Corporate Disclosures and Social Responsibility

CNN Money has an interesting article today about Wachovia's ties to slavery. Just this weekend, I actually got into a rather heated discussion with my mother about ING which services a portion of her 457 retirement account. She told me that ING has ties to slavery. I knew it was a relatively new bank, as far as banks go (they were founded in 1991), but her comment made me very curious. Courtesy of my computer, my ten digits and the internet, here is what I found:

1. ING is a Dutch-based company and dates to 1991.
2. ING currently operates in over 50 countries.
3. Its success and rapid expansion is, in part, due to a series of acquisitions.
4. ING purchased Aetna's financial services business, so Aetna could focus on insurance. The sale was completed in 2000. The financial services group then changed their name to ING.
5. Aetna used to write insurance policies on slaves, and recently was a defendant in slavery reparations litigation. (A judge dismissed the case in 2004.) Those interested can read the complaint and other information regarding the case here.
6. In 1995, ING acquired Barings Plc (the holding company of Barings Bank) after it was declared insolvent.
7. John and Francis Baring founded John & Francis Baring Company, later named Barings Brothers & Co. In approximately 1762. In addition to other financial ventures, the bank financed the purchase of slaves.

While I did not investigate all of ING's bank acquisitions, ING has clearly purchased at least two companies or portions thereof with clear and documented cases of profiting from crimes against humanity.

To date, the only mention of slavery on ING's website was in its 2002 meeting minutes (page 17). A board member references a news article in which there were claims submitted against ING. Another board member states that Aetna's name was mentioned, but that ING bought another part of Aetna. Unlike the board member, I don't believe two portions of one company can be separated that easily.

Interestingly enough, ING has a section on their website for "Corporate Responsibility". They acknowledge that: "Corporate responsibility is a fundamental part of ING's strategy: ethical, social and environmental factors play an integral role in our business decisions." But in the "Issues" section, ING does not discuss predecessor companies.

As stated earlier, Wachovia's disclosure was not entirely voluntary. It was required by Chicago's ordinance that requires companies that do business with the city to disclose if they have profited from slavery. I think that ING should follow Wachovia's lead and allow its consumers to make informed decisions.

Going back to my mother whose 457 account is serviced by ING, she said she felt "disempowered" because she had to continue to contribute to a company that had participation in crimes against humanity. Her only other option was to not have a retirement account. Since she is not independently wealthy, well, that's not very realistic.

Here is some information on other companies that profited from the slave trade.

Here is some information on insurance companies and other companies that profited from the Holocaust. ING is on both lists.

Disclosures:
In 2000-2001 and 2002-2004, I also had employer-sponsored health insurance through Aetna. I kept my health insurance because I needed it, although I probably would have switched if the option was available. As many regular readers know, I have had a savings account at ING since 2002. Regular readers will also know that I normally sing their praises. I am not sure what I will do with regard to my account at this time. I have removed their website from the link list on the right.