Reality Check: SEC Proposal to Amend Rules is Harmful and Unnecessary

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on November 5, 2019 proposed rule changes regarding the shareholder proposal process, driven by a well-funded disinformation campaign by the Business Roundtable (BRT), National Association of Manufacturers and U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”). Below we provide a reality check on the myths and materially misleading interpretations and statements being proliferated by those organizations.

Myth: The shareholder proposal process is costly or distracting.

Reality: The shareholder proposal process is one of the least costly ways of alerting companies and their investors to emerging issues and improving governance.

Most shareholder proposals seek to warn a company and its investors about emerging issues relevant to the firm’s long-term sustainability, and/or to improve governance, disclosure, risk management or performance. The evidence strongly supports the market’s conclusion that such actions are value creating, and can provide an early warning of issues that may portend bankruptcy or lost opportunities.

•   A study of climate change disclosures, one of the most common issues raised in shareholder proposals, shows that engagement through the shareholder proposal process improved companies’ disclosure of climate change-related issues, and that such climate change disclosures increased market valuation of those companies.[1] A recent study[2] that looked at 847 engagements with 660 companies around the globe over a decade (2004-2014) found that successful engagements — those that did improve environment, social and governance (ESG) performance — were correlated with higher sales growth without changing profitability. Moreover, a portfolio of firms that were engaged by shareholders outperformed a matched portfolio of companies that were not engaged by 4.7 percent. 

Another study[3] which examined 2,152 ESG engagements at 613 publicly traded firms over a decade (1999-2009), also found that the companies that were the subjects of these engagements had higher abnormal returns of around 1.8 percent during the year following the engagement, and the successful engagements were associated with higher abnormal returns of 4.4 percent over the following year (and zero for the unsuccessful ones).

•   The Commission’s shareholder proposal rules, including recent staff implementation, have stringent regulatory guardrails to prevent proposals from diverting attention to trivial matters. In particular, the recent emphasis on requiring the topic of a proposal to be relevant and “significant” to a company prevents a trivial proposal from surviving the no-action process.

•   The shareholder proposal process is far less costly than alternative processes for raising similar issues. When shareholders are unable to effectively engage investee companies using proposals, they are required to fall back on other strategies including voting against directors, lawsuits, books and records requests, litigation, and requests for additional regulations.

•   The Business Roundtable has dramatically exaggerated the cost to companies. This includes efforts to exclude proposals, as well as the costs of publication and opposition to a shareholder proposal. Any costs associated with seeking the exclusion of shareholder proposals through the SEC’s no-action process are voluntary expenditures by companies.

•    In the end of the process, most proposals are advisory in nature.  Even if a proposal’s recommendations are supported by a majority of shareholders, the board and management are not legally mandated to take any action in response.

Myth: The shareholder proposal process has run amok.

Reality: The shareholder proposal process is working steadily, within guardrails provided by SEC Rules. It is an effective tool for protecting investor interests, as reflected in rising levels of voting support for environmental, social and governance proposals.

•  The number of proposals or resubmissions has not increased in a manner that justifies a rulemaking. There is no surge in shareholder proposals filed, resubmitted or voted upon. According to Broadridge[4]  the number of shareholder proposals submitted for a vote in 2019 was the lowest in the last five years: from a high of 549 in 2015 to 420 in 2019. The number of environmental and social proposals put to a vote rose slightly from 110 in 2018 to 115 in 2019.

•  The most significant change in recent years is a surge in voting support by investors for both governance and environmental or social issue proposals. The success of the existing shareholder proposal process in providing opportunities for investors to support improved corporate governance and performance on social and environmental factors is a poor justification for a rulemaking to constrain the process.

• The number of proposals filed by so-called “gadflies” – individuals who file multiple proposals on corporate governance – are at a historical low. The proportion of proposals filed by these shareholders has fallen from near 100% in the 1950s when the shareholder proposal rule was first instituted, down to 30% of proposals filed in 2019. The proposals filed by small shareholders catalyze valuable changes that benefit the company and all shareholders. Improved governance systems have been implemented by hundreds of companies and even adopted as SEC rules. Many large asset owners and managers who never file shareholder proposals vote in favor of environmental, social, and governance proposals filed by smaller shareholders.

Myth: Proxy statements are packed with unsupported “zombie” proposals re-filed despite opposition by investors.

Reality: Few proxy statements contain poorly-supported proposals repeated year after year.

The existing rules require that a new shareholder proposal win at least 3% voting support to be reintroduced after it has been voted on. To be reintroduced a second year requires a 6% vote in favor, and after a third year, requires a 10% vote. The BRT and Chamber have advocated a sharp increase in these thresholds -- 6% the first year, 15% the second year, and 30% the third year.

• In practice the BRT proposed thresholds, under consideration by the Commission,  would have barred numerous successful proposals in recent years from the opportunity to win support. Proxy access provides an illustration. A proxy access proposal, (granting investors the right to nominate board directors to appear on the proxy) received 4.4% support the first year it was filed at Netflix (2013), but won a majority vote when refiled two years later (2015). The Board finally enacted proxy access in 2019. The same patterns applied at Cisco and Citigroup, where support jumped significantly from below 6% when the proposal was first filed (2014: 5.4% Cisco, 5.5% Citigroup) and then winning huge a majority of support in a second filing (2015: Cisco 64.7, Citigroup 86.9%). Cisco adopted proxy access in 2016, and Citigroup in 2019.

•  The change in thresholds would undermine the ability of shareholder proposals on emerging issues to gain support over time. From 2011-2018, shareholders re-filed only 74 proposals (out of thousands of proposals) that had garnered less than 6% support at their first presentations at annual meetings. Eight of those 74 proposals, or roughly 10%, earned substantially larger support the second time they were submitted, including several that achieved majority support when submitted a second time. The continuation of a total of 74 proposals during this timeframe in order to allow 10 of them to garner significant support is not inappropriate; it represents a functional marketplace of ideas.

• Many proposals that garnered substantial support upon re-filing would have been excluded if the second and third year thresholds were raised to 15% and 30%. Among governance proposals from 2011 to 2018 this includes: six for an independent board chair (UMB Financial, American Express, AutoNation, Chevron, Wendy's, and KeyCorp), twelve proposals seeking disclosure of political contributions or lobbying payments (Wynn Resorts, Allstate, Republic Services, Nike, FedEx, Express Scripts, Charles Schwab, IBM, Citigroup, Verizon, UnitedHealth Group, and Devon Energy), three proposals urging One Share One Vote (Alphabet, United Parcel Service, and Telephone and Data Systems).  Shareholders who were prepared to support these proposals upon the re-filing would have been denied their rights to do so if re-filing thresholds had been increased, especially if third year resubmission thresholds exceeded twenty percent.[5]

•  The corporate trade associations assert that proxy statements are crowded with “zombie” proposals rejected by shareholders year after year. But in reality, submissions of proposals for a third or fourth time are very rare. From 2011-2018, shareholders resubmitted environmental and social issue proposals only 35 times after receiving votes under 20% for two or more yearsOver this past decade, this affected only 26 companies. Only one third of the proposals that received less than 6% support when submitted the first time were resubmitted a second time. This small number of resubmissions does not justify a rulemaking or change in the resubmission threshold.

•   Poorly performing proposals are already screened out by the current thresholds.  In 2019 shareholders consistently provided less than 3% support to proposals seeking an ideological litmus test for board members at Discovery, Starbucks, Apple, Twitter and Amazon. Shareholders at Exelon similarly rejected a proposal to “burn more coal” with only 1.6 percent support. Investors also rejected a request to report on how Gilead Sciences spent its share of the federal tax cut, a proposal that earned only 2.2%. These proposals would be barred from resubmission.

Myth: The viability and legitimacy of shareholder proposals can only be evaluated according to whether they are supported by a majority of shareholders.

Reality: Productive shareholder engagement enabled by the proposal process allows good ideas to emerge and improve company disclosure and performance.

Minority shareholders filing proposals often introduce new ideas that encourage improvements to governance, risk management, disclosure, and performance at their companies through effective engagement.   According to the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), about one third of ICCR member proposals are withdrawn because they produce effective engagement. Part of that engagement is dependent on the ability of shareholder proponents to persist for a second or third year, if necessary, to continue engaging with board, management and fellow investors.

Myth: Silencing the voice of a significant minority of investors in the shareholder proposal process would pose no harm to companies and their investors.

Reality: The minority voice in company governance often identifies emerging risks and prevents board and management from jeopardizing a company’s future.

Shareholders that in aggregate account for 3% or 6% of voting investors may hold a significant view that proves accurate and prescient in identifying company risks. For example, 5% of Monsanto investors supported a proposal to require the company to assess the looming public health risks of its product glyphosate; within a few years, it appeared that the liabilities associating glyphosate with cancer causation are expected to drive Monsanto’s purchaser, Bayer, into bankruptcy. [6]

 Myth: Raising the filing or resubmission thresholds would constitute “modernization” of the proposal process to reflect current times.

Reality: Current market conditions justify keeping or even lowering current thresholds.

Modern conditions that did not exist when the shareholder proposal rule was initially adopted do not merit raising the filing or resubmission thresholds. In fact, modern market conditions merit lowering the bar for filing and for resubmission.

•  The average holding period for stocks has shrunk. Whereas in the 1950s, investors bought and held for decades, by 2004 average holding period was 6 months. Even passive investors experience significant annual turnover of their portfolios. According to one study, half of the companies in the S&P 500 Index are expected to be replaced over the next decade due to mergers and acquisitions and other changes in the index constituents.[7]

•  Encouragement of diversified portfolios is contrary to higher filing thresholds. The current threshold requires a shareholder to maintain at least $2,000 in shareholdings in order to be able to file proposals. This places the opportunity for filing of shareholder proposals within reach of an individual with average holdings. But, increasing the amount of shares to be held would conflict with the goal of ensuring that Main Street shareholders seeking active engagement also maintain a diversified portfolio by limiting the number of companies in a small shareholder’s portfolio.[8]

 • The growth in multi-class share ownership distorts vote counting. Undoubtedly, if the CEO, board, and other insiders oppose the proposal, they will vote against it. In many cases where companies have multi-class share structures, company insiders represent a majority percent of the vote (while owning far less in economic stake of the company). A shareholder proposal opposed by management at multi-class companies may never have a fair opportunity to reach threshold vote levels. For example, the 2018 shareholder proposal at Alphabet (which has three classes of stock including an insider class with ten votes per share) seeking to “Give Each Share an Equal Vote” garnered 28% of the overall vote after being resubmitted for several years. However, the filer of this proposal estimates that 87% of non-insider votes supported the proposal.

 A Fact Sheet of the  Shareholder Rights Group and  Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility 

[1] Caroline Flammer, Boston University, Michael W. Toffel and Kala Viswanathan, Harvard Business School, Shareholder Activism and Firms’ Voluntary Disclosure of Climate Change Risks, October 2019.

[2] Tamas Barko, Martijn Cremers, Luc Renneboog, “Shareholder Engagement on Environmental, Social and Governance Performance,” European Corporate Governance Institute, September 5, 2018.

[3] Elroy Dimson, Oguzhan Karakas, Xi Li, “Active Ownership,” June 4, 2013.


[5] Brandon Whitehill, Clearing the Bar: Shareholder Proposals and Resubmission Thresholds, CII Research and Education Fund, November 2018.

[6] Sanford Lewis, Shareholder Proposals at Monsanto Were Warning of Troubles Ahead for Bayer's Acquisition,

[7] Scott Anthony, et. al, “2018 Corporate Longevity Forecast: Creative Destruction is Accelerating,” Innosight, February 2018.

[8] Christine Jantz, “Considering the Effect of Filing Thresholds on Main Street Investors”, Sept. 2019.

Heidi Welsh, Sustainable Investments Institute, 2019 Data on ESG Shareholder Proposals.

The number of shareholder resolutions filed by at U.S. companies on the environmental, social and sustainability impacts of corporate activity has grown by 11 percent in the last ten years, increasing from 407 in 2010 to 454 in 2019. At the same time, average support has increased 40 percent, rising from about 18 percent to nearly 26 percent.

Read the full post

Investors to SEC: "Rescind New No-Action Policy"

We recommend that the Division rescind the policy and retain the process that has worked reasonably well for decades. The number of no action requests processed by the Staff has not increased, and thus this change does not seem merited. In the event that the SEC does not rescind the new policy, we offer the following suggestions to reduce the level of uncertainty and conflict resulting from the new approaches….

Read More

Julie Gorte: Linking Investor Engagement with Financial Value, July 2019.

Julie Gorte, Impax Asset Management

Some observers tend to see vote totals on shareholder proposals as binary — either they pass or they don’t. But it is useful to understand the nuances, too. In accounting, a shareholder holding at least 20 percent of a company’s shares has a significant or active interest, and that is something that can influence management decisions. That provides a different lens through which to see the 30 percent average support for shareholder proposals than a simple pass/no pass view. It’s also an indicator that it’s not just a bunch of frustrated political activists interested in these proposals; it’s an indication that a significant proportion of a company’s investors see them as relevant to the company’s financial performance.

Read More

Investor Coalition Fights Opioids Crisis


Screenshot 2019-07-24 08.23.03.jpg

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 full article from CQ

Gender Pay Equity on the Agenda

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.

Sanford Lewis, Shareholder Rights Group: Proxy Voting Outcomes, July 2019

According to data compiled by the Sustainable Investments Institute, 176 resolutions on social and environmental topics came to a vote at US companies in the spring of 2019. Many of these were filed by investors with relatively small stakes consistent with the existing filing thresholds. The proposals received on average of 25.5 % support (about the same as the average of 25.4% for resolutions of this kind in 2018, and 21% in 2017). These numbers demonstrate that proposals of interest to a large portion of a company’s shareholder base can and do originate with smaller individual and institutional investors.

Examples of such resolutions that received majority support include:

  • A human rights reporting proposal filed at private prison operator Geo Group, by the USA West Province of the Society of Jesus, which received 87% support after the company’s board of directors withdrew its opposition.

  • A proposal for disclosure of governance measures implemented related to opioids filed by Domini Impact Equity Fund and others receiving 60% support.

  • Proposals requesting diversity reports filed by Trillium at Newell Brands and Travelers Companies received 56% and 50.9% support, respectively.

The season outcomes also illustrate the continued applicability and viability of the existing resubmission thresholds. Voting outcomes show that there were very few proposals resubmitted when the prior votes were close to the resubmission thresholds and that sometimes the vote outcomes improved markedly. For instance, a resubmitted and refined request to report on the company’s prison labor policy received 28.7% this year at Costco, after a proposal on the same topic garnered only 4.8% of the vote in 2018; a similar proposal at TJX Companies received 38% support, up from 7.75% in 2018. Concerns about prison labor in the supply chain is an emerging issue which was first brought to the investment community’s attention by a few forward-looking investors, but is now of concern to many. Substantially higher resubmission thresholds for first-year or second-year resolutions might have interrupted consideration and flagging of these issue at those companies’ annual meetings.

The average of favorable votes for ESG proposals continues to increase as investors recognize the materiality of ESG issues at their companies. However, where the business case is not effectively demonstrated by the proposal and proponents, shareholders are quite able to reject resubmission via the existing resubmission thresholds. For example, shareholders consistently gave less than 3% support to proposals seeking an ideological litmus test for board members at Discovery, Starbucks, Apple, Twitter and Amazon. Shareholders at Exelon similarly rejected a proposal to “burn more coal” with only 1.6 percent support. Investors also rejected a request to report on how Gilead Sciences spent its share of the federal tax cut, a proposal that earned only 2.2%.

Read full text here.

Kroger agreed to protect 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

US SIF: US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends, October 2018


Since 1995, when the US SIF Foundation first measured the size of the US sustainable and responsible investment universe at $639 billion, these assets have increased more than 18-fold, a compound annual growth rate of 13.6 percent.

Through surveying and research undertaken in 2018, the US SIF Foundation identified:

  • $11.6 trillion in US-domiciled assets at the beginning of 2018 whose managers apply various environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria in their investment analysis and portfolio selection, and

  • $1.8 trillion in US-domiciled assets at the beginning of 2018 held by institutional investors or money managers that filed or co- filed shareholder resolutions on ESG issues at publicly traded companies from 2016 through 2018

After eliminating double counting for assets involved in both strategies, the net total of SRI assets at the beginning of 2018 was $12.0 trillion.

Read the full report here.

Kosmas Papadopoulos, ISS Analytics: ISS Discusses U.S. Proxy Voting Trends from 2000 to 2018: Environmental and Social Issues, February 2019

Kosmas Papadopoulos, Managing Editor, ISS Analytics

Based on our analysis, the most significant change in investors’ voting behavior pertains to environmental and social issues, as these proposals are earning record levels of support in recent years. . . . The main drivers for changes in voting patterns on environmental and social issues are:

  • Increased momentum of UN PRI and other global policy initiatives focusing on ESG integration in finance;

  • Transition of debate on environmental and social issues from a values-based argument to longterm economic value and risk management; and

  • Urgency for action to tackle climate change, which was universally recognized as a significant risk and policy priority through the 2015 Paris Agreement.

As a result of these pressures, the data indicates a number of changes in proponent filings and proxy voting behavior on shareholder proposals:

  • More shareholders voting in support of environmental & social proposals, witnessed by the rapidly growing proportion of shareholder proposals receiving at least 30-percent support; and 

  • Increased willingness of companies and proponents to work together to forge a solution, supported by a record proportion of environmental and social proposals being withdrawn prior to the vote.

Read the full text here.

Pax World Fund: ING— From Sustainability to Business Value, February 2018

ING interviewed 210 finance executives in US-based large-cap and mid-cap companies about the importance of sustainability to corporate strategies. They found that over 80% of firms are embedding sustainable thinking into their business growth plans and that nearly half reported that sustainability concerns actively influence their growth strategies. The firms with the most robust sustainability strategies tend to have had better revenue, borrowing and credit-ratings outcomes. 

Read the full text here.

Beverage Container Recycling Boosted By Shareholder Engagement

As You Sow Beverage Container Recycling.jpg

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.

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

Company Heeds Investors’ Call for Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures

Trillium Asset Management

Trillium Asset Management

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J., April 19, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Cambrex Corporation (NYSE:CBM), a leading manufacturer of small molecule innovator and generic Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs), today announced a commitment to provide its stockholders with additional information regarding its environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices…. Over approximately the next 18 to 24 months, Cambrex will develop additional disclosures relating to our ESG related policies, strategies and performance.  Once available, stockholders will be able to review these disclosures on Cambrex’s website at  In connection with today’s announcement, Trillium Asset Management, LLC informed Cambrex that it has withdrawn its shareholder proposal requesting the production of an ESG report from the agenda for the upcoming 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. 

The Company wrote in its press release: “Cambrex has appreciated Trillium’s perspective on ESG matters and the feedback we received from our investors as part of our shareholder outreach effort.”