Child Online Safety

Social media companies have been linked to numerous child safety problems, including a mental health crisis for young people, age verification failures, cyberbullying, self-harm and child sexual exploitation, and grooming and trafficking. Since 2016, a group of now more than 60 investors from multiple countries has engaged with tech companies concerning child online safety, collaborating with online safety experts, law enforcement, and policy makers such as the Senate Judiciary Committee to prompt tech companies to remove harmful content and implement stronger protections. Shareholder proposals during 2022 and 2023 at Apple, Alphabet, and Meta Platforms (Facebook) played a significant role in this investor engagement to improve child safety online.

---

For information on the resolution, please click here

Artificial Intelligence

Labor strikes in the entertainment industry in 2023 demonstrated that intellectual property infringement by artificial intelligence (AI) can have a material financial impact on a company’s operations. The growing public distrust in the indiscriminate use of AI and increased government regulation were also deemed to pose material financial and reputational risks
to tech and media companies. Shareholder proposals during the 2024 proxy season filed at Netflix and Apple requesting greater clarity on the use of AI and its board oversight, and the ethical principles guiding AI use, received 43% and 37.5% of shareowner votes, respectively, thus indicating widespread investor concern on the issue.

Investors have also focused on the financial and legal risks of ineffective content moderation at large social media platforms as a serious threat to society. With Meta and Alphabet now deploying Generative Artificial Intelligence (gAI) tools, investors were concerned that critical human rights and democratic processes could be further compromised. Proposals filed on managing gAI-related risks received 16.7% of votes from all shares at Meta (53.6% of non-insider votes) and 17.6% support at Alphabet (82.4% of independent investor votes).

---

To understand dual-class voting structures at technology companies in more detail, refer to the Harvard Corporate Governance article.

COVID Vaccines

How shareholder proposals promote corporate accountability

During the COVID pandemic, pharmaceutical companies received tens of billions of US and global public funding to accelerate medical breakthroughs to respond to the pandemic. Amid press reports of “pandemic profiteering”, shareholders called for financial prudence and a commitment to the public good.

Investor members of ICCR were part of a group of 59 investors representing US$2.5 trillion in assets under management who sent letters to 17 pharmaceutical companies strongly urging financial prudence and a commitment to strategies to ensure widespread access to treatments and vaccines for COVID-19, including affordable pricing and the sharing of technology to scale- up manufacturing. The letters urged the companies to show restraint in terms of pricing, tax avoidance, stock option awards, etc., and to demonstrate a willingness to share their intellectual property to ensure the necessary scale-up, manufacturing and mass distribution at prices low enough to ensure equitable access.

“Excessive drug company executive pay packages are a major contributing factor to prescription drug costs. Since the 1990s, shareholders have used shareholder proposals to urge companies such as Warner-Lambert, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene Corporation selling high-priced pharmaceuticals to reduce executive compensation and take other actions to bring prices down to benefit consumers and prevent price gouging.”

---

This Columbia Business Law Review article delves into the issue further.

Subprime Lending

Prior to the banking crisis of 2007-2008, shareholders of banks had attempted to draw attention to the risks of predatory lending through shareholder proposals. Predatory lending in the subprime market was of growing concern to some investors as it became clear that borrowers were unable to repay these loans and were losing their homes. In 2004, shareholders submitted a proposal at American International Group (AIG) requesting that the Board conduct a review to study ways of linking executive compensation to successfully addressing predatory lending practices. Although the proposal only received 2.8% voting support, it is a remarkable example of the prescience of shareholders as to material risks to their companies. In 2007, AIG was the world’s largest insurance company with some $850 billion in assets and 76 million customers worldwide (30 million in the US alone). By September 2008, it was on the brink of collapse. Over the course of the financial crisis, AIG received a total of $182 billion in government bailout funds.

The AIG example underscores the foresight and function of ESG-related shareholder proposals as early warning systems—tools that can identify risks long before they materialize into financial catastrophe. While proposals like the one on predatory lending may receive limited support at the time of filing, they often signal systemic vulnerabilities that, if left unaddressed, can have sweeping consequences for companies, investors, and the broader economy. This case study, among others, demonstrates why shareholder engagement should not be dismissed as mere activism. It is a necessary component of sound corporate governance and long-term risk management. In a financial system where the public’s retirement savings are often tied to the health of the national and global economy, shareholder proposals offer a critical mechanism to protect long-term value and promote corporate accountability.

---

Learn more about the New York Fed’s actions related to AIG during the financial crisis here.

Drug Pricing

Polling has found that nearly 30% of Americans say they haven’t taken their medication as prescribed due to high drug prices and research estimates that more than 1.1 million Medicare patients alone could die over the next decade because they cannot afford to pay for their prescribed medications.

For decades, members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) have pressed drug companies for greater disclosures on pricing structures as a way to promote greater access to medicines, including asking companies to disclose the rates of year-to-year price increases of their top-selling branded prescription drugs and to disclose the rationale and criteria used for these price increases.Excessive drug company executive pay packages are a major contributing factor to prescription drug costs. Since the 1990s, shareholders have used shareholder proposals to urge companies such as Warner-Lambert, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene Corporation selling high-priced pharmaceuticals to reduce executive compensation and take other actions to bring prices down to benefit consumers and prevent excessively high prices. Investors have also expressed concern about pharmaceutical companies’ governance structures and their boards’ ability to proactively mitigate risk related to high drug prices, such as the risks from unsustainable business models that rely on price increases for growth, or strategies to extend patents without any meaningful new science.

Patent practices of pharmaceutical companies are also a corporate tool to artificially maintain high drug prices at the expense of consumers. In 2022, a shareholder proposal filed at Gilead Sciences asked for an evaluation of how the company’s patenting policies that extend exclusive rights and prevent generic competitors impact patient access and cause higher consumer drug prices. The proposal earned 39.6% voting support from investors. Similar proposals were also filed at nine other pharmaceutical companies, including proposals at Bristol Myers Squibb and Amgen that were withdrawn due to productive dialogue, and proposals that were voted on and received significant investor support at Pfizer (30.2% vote FOR) and at AbbVie (29.5% vote FOR).

---

To learn more, refer to ICCR and Mercy Investment Services for detailed coverage of investor engagement with healthcare and pharmaceutical companies.

Toxic Products and Chemicals

Johnson & Johnson knew its baby powder contained asbestos, an undisputed carcinogen, at least as early as the 1970s, yet allegedly misled consumers into believing its talc products, which it sold for more than a century before stopping, were safe. The misconduct led to a class action lawsuit, tens of thousands of individual lawsuits and an investigation by 42 US states and Washington, D.C. into its marketing of baby powder and other talc-based products. Some of the lawsuits included accusations that Johnson & Johnson marketed baby powder to Black and overweight women despite knowing about possible asbestos contamination for decades. While the company stopped the sale of baby powder products in the United States and Canada in 2020, the product was still on the market for many consumers worldwide by 2022, when investors filed a shareholder proposal asking the company to report on the public health risks from continued worldwide sales of its talc products.

As of mid‑2023, Johnson & Johnson had fully transitioned worldwide to its cornstarch-based baby powder, ending talc-based sales in all markets.

Toxic Chemicals in Water

Poly and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFOA and PFAS) are a class of chemicals that has been under scrutiny and has been linked to hormone disruptions, liver and kidney disease, and cancer in addition to other human health harms. In 2023, Mount Sinai researchers concluded that higher blood concentrations of certain PFAS were associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of pregnancy and live births. Other studies have shown that certain PFAS can disrupt reproductive hormones and delay puberty and have been linked with increased risks for polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis.

In 2023, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia filed a proposal at Essential Utilities, requesting that the company report on PFAS levels at all Essential water sources, along with the potential public health and/or environmental impacts of toxic materials in the water it provides to the public. The proponents withdrew the proposal after the company agreed to make public test results for its wells and water systems and to report the results to its one million customers.

---

For more information, refer to the Sustainable Investment Institute’s Investor Briefing on PFAS and other toxic chemicals.

Workplace Health and Safety

Amazon has been in the news concerning its unsafe working conditions, including rates of safety incidents far above those of its competitors, such as Walmart and Costco. State labor regulators have alleged that working at Amazon exposes employees to increased risk of ergonomic injury and musculoskeletal disorders as they awkwardly bend and twist to move goods through the warehouse. According to a December 2024 report of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, at least two internal Amazon studies found a link between how quickly its warehouse workers perform tasks and workplace injuries, but the company rejected many safety recommendations out of concern that the proposed changes might reduce productivity. Shareholder resolutions at Amazon in 2022, 2023, and 2024 focused on this potentially harmful conduct, asking the company to report on worker health and safety and the treatment of its warehouse workers.

Consistent support above 30% over three years shows significant investor concern. Amazon has responded by reinforcing its existing safety narrative, highlighting improvements, opposing external audits, and publicly disputing federal findings. The outcome underscores both the influence and ongoing limitations of shareholder-driven engagement at the company.

---

For NPR’s coverage of the issue, please check here.

Rail Safety

Shareholder engagement on railroad safety has been an important force in pushing rail transport corporations to prioritize long-term risk management and community well-being. Following the financial and human costs of disasters like the East Palestine derailment to the local community and surrounding states, the rail industry was resistant to safety measures, blocking regulations such as two-person crew requirements. In response, in 2024, investors filed shareholder proposals at major rail companies such as CSX and Union Pacific aimed at creating safety-focused board oversight of reforms to prevent derailments, protect workers, and safeguard communities. This underscores the importance of shareholder advocacy to hold companies accountable for ethical behavior, address material financial and reputational risks, and preserve shareholder value.

Investor action has already begun to influence corporate behavior. In 2024, CSX agreed to publish a report on safety practices following shareholder pressure, and Union Pacific faced heightened scrutiny over its board’s oversight of derailment risks. These examples highlight how shareholder proposals can push companies to adopt stronger safety standards, demonstrating the material relevance of investor engagement in protecting both communities and long-term shareholder value.

---

The Washington Post covers the rail industry’s response to the issue of rail safety.

Opioids crisis

According to the CDC, opioids were involved in nearly 75,000 overdose deaths in 2023,77 a crisis that continues to ravage communities across the country. The sale and distribution of opioid medications carries significant legal and reputational risks for companies with long-term and systemic societal and economic impacts.

The Investors for Opioid and Pharmaceutical Accountability (IOPA) was a diverse coalition of global institutional investors with 67 members representing over $4.2T in AUM that was established from 2017-2023 to engage opioid manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies. IOPA members filed more than a hundred shareholder proposals and took on the most important governance reforms within major pharmaceutical companies to better manage societal and enterprise risks. Central to the IOPA’s strategy was to involve the board in opioid risk management by asking independent directors to investigate and report on how the board is assessing and managing legal, financial and reputational risks related to its opioid business. Fourteen of these companies agreed to conduct board-level risk assessments of opioid-related business practices including governance, compliance, compensation, and political lobbying, and to report these findings publicly. Two companies created a board-level committee dedicated to opioid oversight.

---

For further information on corporate engagement with health equity issues, see ICCR’s page.

Investor Coalition Fights Opioids Crisis

By LAURA E. WEISS, CQ

It began as a suggestion from a county health official to leaders of a group of nuns’ money management program. They were addressing climate change, modern-day slavery and immigration — why not the opioid epidemic?

A year and a half later, the mammoth coalition of investors born from that idea wields $2.2 trillion of influence, urging the largest U.S. drug companies to take accountability for playing a role in the opioid crisis. The group, Investors for Opioid Accountability, has cut deals with companies in the business of making or distributing opioid painkillers to review how they oversee sales of the highly addictive drugs and make other corporate governance changes aimed at improving supervision of opioid sales.

“No one is untouched by the opioid crisis in the country — or even globally now as it’s beginning to turn out — but we lead with the investor lens because that is our responsibility and our duty to give an investor voice to it,” says IOA co-leader Meredith Miller. She says the coalition”s 46 members — including state treasurers, public pension funds, faith-based investors and union benefit funds — are hearing from their ministries, citizens or union members about the crisis.

***

IOA’s shareholder proposals include requests for reports on board oversight of risks related to opioid sales, mechanisms for recouping executive pay in the case of misconduct, disclosure of lobbying spending, independent board leadership and other adjustments to oversight mechanisms and how the CEO and other top leaders are paid.

***

IOA has claimed several victories so far. The coalition’s opioid risk report proposal won support from 62 percent of investors in Assertio Therapeutics Inc., which makes opioid painkiller Nucynta. The same proposal neared majority approval at AmerisourceBergen Corp., one of the “big three” U.S. drug wholesalers. IOA says it has a commitment from another large distributor, Cardinal Health Inc., to publish risk reports, recoup executive pay in cases of misconduct and split the roles of CEO and board chair. McKesson, the country’s sixth-largest company, and several manufacturers have also agreed to changes including reviews of how directors oversee opioid sales, avoiding votes on IOA’s proposals.

Read more

Gender Pay Equity

Natasha Lamb
Managing Partner
Arjuna Capital

There are gender pay gaps … and then there are median gender pay gaps. Understanding the difference between the two may determine just how much progress women make in terms of fairer compensation in the next decade.

So first, the definitions:

“Equal pay” gap: What women are paid versus their direct male peers, statistically adjusted for factors such as job, seniority, and geography. Often referred to in the context of “equal pay for equal work.”

“Median pay” gap:  The median pay of women working full time versus men working full time. This is an unadjusted raw measure used by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).  Women in the US, for example, make 80 cents on the dollar versus men on this basis.

Equal pay gaps measure whether women are being paid commensurate with their peers for the work they are doing today. But median pay gaps measure whether or not women are holding as many high-paying jobs as men. Narrowing the median pay gap means putting more women in leadership (and reaping the performance benefits that diversity affords). And that’s where investors come in. Concerned shareholders in major US financial and tech companies want to make sure the pay gap difference is understood—and acted upon.

Consider the case of Citigroup. While it is true that women at Citi are paid 99% of what men are paid on an equal-pay basis when adjusting for job function, level, and geography, the median pay gap at the financial giant paints a very different picture: Women at Citigroup earn just 71% of what the men earn.

What accounts for the difference? Women are dramatically underrepresented in high-paying positions at Citigroup—and nearly all other major corporations. So, when more US companies begin disclosing their median pay gaps, the numbers are going to be shocking. In fact, Citi’s 29% median pay gap could very well end up being at the lower end for large US financial and tech companies.

This kind of disclosure is not going to happen on its own. But investors are intent on making headway, and establishing benchmarks from which to measure company progress. Between 2016 and 2018, shareholder proposals and concurrent dialogues led by my firm, Arjuna Capital, persuaded 22 companies, including Citi, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Amex, Mastercard, Reinsurance Group, and Progressive Insurance to publish their gender pay gaps on an equal-pay basis.

Tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook have been compelled to do the same. And commitments from leading companies often have a domino effect through an industry, putting pressure on more companies to act. The adjusted equal pay gap picture is, in many ways, the easy part of the gender equity story to tell.  But it is only half the story.  Now, shareholders like us want companies to follow Citigroup’s lead and disclose their median gender pay gaps.

Today, Arjuna Capital is announcing an important new phase of our work: a median pay gap shareholder resolution engaging a dozen major US companies across the banking, tech, and retail sectors, including: Adobe, Amazon, Intel, Facebook, Alphabet/Google, Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, AmEx, JPMorgan Chase, and Mastercard.

The 12th company we targeted with the shareholder proposal—Citigroup—opted to respond almost immediately, disclosing its median pay gap data through a blog, and pledging to narrow this wider gap. On Jan. 16, 2019, Citi became the first US company to reveal its global median pay gap.

The result was a bit of rough sledding for Citi. National and financial news outlets zeroed in on the shock factor in the data. Headlines read: “Citigroup Admits It Pays Women 29% Less Than Men;” and “Citgroup’s business is money, but not a lot of it goes to its female employees.” Others got it right with headlines focusing on the significance of Citi’s groundbreaking decision to release median figures: “Citigroup is revealing pay day data most companies won’t share” and, perhaps most bluntly, “Citigroup Bravely Announces It Pays Women Like S—t.”

Citi had the courage to break the mold and disclose median pay numbers, and that bravery will pay off in the long run, not only for the company but for its investors, by improving gender diversity throughout the company. A recent study cited in the Harvard Business Review found that wage transparency, in countries that mandate it, not only narrowed the wage gap but increased the number of women hired and promoted into leadership positions.

Citi also made it clear that it is taking the proactive steps needed to fix the median gender pay gap. Its goal is to increase representation at the assistant vice president through managing director levels, to at least 40% for women globally and 8% for black employees in the US by the end of 2021. (Yes, there is a minority pay gap and a minority median pay gap problem, too.)

Multinational companies, including Citi, that operate in the United Kingdom are now under regulatory mandate to disclose median gender pay gaps. In 2018, peer Bank of America revealed a 41% gap for its UK operations. Citigroup reported a 36% median gap for the UK, but prior to January’s announcement, the company had not published median information for its global operations, including the US.

Revealing the whole story of the gender and racial pay gap is essential to create change. Indeed, what gets measured (and disclosed) gets managed. As it stands, the World Economic Forum estimates the gender pay gap costs the economy $1.2 trillion annually. The 20% median income gap for all women working full time in the United States is a disparity that can equal nearly half a million dollars over a career. And the income gaps for African-American and Latina women are at 60% and 55% respectively. At the current rate, women will not reach pay parity until 2059. This depressing statistic is not only bad for women, it’s bad for the economy, and it’s bad for the companies that can benefit now from women’s leadership and talent.

It remains to be seen how many of the 12 companies targeted by Arjuna Capital will agree to the shareholder resolution in 2019. Our pledge is to continue to work with the companies’ leadership to find common ground on our resolution, and to educate the media and public about the median pay gap. We will applaud all good faith efforts to publish median pay numbers because the most effective shareholder activism is not about shunning; it is about casting light on a problem, calling companies to task, and nudging them through the sometimes difficult process of disclosure and reform.

Citi learned that disclosing its median gender pay gap meant a little PR pain in the near term. But it also established itself as the leading US institution on pay equity, doing the honest and real work to address inequity for women and minorities. Concerned shareholders will continue to press other companies to follow suit, because, unfortunately, there remains glaring inequality in the US workplace. And it is high time to tell the whole story.

Read more

Kroger and Tropical Forests

Kroger Co., the largest grocery chain in the U.S., agreed to develop and implement a no-deforestation policy after Green Century filed a shareholder resolution with the company, urging them to take action. After the announcement, they withdrew the shareholder resolution with the company.

According to the agreement, Kroger will implement a no-deforestation policy in its private label Our Brands products supply chain by 2020. It also will report on the progress it makes toward its goals through reliable third-party questionnaires.

As one of the largest retailers in the world with an extensive supply chain, Kroger’s new commitment is the kind of corporate buy-in needed to preserve the world’s forests

Wells Fargo and Boardroom Ethics

Sister Nora Nash and Father Tom McCaney meeting with Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo, on its webpage states: “As part of its commitment to transparency, Wells Fargo agreed to develop the Business Standards Report following a shareholder proposal from a group of shareholders led by the  Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. To create the report, Wells Fargo worked with more than 175 leaders and team members under the guidance of the Board of Directors and the company’s top-level Operating Committee.”

The Wells Fargo Business Standards Report was the result of several shareholder resolutions and meetings with the CEO and other Executives.  The company supported the proposal when it appeared on the proxy, with a commitment to continued engagement.

The investors, including the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia,  continue to seek transparency and monitor performance in light of the company’s past violations of trust, ethics, human rights, and failures to respect employees and customers. The company continues to reckon with its commitment to bringing about change in its culture, risk management, customer services and corporate citizenship.

New York City Pension Funds Promote Boardroom Accountability

Michael Garland, Assistant Comptroller for Corporate Governance and Responsible Investment in the Office of New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer

With an average retirement benefit of $38,000 per year, it is likely that many of our members only participate in the capital markets through their role as pension fund beneficiaries. Our members are true Main Street investors, as opposed to a group using that name that represents the interests of company managers. We are long-term share owners of approximately 10,000 public companies around the world, including more than 3,000 U.S. companies.

A particularly good example of market change from shareowner proposals relates to “proxy access” — that is, a mechanism to permit shareowners to include their nominees on the company proxy card for a minority of board seats under certain circumstances. In 2014, Comptroller Stringer and the NYC Funds launched the Boardroom Accountability Project, a campaign to implement proxy access on a company-by-company basis in the U.S. market using shareowner proposals.

Today, largely as a result of the Boardroom Accountability Project, approximately 540 U.S. companies, including 70 percent of S&P 500 companies, have enacted proxy access bylaws with terms similar to those in the vacated SEC rule, up from only six companies in 2014 when we launched the project. In July 2015, economic researchers at the SEC released a study that analyzed the public launch of the Boardroom Accountability Project and found a 0.5 percent increase in shareowner value at the first 75 firms that received proxy access shareowner proposals from the NYC Funds. The SEC staff’s findings were consistent with a 2014 CFA Institute study that found that proxy access on a market-wide basis has the potential to raise U.S. market capitalization by as much as 1 percent, or $140 billion.

Midwest Utilities and Climate Change

Seventh Generation Interfaith Coalition for Responsible Investment

Seventh Generation Interfaith (SGI) is a coalition of 40 faith-based and values-driven institutional investors located in the Mid-Western United States. Shareholder proposals have had a major impact on midwestern utility companies. Proposals submitted to the WEC Energy Group and CMS Energy Corporation asked  each to publish an assessment of the long term impacts on the company’s portfolio of public policies and technological advances consistent with limiting global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.   The proposals were withdrawn upon company commitments and subsequent publishing of scenario analyses, and leading to aggressive GHG reduction goals.  (See CMS Energy Climate Assessment Report;  WEC Pathway to a Cleaner Energy Future).  Engagement with Xcel Energy preceded a groundbreaking announcement of the company’s commitment to zero-carbon electricity by 2050 and  publishing of their Carbon Report (Xcel Energy Building a Carbon-free Future). A proposal at MGE Energy, subsequently withdrawn, also led to their announced commitment to net-zero carbon electricity (Wisconsin State Journal, May 14, 2019). 

Read more

Beverage Container Recycling

As You Sow, an investor advocacy organization, began engaging bottled beverage companies 15 years ago to encourage them to improve their bottle/can recycling rates. After dialogue and the filing of proposals for several years, Coca-Cola agreed to recycle 50% of its PET, glass bottles, and aluminum cans by 2015; PepsiCo agreed to an industry recycling goal for 50% of PET, glass bottles and cans by 2018; and Nestle Waters NA agreed to an industry recycling goal of 60% of PET bottles by 2018. If these companies meet their 2018 goals, it will mean about 20 billion bottles and cans avoiding the landfill and instead providing valuable materials to bottling companies for recycled content in new bottles and cans.

Mark Preisinger, Director for Shareowner Affairs, Coca-Cola, told As You Sow: “I do believe [shareholders’ proposals] helped us get to where we are on the recycled content issue. The dialogue that we undertake with shareholders clearly helps advance agendas like this one inside our company.”

Further, what started out as an adversarial dialogue with Nestle Waters developed a couple of years later into a joint effort by As You Sow and Nestle Waters to convince other large brands to take financial responsibility for the collection and recycling of post-consumer bottles. This led to the development of a $100 million Closed Loop Fund by Walmart, along with Coke, Pepsi, Procter & Gamble and several other brands, to help fund improvements to U.S. recycling infrastructure, which will increase materials recycled.

Read more

Linking Executive Compensation to Diversity and Inclusion

Pat Miguel Tomaino, Director of Socially Responsible Investing, Zevin Asset Management

The structure of executive pay often causes companies to cut corners, take unwarranted risks, and ignore pressing environmental and social challenges. Exorbitant and unfocused pay packages created perverse incentives that reduced oversight at Wells Fargo, leading to the bank’s fake accounts controversy. After the Volkswagen diesel emissions scandal and BP’s Gulf of Mexico explosion, experts and advocates have pressed to “claw back” misbegotten CEO paychecks — without much success.

Responsible investors can help shape incentives toward positive outcomes even as we examine the deeper problem in executive compensation. To this end, Zevin Asset Management has urged dozens of companies to link senior executive payouts to social and environmental risk metrics and performance goals. Late last year, Citrix responded to our proposal, agreeing to spell out how diversity and inclusion factors influence annual CEO performance evaluations.

Read More

Bruce Herbert Presents Proposal at Starbucks

The Harrington Investments proposal at Starbucks would embed sustainability in the Company’s corporate governance documents. Bruce Herbert of Investor Voice moved the proposal at the Company’s annual meeting.