Why Faith Groups Have Historically Practiced Sustainable and Responsible Investing

Why Faith Groups Have Historically Practiced Sustainable and Responsible Investing

The full statement can be found on ICCR’s website.

Religious organizations steward their organizational finances and the investments managed on behalf of their constituents and beneficiaries in alignment with the beliefs, teachings, and values of their respective faiths. Many religious organizations develop investment guidelines, which include strategies such as screens to exclude industries that they believe cause injury to society, shareholder engagement with portfolio companies to mitigate environmental and social harm, and investing in companies or projects that are making a direct and positive impact.  This practice, known as faith-consistent investing, is one form of what today is commonly referred to as sustainable and responsible investing. Faith-consistent investing is a fundamental right protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees both free speech and religious freedom, and ensures that investors are able to make their investment decisions in accordance with their beliefs.

The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a coalition of over 300 faith and values institutional investors who, for more than 50 years, have been leaders in faith-consistent and sustainable investing. Our genesis as an organization is grounded in the advocacy of multiple faith groups to address the racist apartheid regime in South Africa. Faith-consistent investing leads religious investors to assess how corporate policies and practices may adversely impact the health of people and the planet, which has a direct impact on the long-term performance of their portfolios.

Faith-based investor engagements with portfolio companies, through dialogue and the filing of shareholder proposals, are a natural extension of these beliefs and are central to both our duties as trusted fiduciaries seeking competitive returns and our responsibilities as faithful stewards supporting the fundamental values of our religious traditions. For this reason, we are concerned about any attempts by legislators or policymakers to interfere with investors’ fundamental freedom to make investment choices and/or engage with portfolio companies in alignment with their investment philosophies and institutional values. This includes letters received from the House Judiciary Committee in 2024 by several of ICCR’s faith-based members requesting informational disclosures under the pretense of exploring violations of antitrust laws.

While each faith institution has its own set of priority issues that it addresses through its respective ministries and advocacy work, there are many issues where faith investors’ interests converge. Actions to mitigate the climate crisis ravaging our planet, to uphold human rights, including the fair treatment of workers, and to ensure equitable and affordable access to healthcare are just a few examples of priority issues of common concern among many faiths.  The 2016 Edinburgh Finance Declaration is one example of the world’s leading faiths articulating their shared values. We believe that companies that adopt forward-looking policies and practices to mitigate environmental and social risks are well-positioned for long-term financial success and value creation. Conversely, companies that ignore these risks may endanger the performance of the capital we are called to steward, and impose enduring external costs on society, the economy, and the planet that sustains us. Over the past 50+ years, ICCR member engagements with corporations on these issues have resulted in improved conditions for various stakeholders, including workers, customers, communities, and shareholders. For instance, most of the world’s faiths emphasize stewardship of the planet, care for creation, and moral responsibility toward the environment, which makes them deeply concerned about the climate crisis. Faith investors working in climate-vulnerable communities witness firsthand how climate change adversely affects these areas. Without the adoption of meaningful climate mitigation and adaptation measures, extreme poverty and inequality, risks to land, food and water security, forced migration and geopolitical conflict, along with global health risks, will all intensify. Consequently, faith investors often align with other like-minded investors to tackle climate risk and advocate for a reduction of GHG emissions from our portfolio companies. Faith-based investors actively promote worker justice, which includes workplace health and safety protections, the provision of a living wage, and the freedom to associate and engage in collective bargaining. Faith-based investors have advocated for health equity, engaging with the world’s largest healthcare companies to ensure that medicines and healthcare services are affordable and accessible reaching those most in need.

Importantly, while we often cooperate in investor spaces around strategies to spur corporate action, we make independent investment decisions to provide risk-adjusted returns to our individual constituents and beneficiaries in line with our respective faith beliefs. The U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and the First Amendment protects the religious liberty that is foundational to this great nation. This ban against government interference in faith-consistent practices is essential when considering all aspects of the life and work of religious institutions, including their investment decisions.  It preserves their autonomy to invest their organizational assets and the pensions of their millions of beneficiaries in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs.  In recognition of the constitutional limits of entanglement between the federal government and religious institutions, Congress included a Church plan exemption in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

We want to reiterate our belief that companies committed to addressing their impacts on society and the environment are better positioned for financial success over the long term. For this reason and because our faith calls us to do so, we will continue to invest and engage with our portfolio companies to realize that goal.

When Public Sentiment Drives Shareholder Strategy

How headlines, hashtags, and media cycles are reshaping proxy season

Do public opinion and media narratives really influence shareholder proposals? A new study says: yes, and in some cases, that influence is financially material.

Analyzing proposal volumes and public discourse, the authors find that:

• Increased public salience of corporate issues (like AI ethics, reproductive rights, or climate impacts) correlates with a rise in ESG-focused proposals;

• These proposals are more likely to receive broader investor support when they align with media attention and reputational risk;

• And when companies respond constructively, firm value tends to improve.

📉 Sentiment as an Early Warning Signal

For investors, public opinion is often a precursor to regulatory or reputational risk. Think of social movements that preceded litigation, consumer backlash, or regulatory intervention—public scrutiny often arrives before the balance sheet feels the impact.

This study confirms that investor engagement is increasingly attuned to reputational signals and that media awareness serves as a “soft metric” for materiality.

“In today’s democratized information environment, companies can no longer operate behind closed doors, shielded from public scrutiny. Shareholders, armed with public sentiment data, are increasingly willing to hold management accountable. This new reality underscores the importance of transparency and responsiveness in maintaining investor trust and long-term value creation. ”

These insights have significant implications for both corporate leaders and investors. For management, the warning is: ignoring public sentiment can lead to increased shareholder activism and leadership turnover. For investors, our findings highlight the effectiveness of acting with the public’s voice in leading to corporate change.

Refer to the original article here.

Shareholder Voting and Corporate Governance

Why shareholder voting isn’t just symbolic—it’s structural

It’s easy to take shareholder voting rights for granted. But according to David Yermack (2010), voting is not just a procedural ritual—it’s a foundational component of corporate accountability.

Yermack’s comprehensive review of governance literature demonstrates that strong voting rights correlate with better corporate outcomes, including:

• Lower CEO entrenchment,

• Greater board independence,

• More responsive management,

• And ultimately, improved long-term firm performance.

These effects are especially visible in firms where shareholders have actively used proposals or majority voting to reshape governance policies. This article reviews recent research into corporate voting and elections. Regulatory reforms have given shareholders more voting power in the election of directors and in executive compensation issues. Shareholders use voting as a channel of communication with boards of directors, and protest voting can lead to significant changes in corporate governance and strategy. Some investors have embraced innovative empty voting strategies for decoupling voting rights from cash flow rights, enabling them to mount aggressive programs of shareholder activism.

🛠️ Voting Rights as Investor Tools

Proposals to declassify boards, require majority voting for directors, or separate the CEO and chair roles aren’t just governance “theater.” They are functional tools that:

• Enable greater transparency,

• Shift power away from entrenched insiders,

• And reinforce the board’s accountability to long-term owners.

⚠️ A Warning Against Restriction

Yermack cautions that undermining shareholder voting mechanisms—whether by limiting proposal access or weakening vote influence—reduces a key market check on managerial behavior.

As policymakers revisit the rules around 14a-8, Yermack’s work offers a timely reminder: Shareholder voting is governance. Curtailing it risks undercutting the integrity of the capital markets themselves.

📚 Further Reading- Shareholder Voting and Corporate Governance

The Value of Environmental and Social Proposals

Evidence of sustainable value raised in environmental and social proposals

Shareholder proposals frequently address risks due to environmental issues that can be highly costly to companies and their investors when they ultimately materialize in the near- or long- term. Consider that the shareholder value of BP plummeted by 55% after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, from $59.48 per share on April 19, 2010 to $27 per share on June 25, 2010. Climate change-induced changes in severe weather such as drought and flooding, as well as regulatory responses and constraints in various markets worldwide, has been documented to threaten substantial financial risks to the banking, mining, industrials, transportation, agriculture and real estate sectors. Bringing greater transparency to the management of such risks has been the subject of shareholder proposals in these sectors.

Corporations also face risk related to social issues such as disruption of the business or supply chains due to human rights abuses workforce health and safety scandals or failures to protect the online safety of children. The growth in environmental and social shareholder proposals over the last several years also reflects concern that certain issues threaten the economy as a whole and large swathes of investment portfolios.

“Informed investors are often early movers on addressing risks that ultimately prove to be quite material, and even existential, to their investments. As an example, proposals filed by members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility ICCR) against predatory lending in the early 2000s at AIG and other companies.43 At the time, these proposals might have been characterized as merely addressing social risks yet they foreshadowed the banking crisis driven by such predatory practices that proved to be very expensive for AIG and the other companies, and for society in the housing crisis and bank bailouts that followed.”

Shareholder proposals also mirror public sentiment. A recent study of companies in the Russell 3000 Index found that negative public sentiment about a firm on both financial and broad sustainable investing aspects are significantly related to the number of shareholder-sponsored proposals, with the impact of news sources being slightly stronger than social media in affecting the number of shareholder proposals. The study also found a strong association between the number of shareholder proposals on the ballot and director turnover and forced turnover of CEOs at the firm, finding one additional shareholder proposal is associated with a 10.9% increase in director turnover and a 24.8% increase in forced CEO turnover, both to the mean. The study not only found association between these factors; it also was able to demonstrate causal evidence that negative sentiment around corporate practices that are not sustainable leads to increased shareholder dissent.

Governance Proposals

Governance proposals and the role of individual investors

Governance engagements seek to ensure that a well-functioning board can effectively oversee the interests of shareholders. For example, proposals to increase the independence of the audit or risk committee have the potential to reduce accounting fraud risk. Likewise, engagements to increase the holding period of equity-based pay reduce management incentives to manipulate short-term earnings.

Governance shareholder proposals can also increase investors’ ability to engage with companies. It has been shown that it is more costly for investors to engage with companies with entrenched managers.14 The entrenchment of management is principally measured and affected by the corporate governance infrastructure including whether the company has characteristics such as:

• Staggered boards ƒ  

• Limits to shareholder by-law amendments

• Supermajority requirements for mergers ƒ  

• Supermajority requirements for charter amendments ƒ  

• Poison pills ƒ  

• Golden parachutes

Shareholder proposals that improve corporate governance structures on these aspects are frequently part of an overall strategy by investors to provide a better balance of power between investors and a company’s management and board.

Shareholder proposals and the freedom to invest

Investors’ right to file shareholder proposals has contributed to the success of the US capital markets.

Large, publicly traded companies play a dominant role in the U.S. economy: pharmaceutical companies influence the medicines available in our pharmacies and their cost, health insurers influence which treatments will be affordable to patients, and tech companies influence the degree to which consumers are subject to surveillance or privacy in their use of email and social media.

The free market, and the relationship between investors and issuers, is grounded in investors’ rights as company owners to elect directors as well as file shareholder proposals. The job of boards is to oversee the executives who are day-to-day managing the company. The rights to vote upon directors, as well as to present focused issues through shareholder proposals, are part of the bundle of rights investors possess and value as company owners. The unfettered exercise of these rights reinforces the relationship of trust needed for capitalism to thrive.

Shareholder proposals address issues relevant to companies that are neither trivial nor “picayune.” Risks of potential lawsuits against the company, operational disruptions from droughts, floods and fires, and of ethical scandals that shake consumer or investor confidence— these are typical issues in shareholder proposals and raise material concerns for investors. This private ordering process can allow good ideas to proliferate in the market, advancing best practices and reducing the pressure for government regulation or for more confrontational or costly approaches by shareholders, such as voting against the board, or litigation.

Without the right to make proposals, corporate management can more easily ignore the voice of small shareholders, pension funds, and other investors.

The shareholder’s right to place proposals on the proxy, and the freedom to express a collective voice by voting on such proposals, are part of the social and legal compact between investors and companies that maintains the trust needed for capitalism to thrive. This trust has resulted in the US becoming the largest and most envied capital market in the world.

Shareholder proposals are largely non-binding. Non-binding proposals give companies the flexibility to address shareholder concerns without displacing the traditional role of the board of directors to oversee the operations of the company.

Introduction to the Ordinary Business Rule

Ordinary business

A basic principle of SEC Rule 14a-8 is that a proposal should not supplant or attempt to control the day-to-day decision-making of the corporation, referred to as “ordinary business.” The company’s officers are hired to manage the company under the oversight of the board of directors. The board is accountable as an elected representative of the shareholders. As such, the management and board have important day to day discretion in running the company—who to hire, how much to pay them, what kind of products or services the corporation should offer and many other ordinary business matters that it takes to run a business.

While a focus on ordinary business is not appropriate for a shareholder proposal, the courts and the SEC have made a notable exception when shareholder proposals address important policy issues for a company on which it is appropriate for shareholders to weigh in, often referred to as the “social policy” exception. Such proposals are described as transcending ordinary business.

For instance, while the day-to-day lending practices of a bank are ordinary business, when there is evidence that the bank is engaging in predatory policies and practices, shareholders are able to file a proposal asking the company to disclose more about this issue and its current policies. Similarly, policies regarding the amount of compensation paid to employees are generally ordinary business, but proposals coming from shareholders that challenge excessive compensation of the CEO or of directors are appropriate. A pharmaceutical company’s prices for its products are ordinary business, but company policies exploiting a pandemic to exploit vulnerable consumers may be seen to transcend ordinary business. Day to day legal compliance on environmental regulations is ordinary business, but significant pollution incidents or catastrophes that a company may be liable for may be an appropriate topic for a shareholder proposal because it transcends ordinary business.

An important related limitation is for proposals not to micromanage. Even if the topic transcends ordinary business, proponents must not be so granular in their request to the company that they attempt to micromanage the business. The discretion of the board and management is protected in this process. That is why many proposals often ask the board or management to disclose more about their policies and practices, and proposals seeking action are typically advisory rather than a mandatory order.

Luc Renneboog, Peter G. Szilagyi: The Role of Shareholder Proposals in Corporate Governance, July 2010

Luc Renneboog, Peter G. Szilagyi, July 27, 2010

This paper offers evidence on the corporate governance role of shareholder proposals by simultaneously investigating the selection of target firms and the proposal outcomes in terms of voting success, implementation, and stock price effects. Using 2,436 proposals submitted between 1996 and 2005, a sample of 1,961 target and nontarget firms, as well as extensive controls for governance quality, we make several contributions to the literature. First, we find that shareholder proposals tend to be targeted at firms that both underperform and have generally poor governance structures. The results show that regardless of the proposal objectives, submissions are more likely to be made against firms that (i) use antitakeover provisions to entrench management, (ii) have ineffective boards, and (iii) have ill-incentivized CEOs. More detailed analysis reveals that target selection is largely driven by governance concerns irrespective of the sponsor type. Overall, these findings provide very limited basis to the claim that activists such as union pension funds pursue self-serving agendas. . . .

[T]he paper provides clear evidence that the market views shareholder proposals as a relevant device of external control. The stock price effects are most fundamentally driven by the target firm’s prior performance and governance quality. At the same time, they are strongest for proposals that win a majority vote as well as pass, which indicates that the market anticipates voting success reasonably well. Nonetheless, while voting outcomes and implementation rates have improved dramatically over time, the market returns are strongest during stock market peaks when there is a high premium for good governance.

Read full paper

What is a Shareholder Proposal?

Shareholders—as owners of a company—have a legal right to offer proposals to appear on the corporate proxy statement to be voted upon at a company’s annual shareholders meeting. Corporations are required to hold these annual meetings in order for shareholders to vote
on matters related to the corporation such as auditor ratification, election of directors, and executive compensation. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires public companies to file an announcement ahead of the annual meeting including its items of business called the proxy statement.4 SEC Rule 14a-8 allows shareholders to submit statements of up to 500 words (“shareholder proposals”) to be included in the company’s proxy statement.

The proxy statement is therefore the vehicle by which investors are informed of proposals by other investors. SEC Rule 14a-8 defines a shareholder proposal as a specific request from the shareholder - a “recommendation or requirement that the company and/or its board of directors take action, which you intend to present at a meeting of the company’s shareholders.” The SEC states that the proposal “should state as clearly as possible the course of action” that the shareholder believes the company should follow.

“Shareholder proposals are a crucial tool for investors to engage with their companies. Engagement covers a host of strategies investors use to obtain additional information and influence the policies and practices of their portfolio companies on governance and sustainable value creation.”

Some shareholder proposals seek changes in governance infrastructure, for example, requesting that the CEO and the board chair be separate people to increase the independence of the board and its ability to oversee the company on behalf of shareholders. Or they might request a change in voting standards to allow proposals to be passed by a vote of a simple majority rather than a larger voting threshold of supermajority, thus creating a better balance of power between the company and its investors. Other proposals may address environmental or social challenges facing the company—issues that may also be the subject of a wider social or political debate, but which nonetheless have a potential financial impact on the company or the larger economy on which returns depend.

For example, a proposal may request the disclosure of the company’s assessment of its operations, policies and practices designed to mitigate environmental, regulatory or liability risks associated with its mining operations. In another instance, a proposal may request
that a company report as to its timeline and plan for how it expects to transition to meet its stated objective of net zero greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these proposals might be described as “social or political proposals,” but they must nonetheless be relevant to the company’s business according to SEC rules and comply with more than a dozen strict SEC rules for acceptable proposals and filings.

Most shareholder proposals are non-binding. Non-binding proposals give companies the flexibility to address shareholder concerns without displacing the traditional role of the board of directors to oversee the operations of the company.

Climate Shareholder Proposals Show Real Market Value

Climate-focused proposals boost shareholder wealth

For years, critics dismissed climate-focused shareholder proposals as distractions—“political,” “non-financial,” or simply too speculative. But a major 2024 study by Berkman, Jona, Lodge, and Shemesh turns that argument on its head. Published in the Journal of Corporate Finance, the study rigorously analyzed thousands of environmental shareholder proposals (ESPs) filed between 2006 and 2021 across Russell 3000 companies—and found a clear signal: markets reward climate proposals.

📈 Filing Climate Proposals? Markets Notice.

The researchers measured stock price reactions around proxy filing dates and found that climate-related proposals generated significantly positive abnormal returns—stronger than proposals tied to other environmental issues. These returns weren’t just random noise: the researchers used regression discontinuity methods around voting thresholds to isolate causal effects. Their results indicate that:

• Climate proposals were more likely to elicit supportive action from management when markets reacted positively.

• This suggests that boards recognize the economic substance behind these proposals, not just the optics.

🌎 Why This Should Reshape the ESG Debate

The paper undercuts the idea that ESG is separate from financial materiality. Climate risk—in the form of emissions exposure, stranded asset concerns, supply chain volatility, and regulatory pressure—has real and quantifiable value implications. Shareholder proposals targeting these concerns are not niche or ideological; they are market signals of unmanaged risk.

For institutional investors, this research strengthens the argument that voting in favor of well-constructed climate proposals isn’t just a values move—it’s a fiduciary imperative.

📘 Read the study: Berkman et al. (2024), The Value Impact of Environmental Shareholder Proposals

How Retail Investors shaped Corporate Governance

Many corporate governance policies that today are viewed widely as best practice were initially driven by the shareholder proposals of small individual “Main Street” investors—not large institutions—and then expanded to common adoption by markets.

Going back to the 1940’s, a small, dedicated group of individual investors have played a leading role in the filing of governance-related shareholder proposals that received high levels of investor support and drove many reforms covering a range of governance topics. These reforms have enhanced capital markets by strengthening the ability of boards to oversee shareholder interests and by addressing power imbalances between investors and company boards and management, proof that many constructive ideas have come from smaller individual investors.

It has driven many reforms covering a range of governance topics, including eliminating staggered director terms, reducing supermajority voting thresholds, requiring an independent board chair, eliminating dual class voting, requiring shareholder approval of bylaw amendments, requiring majority voting in uncontested director elections, and proxy access for shareholder director candidates. The governance-related proposals of individual investors attracted, on average, 47.8% shareholder support between 2005 and 2018, and accounted for a large portion of the passed proposals, an indication that these proposals were receiving widespread support from larger investors. Many of these issues were also adopted by major investors in their proxy voting guidelines and corporate engagements, by market exchanges, and by companies— compelling evidence that constructive ideas have come from these smaller individual investors.

Some examples of corporate governance policies that today are viewed widely as best practice and that were initially driven by shareholder proposals and then expanded to common adoption by companies and markets, include:

• ƒ  Independent Directors and Board Recruitment: Shareholder proposals have encouraged norms such as independent directors constituting a majority of the board, independent board leadership, transparency of board recruitment and qualifications, and annual elections for all directors. For example, in 2013, shareholders submitted approximately 70 proposals requesting the adoption of a policy requiring that the company’s board chair be an independent director.

• ƒ  Electing Directors by Majority Vote: Shareholder proposals have encouraged electing directors by majority vote, rather than by plurality—a radical idea a decade ago when shareholders pressed for it in proposals, and now the norm at 90% of large-cap U.S. companies.29 In 2011, Apple was one of 58 companies the California Public Employees Retirement System urged to adopt majority rather than plurality voting, which more evenly balances power between the company and its investors.30 The proposal had majority support from shareholders at Apple and many other companies.

• ƒ  “Say-on-pay”vote requirements: Now mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act—say on pay vote requirements originally resulted from shareholder proposals. The Say-on-Pay vote asks investors to vote on the compensation of the top executives of the company—the CEO, the Chief Financial Officer, and at least three other most highly compensated executives (“named executive officers”).

Shareholder Proposals: Bridging Governance and Regulation

How policy-aligned proposals shape ESG credibility and investor confidence

In a rapidly evolving ESG policy landscape, shareholder proposals are no longer just investor opinions—they are tools that anticipate and influence regulatory alignment. A 2025 study by Luca and Clement dives into this shift, analyzing how proposals that reflect emerging regulatory frameworks (like the SEC’s climate disclosure rules or Europe’s CSRD) can enhance a firm’s ESG profile and attract institutional capital.

The researchers reviewed dozens of U.S. and European proposals filed between 2017–2024 and linked them to outcomes such as ESG ratings trajectory, portfolio inclusion by ESG-screened funds, and net changes in institutional shareholding.

📌 The Key Finding: Regulatory Synergy Works

Proposals that mirror emerging policy trends (like requests for Scope 3 emissions disclosure or alignment of lobbying practices with stated climate goals) were:

• More likely to be implemented, especially in companies facing global investor pressure;

• Associated with improvements in third-party ESG credibility scores;

• Positively correlated with increases in long-horizon institutional investment, especially from European funds that screen for regulatory preparedness.

🧠 Why This Strategy Is Working

Boards that engage with these proposals are hedging regulatory risk and building investor trust. Instead of waiting for mandatory compliance, these companies use shareholder proposals as a way to “pre-comply” with known regulatory shifts, creating more agile, resilient governance frameworks.

The research supports what sophisticated investors already practice: well-crafted ESG proposals are strategic, not burdensome. They build credibility with regulators, appeal to allocators, and reduce uncertainty.

For more, access the full publication here.

Shareholder Activism Is Costly—But It Pays Off

New data confirms: shareholder engagement creates long-term value

There’s no denying it—shareholder activism is expensive. Legal fees, data analysis, proxy solicitation, engagement staff—it adds up fast. But a groundbreaking study by Gantchev (2013) used a sequential decision-making model to ask the real question: Is it worth it?

The answer: Yes—especially when targeted at governance reform or capital misallocation.

Gantchev’s study modeled the full lifecycle of activist campaigns, accounting for costs at every stage. He found that successful engagements (those that resulted in changes to capital policy, board structure, or leadership) produced net benefits to shareholders—even after subtracting all expenses.

💡 The Key Takeaway

The most effective campaigns were those that:

• Chose targets wisely — companies with weak governance and clear value gaps;

• Had staying power — persistence across multiple years increased both implementation and performance impact;

• Focused on fundamentals — especially capital return policies, entrenchment, and board effectiveness.

🧨 Why This Matters in 2025

Critics of shareholder proposals argue they are wasteful, confrontational, or harmful to management discretion. But Gantchev’s data suggests the opposite: When activism is data-driven and focused, it’s one of the most value-accretive tools investors have.

That makes recent attempts to raise the resubmission thresholds for proposals all the more concerning. If fewer proposals can be filed or resubmitted, many campaigns would never reach the performance-inflecting stage.

📎 For more: “The Costs of Shareholder Activism”

CalPERS and the Power of Pension Fund Activism

What long-term investors taught Wall Street about board accountability

When most people think of shareholder activism, they picture hedge funds pressuring companies for quick wins. But some of the most influential and enduring corporate governance reforms in the U.S. have been driven not by hedge funds, but by public pension funds—and the gold standard of this strategy is CalPERS.

In a landmark study by Del Guercio and Hawkins (1999), researchers analyzed CalPERS’ campaign strategy targeting underperforming companies with entrenched governance structures. Their findings? Engagements initiated by CalPERS led to statistically significant improvements in both firm performance and governance in the years following proposal filings.

📌 What Made the CalPERS Model Work?

• It focused on long-term economic value, not just market optics.

• Proposals were filed at companies with governance red flags: staggered boards, golden parachutes, poor oversight.

• CalPERS used its public accountability and reputational leverage to demand reforms—like board independence, executive pay realignment, and improved disclosure.

What’s more, many of these proposals never even required a shareholder vote to drive change. The reputational pressure alone often pushed boards to act.

🧭 Why It Still Matters Today

In a world increasingly focused on ESG performance and systemic risk, the CalPERS model offers a blueprint for responsible, credible, and effective shareholder engagement. These campaigns weren’t speculative—they were laser-focused on fixing structural weaknesses that posed financial and reputational risk.

Pension funds still rely on Rule 14a-8 to elevate concerns at annual meetings. Without that right, the gains of the last 30 years—like improved director accountability and board independence—could easily erode.

🔗 Learn more from the 1999 Landmark Study- The Motivation and Impact of Pension Fund Activism

Investors Overwhelmingly Oppose SEC’s Move to Restrict Shareholder Rights

MEDIA CONTACTS:
Timothy Smith, Boston Trust Walden, TSmith@bostontrustwalden.com, (617) 726-7155

Susana McDermott, Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, smcdermott@iccr.org, (212) 870-2938

Investors Overwhelmingly Oppose SEC’s Move to Restrict Shareholder Rights
Investor comments filed with agency say the SEC’s proposals would harm investors

WASHINGTON, DC (Feb. 5, 2020) – As of Monday’s deadline for public comments on the SEC’s proposed restriction on shareholder rights, a broad group of investors has weighed in strongly against the SEC’s proposal to limit shareholders’ rights to file proposals for shareholders to consider and vote on at annual shareholders meetings.

Commenters opposing the new restrictions on shareholder rights include large investment funds, pension funds, religious institutions, foundations, investment managers, university endowments, individual investors and the SEC’s own Investor Advisory Committee.  These investor letters describe in detail the immense benefits from many important ideas that originated with shareholder proposals that would not have been allowed if the SEC’s new restrictions had been in effect.

Many of these investors also criticized the SEC’s companion proposal to require independent proxy advisors to clear their advice with the subject companies before providing it to their investor clients. These investors lamented that corporate involvement in proxy advice will jeopardize the independence and reliability of a critical resource for investors to hold management accountable for delivering long-term shareholder value.

“Investors’ comments on the SEC proposals staunchly defended their rights to continue to file and vote on shareholder proposals, as well as to continue to obtain independent proxy voting advice,” said Sanford Lewis, Director of the Shareholder Rights Group.  “The current changes, proposed by SEC Chair Jay Clayton and adopted on a 3-2 party-line vote, were not asked for by any investors.  They are the result of an intense, multi-year lobbying campaign funded by corporate trade associations led by the Chamber and the Business Roundtable.”

As of the February 3 deadline, more than 14,000 comment letters have been filed and listed on the SEC’s website on the SEC’s proposed amendments to restrict shareholder proposals, including from more than 31 asset managers, 7 pension funds, 73 faith-based groups, 60 prominent scholars, 9 state or local government officials, 2 unions and several thousand individual investors.  Numerous investor groups also filed letters opposing the SEC proposals, including:

●      the Council of Institutional Investors (a nonprofit, nonpartisan association of U.S. public, corporate and union employee benefit funds, other employee benefit plans, state and local entities charged with investing public assets, and foundations and endowments with combined assets under management of approximately $4 trillion),

●      US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (with members comprised of investment management and advisory firms, mutual fund companies, asset owners, research firms, financial planners, advisors and broker-dealers, represent more than $3 trillion in assets under management or advisement),

●      the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (a coalition of more than 300 faith-based institutional investors collectively representing more than $500 billion in invested capital),

●      the U.N. Principles of Responsible Investing (an international network of 2,800 investor signatories that manage more than $90 trillion in assets, including more than 500 U.S. signatories managing more than $45 trillion in assets),

●      the Shareholder Rights Group (an association of investors formed in 2016 to strengthen and support shareowners’ rights to engage with public companies on governance and long-term value creation).

Comments were also filed by several civil society groups, including Public Citizen, Green America, Oxfam and the Thirty Percent Coalition.  More than 500 individual investors filed their own comment letters, and 13,000 additional individuals weighed in through petitions organized by As You Sow, Public Citizen and the Friends of the Earth.

Tim Smith of Boston Trust Walden, a member of the Shareholder Rights Group, stated, “We have seen an outpouring of investor opposition to these new restrictive rules coming from a significant cross-section of investors.  The SEC’s role is to be the investor’s advocate, protecting investor interests.  The message from these comments is clear that the SEC should put aside these two proposals that reflect a disturbing anti-investor bias.”

Since the 1940s, shareholder proposals have been a critical tool for investors to raise issues of concern at annual shareholders meetings and hold corporate CEOs and boards accountable to their owners.  Proposals allow shareholders to speak to, inform and test the waters on an issue with their fellow shareholders.  Over the last 50-plus years, shareholder resolutions have spurred numerous changes in corporate governance, policy and disclosure.

The investor comments filed in opposition to the SEC’s proposal reflect deep research, analysis and experience, and reveal serious flaws in the SEC’s analysis and economic justification.

The Shareholder Rights Group (SRG) is distributing this information on behalf of its members as well as numerous other investment organizations affected by the rulemaking proposals. 

Read excerpts from comments.

For more information visit www.investorrightsforum.com.

S&P Global Market Intelligence: SEC proposed rule would have blocked 614 ESG resolutions since 2010, data shows

Author: Esther Whieldon

Since 2010 more than 600 environmental, social and governance-related resolutions likely would have never advanced under a newly proposed rule by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to data the Sustainable Investments Institute shared with S&P Global Market Intelligence.

The SEC in November 2019 proposed to increase the amount of support a shareholder resolution required to be reconsidered in the years following an initial vote. Rather than resolutions needing at least 3% support the first year, 6% the second year, and 10% the third and subsequent years after an initial vote to be reconsidered, the SEC would raise those thresholds to 5%, 15% and 25%, respectively. The agency estimated the changes would cut the number of shareholder proposals by 7%.

While the rule has yet to be finalized, the Sustainable Investments Institute, or Si2, compiled a database of ESG resolutions voted on from the beginning of 2010 through Nov. 18, 2019. Si2 found that 614 ESG-related resolutions, or about 30%, of the 2,019 proposals voted on at company annual meetings over that period would not have been eligible for resubmission. That total is almost three times the number of resolutions — 206 resolutions — that could have failed existing threshold requirements over that time, according to Market Intelligence's analysis of the data.

Of the 614 potentially impacted resolutions, political activity, climate change and human rights issues would have taken the biggest hit.

Companies are coming under increased pressure from investors to disclose how ESG risks could impact their bottom line, and they are addressing those risks and opportunities. But groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable have pushed for reforms to the shareholder resolution process.

….

Read full article

Shareholder Rights Group: At Boeing, Wells Fargo, Chevron - SEC Rulemaking Proposals Would Have Blocked Investor Engagement on Critical Issues

Immediate Release
January 7, 2019

The Shareholder Rights Group (SRG), a coalition of investors who exercise their right to file shareholder proposals, has written to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in opposition to proposed rule changes that would effectively undermine the ability of shareholders to continuously promote increased corporate responsibility and improved corporate governance.  [Link to letter] 

Currently, shareholders that own at least $2,000 in stock for one year have the right to engage an investee company on an issue of concern through procedures set forth in the SEC’s Rule 14a-8. In late 2019, the SEC proposed dramatic changes to the Rule, undermining shareholders’ rights to hold companies accountable for risk mitigation and crisis management. In addition to making it harder to file proposals by requiring larger or longer-term holdings, the rulemaking proposal would make it more difficult for shareholders to submit a proposal to a second or third vote by imposing steep voting thresholds – 25% support by the third year, and disallowing a proposal if it suffered a loss of momentum after that. The SRG letter notes that “[i]n practice sometimes 10% or 20% of investors represent the leading edge of an issue - the prescient minority, and therefore it is not wise for the management to discount the topic they are surfacing.” 

The SRG’s letter highlights three case studies in which shareholders preemptively sought disclosure or oversight of certain issues that have proven to be significant concerns for those companies. Specifically, the SRG’s letter explains how the proposed rule changes, if they had been in effect at the time of shareholder engagement, would have interfered with investors’ ability to directly respond to recent corporate responsibility crises and controversial operations at Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Chevron. 

Boeing: Prior to the two crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max airliners in 2018 and 2019, shareholders had encouraged better disclosure of Boeing’s notoriously aggressive lobbying policies, expenditures, and internal controls. Under the SEC’s proposed rulemaking on resubmissions, shareholder proposals on lobbying would have been barred beginning in 2017 – shortly before the 737 Max crashes. Yet, after the 737 Max crashes, shareholders supported lobbying disclosure with 32.6% of the vote in 2019. Had the proposed resubmission thresholds already been in place, shareholders would have been denied an opportunity to address this matter with the company in the wake of these catastrophic events.

Wells Fargo: Wells Fargo has suffered and continues to suffer a prolonged crisis of public, government, and consumer trust, having paid over $17.2 billion in penalties since 2000. The establishment of 3.5 million fictitious or unauthorized accounts, and improper practices in which 800,000 people were forced to take redundant auto insurance from 2012 to 2017, have punctuated an era of predatory practices. Had the SEC’s proposed resubmission thresholds been in place, shareholder proposals concerned about the ethical and business risks of predatory lending would have been excludable from 2013 to 2016. Additionally, under the SEC’s proposed threshold changes, shareholder proposals seeking an independent board chair would not have been permitted from 2013 to 2016 – a change that the company quickly enacted after its 2016 account fraud scandal. The failings of leadership, toxic corporate culture, and misdirected incentives have cost at least $24 billion in market value, despite early prescient shareholder engagement.

Chevron: In the U.S., advancement on corporate climate change mitigation initiatives has been driven to a large degree by shareholder proposals and shareholder engagement. One informative example is the progression of hydraulic fracturing and methane proposals at Chevron. Shareholder engagement from 2011-2015 had led to significant advancement of Chevron’s environmental practices and reporting; during this timeframe, shareholder support ebbed and flowed reaching highs of 40% (inspiring corporate action) and dipping to 26% before rebounding to over 30%. In 2018, approximately 45% of Chevron’s shareholders voted in favor of a shareholder proposal related to fugitive methane reduction, which again inspired a corporate response on the issue. However, had the SEC’s newly-proposed “momentum requirement” been in place, this natural variation of shareholder support would have meant that investors would not have been offered the opportunity to vote on that 2018 proposal that they resoundingly supported. 

Sanford Lewis, Director of the Shareholder Rights Group explains in the letter that “[i]n our assessment, the SEC’s proposed proxy rule changes would disrupt functional working relationships between shareholder proponents, institutional investors, and proxy advisors and companies. The proposed rule changes would make the path of investor engagement steeper and more convoluted, adding unnecessary costs and red tape, and making it more difficult for investors to foster sustainability, risk management, and governance improvements at their companies. It would block the most established and effective path for improving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) disclosure and performance of the market.”

The Shareholder Rights Group urges all concerned investors to write to the SEC in opposition to the proposed rules by the February 3 comment deadline. Additional info on the proposed rule changes, including links to the proposed rules are included at InvestorRightsForum.com

The SEC is accepting comments on the proposed rules until February 3, 2020. Write to:  Vanessa A. Countryman, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090; Email to: rule-comments@sec.gov. Email or hard copy subject line should include reference to the File No. S7-23-19 (shareholder proposals) and File No. S7-22-19 (proxy advisors).