.03l. Study social issues and trends, work to discover the causes of oppression and injustice, and develop programs of ministry and advocacy to further human dignity, freedom, justice and peace in the world. (ELCA Constitution 2007)

The ELCA constitution affirms advocacy as a way the works to promote justice in both “public” (governmental) and “private” (corporate) sectors of society. It assigns to the program unit for Church in Society (CS) a lead role in this mission of advocacy:

16.12.D06. The program unit for Church in Society shall:
   h. direct and implement this church’s public-policy advocacy to national and international governmental bodies in consultation with other churchwide units, and coordinate its public-policy advocacy to state governmental bodies.
   i. give expression to this church’s concern for corporate social responsibility; both in its internal affairs and its interaction in the broader society.

The ELCA employs various means in its ministry of advocacy. In the public sector, it works through its members with elected and appointed officials to influence policy and legislation in ways that are compatible with the beliefs and values articulated in its confession of faith and in its social statements. In the private sector, the ELCA has developed corporate social responsibility criteria to be considered for the investment or expenditure of ELCA funds. The ELCA dialogues with corporation’s leadership to change corporation policies, and may file shareholder resolutions and cast proxy ballots on stocks held by the churchwide units that are not separately incorporated. In addition, the Church Council may make recommendations to the churchwide units that are separately incorporated concerning the filing of shareholder resolutions and the casting of ballots on stocks held by those units. (ELCA constitution – 14.21.14) The ELCA and its members may also engage in selective purchasing and investing. Boycotts would be the final step in the continuum of private sector advocacy by the ELCA, taken after other steps are exhausted and careful deliberation has been concluded.

Boycotts: A Definition

In general terms, a “boycott” may be defined as:

A collective effort to abstain from the purchase or use of products or services provided by a targeted firm, government, or other agency. The purpose of a boycott is to persuade the targeted entity to cease certain practices judged to be unjust, and/or to perform certain practices deemed to be just.

Lutherans have historically been involved in social movements which used boycotts as a means of witness and reform in a wide range of areas, including the consumption of liquor and tobacco, business establishments open on Sunday, objectionable entertainment, goods produced with child or slave labor, gambling, and racial discrimination.[4] Martin Luther himself called for a boycott of the Fuggers, a merchant banking company. [5]

Although predecessor bodies adopted boycott criteria and considered participation they did not endorse a boycott churchwide. Currently the ELCA engages in selective buying in terms of vendor selection.

Ethical, Procedural, and Pastoral Considerations: Questions To Be Addressed

In order to ensure thorough study and consideration prior to an ELCA commitment to any boycott, certain ethical questions must be addressed:

1. Does the boycott clearly address a significant issue of justice? That is, would the cause the boycott promotes be one that promotes human dignity, protects innocent life, and preserves conditions necessary for decent human existence?
2. Is the need for redress urgent? If the practices at issue are continued, are the human costs likely to be great?
3. Have appropriate prior measures such as negotiations and shareholder resolutions been pursued and proven ineffective? Have these alternatives been given a fair chance to succeed? Is there convincing evidence that the injustices in question cannot be corrected with less disruptive measures?
4. Is failing to address the injustices of the situation likely to result in consequences more undesirable than any injustices that might result from the boycott? Can the boycott be carried out in such a way as to recognize the human dignity of those against whom it is waged?
5. Is a boycott timely? Is it likely to generate broad support in the society?
6. Who organizes the boycott and whom do they represent? Do they have a legitimate right to represent the people they claim to help? Is there assurance that the boycott will be carried on with integrity? 

A second set of questions is more procedural and institutional in its orientation:

7. Does this church have a clear position in its social statements on the issue to be addressed by the boycott?
8. Is there a significant chance of success if an adequate strategy and implementation plan are employed?
9. Have local and regional church leaders in the area that will be most affected by the boycott been consulted?
10. Within this church, is there a willingness and capability to undertake the educational, interpretive, and organizational efforts required to acquaint ELCA members with the issues and rationale, and to organize effective participation?
11. Has a work plan been prepared to show how the boycott will be implemented, monitored, and evaluated?
12. How will the boycott be conducted as part of the strategy for continuing negotiation with the corporation? How does the boycott issue relate to an over-all assessment of the corporation?
13. Have measurable goals been articulated so that the ELCA will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of its boycott strategy and to know when the boycott has succeeded or failed? Have the conditions under which the boycott will be suspended or terminated been clearly stated?

Finally, important pastoral questions must be addressed:

14. Can the boycott be carried out in such a way as to reduce as much as possible the suffering of innocent third parties? Has adequate consideration been given to how such people can be supported pastorally and economically and to the manner in which the church’s support of the boycott can be interpreted to them?
     
15. How will the boycott contribute to the prophetic mission of this church and how is it compatible with its advocacy ministry? Are there approaches which represent a more effective use of the resources available? Will the boycott unduly risk the closing of other appropriate avenues for addressing the issue? Will it distract attention from other more important issues? Will it be conducive to right relationships within and beyond this church?
     
16. Can and will the boycott be carried out in such a way that there are possibilities for reconciliation once the boycott is terminated?

The purpose of posing and addressing these questions in an open fashion, rather than stating flat requirements, which must all be met, is to assure that the difficult issues inherent in a boycott will be confronted, without imposing an unduly rigid requirement. The hope is that, under the particular circumstances, ELCA consideration of any boycott will integrate prophetic and symbolic roles with concerns for instrumental effectiveness and church credibility. There may be circumstances which would lead the church in its prophetic ministry to endorse a boycott even when some of these questions have ambiguous answers.

Procedures for Consideration and Decision

As appropriate, the executive director of the program unit for CS, or the Cabinet of Executives may raise the question of ELCA support for a given boycott. The ELCA Church Council or its executive committee may also refer synod resolutions proposing boycotts to the executive director of the program unit for CS for consideration. The executive director of CS then develops an inter-unit review group to consider the pros and cons, including consideration of each of the questions set forth above. Advice from the Advisory Committee for Corporate Social Responsibility (ACCSR) as well as the program committee for CS will be sought.

The director for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for CS is responsible for conducting or coordinating the necessary research and providing an inter-unit review group and the ACCSR with the information required to consider the above questions and for advising the group regarding implementation.

If the inter-unit review group is convinced that the answers to the above questions merit ELCA endorsement of a boycott, it may recommend such support to the executive director of CS. The executive director may consult the ELCA Cabinet of Executives for preparation of recommendations to the ELCA Church Council.

In the absence of any ELCA position on a specific boycott, designated ELCA representatives to national ecumenical organizations may vote at their individual discretion on the boycott positions of those organizations, without their individual actions implying any corporate position of the ELCA.

Boycott Information

The program unit for CS is responsible for maintaining and providing information regarding various boycotts to units and expressions of the church and to members of the ELCA. Such information could include the social policy of the church on the issue and plans for the conduct of the boycott.

What Does ELCA Boycott Participation Mean?

ELCA endorsement of a boycott can involve a range of possible activities, which could be incorporated in a boycott implementation plan. This plan would address:

• the extent and nature of involvement sought by churchwide offices, synods, congregations, families, and individuals;
• the nature of participation in broader coalition efforts;
• development and dissemination of educational materials; 
• the effect on purchasing practices;
• plans for approaching institutional purchasers outside the church; and
• appropriate communications by organizations and members of the church to the corporation in question.

ELCA endorsement of a boycott commits the churchwide offices to participate in the boycott. It also constitutes a recommendation to synods, congregations, and affiliated institutions that they participate in the boycott as institutions.

Whenever the ELCA supports a boycott, it is essential that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that the conduct of the boycott will be sufficiently accountable to the ELCA and to provide for withdrawal of the endorsement when it becomes advisable. If a coalition board is managing the boycott, accountability might be arranged by designating an official representative of the ELCA to serve on that board and report to the program unit for CS, which will report to the Church Council.