Procter & Gamble – Political Contributions
RESOLVED
that the shareholders of Procter & Gamble (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:
- Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.
- Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:
- An accounting of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;
- Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and
- The internal guidelines or policies, if any, governing the Company’s political contributions and expenditures.
The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
As long-term shareholders of Procter & Gamble, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.
Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with recent federal ethics legislation. Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.
Procter & Gamble contributed about $673,000 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ’s PoliticalMoneyLine: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)
However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In many cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political contributions, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Pfizer, Aetna and American Electric Power that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.
The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.
Procter & Gamble – Extended Producer Responsibility
WHEREAS
Product packaging is a significant consumer of natural resources and energy, and a major source of waste and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. More than half of U.S. product packaging –37 million tons – is discarded in landfills or burned rather than recycled.
Packaging comprises nearly one-third of all U.S. landfill waste. Nestle Waters North America says plastic bottles are the largest contributor to its carbon foot print; Coca-Cola Co. reports packaging is the largest part of the carbon footprint of several products. A recent analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data estimates that the energy needed to produce and dispose of products and packaging accounts for 44% of total U.S. GHG emissions. Decaying paper packaging in landfills forms methane, whose greenhouse warming potential is 72 times more potent than C02. Metal and plastic packaging has large embodied energy and emissions profiles because of the high costs of producing those packages from mining/smelting and petroleum respectively.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a corporate and public policy that shifts accountability for collection and recycling from consumers and governments to producers. For instance, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestle Waters North America have each made public commitments to recycle a majority of beverage containers sold over the next six to eight years.
In many other countries, consumer packaged goods companies are responsible for post-consumer packaging. Companies operating in Europe and Canada are required to pay some or all costs for packaging collection and recycling. More than half of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member countries have EPR packaging systems in place. In Ontario, Canada, producers pay half of packaging collection and recycling costs. EPR programs in Austria, Belgium and Germany recover far higher rates of packaging than the U.S. EPR laws in 24 U.S. states already mandate producer responsibility for collection and recycling of consumer electronics.
Producers control design and marketing decisions, and so are best positioned to reduce the overall environmental impact of product packaging and internalize costs. Increased recycling of packaging can yield strong environmental benefits, leading to more efficient use of materials, reduced extraction of natural resources, and fewer GHG and toxic emissions. EPR mandates can create new economic markets for packaging. Increased economic incentives to recycle more types of packaging will keep it from flowing into waterways and oceans where it imperils marine life.
RESOLVED
Shareowners of Procter & Gamble request that the board of directors issue a report at reasonable cost, omitting confidential information, by February 1, 2012 assessing the feasibility of adopting a policy of Extended Producer Responsibility for post-consumer product packaging as a means of reducing carbon emissions and air and water pollution resulting from the company’s business practices, and describing efforts by the company to implement this strategy.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Proponents believe policy options reviewed in the report should include taking responsibility for post-consumer package recycling, and participating in development of producer financed and managed EPR systems.
2008 Advocacy Review
For our 2008 advocacy efforts, we’re pleased to report a fair amount of progress — never as much as we’d like (we’d like superhero powers), but enough to confirm that shareholder activism remains a potent tool for change.
Climate change. Our shareholder resolution at ConocoPhillips requesting a report on the environmental and social impacts of tar sands drilling won almost 28% of the vote, an impressive vote in this arena. Our resolution at Bank of America addressing its financing of coal-fired power plants and mountaintop coal removal was deemed inadmissible by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but we eventually sat down with bank officials to express our displeasure in a more intimate setting. Our takeaway: don’t expect BAC to stop funding these projects any time soon, even while it invests more and more in less carbon-intensive projects. Alliant Energy agreed to our request to report publicly on its efforts to incent customers to reduce their energy use, leading us to withdraw a resolution.
Human Rights. We co-filed a resolution led by our friends at Domini Social Investments at Nucor after media reports linked the company’s supply chain to forced labor. Nucor agreed to implement a formal policy and code of conduct expressing opposition to forced labor, and to dialogue with us on how to best report to shareholders on this issue, leading us to withdraw. We also spent time in conversation with Talbots, Target, Liz Claiborne, Nike, Gap and Jones Apparel on how their purchasing practices put pressure on their suppliers that can lead to a higher risk of labor violations.
Experts on the genocide in Darfur have declared that if anyone has any influence over the Sudanese government that is perpetrating the atrocities, it would be China. China sells arms to the government, and two Chinese oil companies operating in Sudan provide major revenues. Since we don’t own shares in any of the Chinese or other foreign firms in Sudan (and US firms are prohibited by sanctions), we’re talking to their investment bankers and investors on Wall Street. This last year we filed resolutions with Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and JP Morgan Chase. We withdrew at Morgan Stanley and Merrill after constructive dialogues on diminishing the risks they incur from these relationships. Our resolution at JP Morgan received 7.7%, enough for us to proceed with a re-filing should it prove necessary.
Political contributions transparency. How much corporate trade association money is being diverted to ads and groups that are shaping the election this year? No one knows for sure, but it could run to the hundreds of millions, according to the Center for Political Accountability. In 2008, our resolution at Procter & Gamble prompted the company to commit to greater transparency, while Ford Motor and General Motors remained resistant despite resolutions.
Employment nondiscrimination. We withdrew a resolution at Pentair after the company agreed to add sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination policy. Our resolution at Expeditors International on the same drew 52% in support – and a strange silence from company management and the Board of Directors. Perhaps they’re waiting for a super-majority, or just like flouting the will of their shareholders. We’ll re-file and let you know.
Environmental Justice. Chevron‘s shareholders defeated our resolution addressing the strength of the company’s global environmental standards in light of its issues in Ecuador, Nigeria and elsewhere. The good news, however, is a major break in the multibillion-dollar lawsuit Chevron faces in Ecuador for Texaco’s widespread rainforest pollution. After more than a decade, the company has finally agreed to explore a settlement.
After persistent nudging, Toyota Motor Corporation is starting to take seriously the contradiction between its supposed boycott of Burma, and the Burmese involvement of the independent company Toyota Tsusho that has a distributorship in that country. As this progresses, as the saying goes, you’ll read it hear first.
