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.
FedEx – Develop & Adopt Human Rights Policies
WHEREAS
Expectations of the global community are growing, such that companies must have policies to promote and protect human rights within their areas of activity and sphere of influence to help promote and protect a company’s reputation as a good corporate citizen.
Corporations operating in countries with civil conflict, weak rule of law, endemic corruption, poor labor and environmental standards face serious risks to reputation and shareholder value when they are seen as responsible for, or complicit in, human rights violations.
FedEx, in its Annual Report 2010, states: “…our company is built around a singular vision: to make it possible for people and businesses to connect and collaborate with each other, no matter where they are in the world. Our networks are critical elements of a global force we call Access, the ability to transform through connectivity. We know…that Access has the power to change millions of lives for the better. We work constantly to expand Access. Every year, we do that more responsibly and resourcefully…” (Frederick W. Smith, Letter from the Chairman, p.6)
While FedEx states: “Our goal is to comply with all local laws and to adhere to the highest standards of integrity and ethics everywhere in the world,” (Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, 7-09 p.7), our company’s Code of Business Conduct does not address major corporate responsibility issues, such as, human rights. Without a human rights policy with key performance indicators, our company faces reputation risks by operating in countries, such as China, where the rule of law is weak and human rights abuses are well documented. (U.S. State Department Advancing Freedom and Democracy Report; www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/afdr/)
We recommend FedEx base its human rights policies on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the collective and individual rights of over 370 million Native peoples worldwide, International Labor Organization’s Core Labor Standards and United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request management to review policies related to human rights to assess areas where FedEx needs to adopt and implement additional policies and to report findings, omitting proprietary information and prepared at reasonable expense, by December 2011.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
We recommend the review include:
1. Risk assessment where FedEx operates to determine potential for human rights abuses in locations, such as Israel and other Middle East countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and other civil strife/war-torn areas, as well as countries where discrimination and abuse based on class, religion, ethnicity are known occurrences, such as India, the United States, Indonesia.
2. A report on current systems in place to ensure that FedEx contractors and suppliers are implementing human rights policies in their operations, including monitoring, training, addressing issues of non-compliance and assurance that trafficking-related concerns have been addressed.
3. The FedEx strategy of engagement with internal and external stakeholders.
We urge your support FOR this proposal.
Lowe’s Company – Gender Identity Non-Discrimination
WHEREAS
Lowe’s Company Inc., (Lowe’s) does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression in its written employment policy;
According to the Human Rights Campaign, nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and 43% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression;
We believe that corporations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool;
Sixteen states, the District of Columbia, and more than 114 cities and counties have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on gender identity or expression;
Our company is headquartered in North Carolina where major employers such as Bank of America, GlaxoSmithKline, Duke University, and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill include gender identity or expression in their nondiscrimination policies.
Our company has operations in and makes sales to institutions in states and cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.
RESOLVED
The Shareholders request that Lowe’s amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based gender identity or expression and substantially implement the policy.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
We believe employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression diminishes employee morale and productivity. Because state and local laws are inconsistent with respect to employment discrimination, our company would benefit from a consistent, corporate-wide policy to enhance efforts to prevent discrimination, resolve complaints internally, access employees from the broadest talent pool, and ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees. Lowe’s will enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.
Dominion Resources – Financial Risks of Continued Reliance on Coal
WHEREAS
For electric power companies, continued reliance on coal is increasingly problematic in the face of declining reserves of high quality central Appalachian coal, unprecedented price increases and coal price volatility, and the high cost of carbon capture and storage for coal plants. By comparison, natural gas prices have reached record lows and supplies are increasingly abundant in the U.S., and costs for wind and solar are declining.
Coal combustion for electricity is a major contributor to air pollution, accounting for one third of the nitrous oxides (NOx), 50% of the mercury, a hazardous air pollutant, and over 36% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted in the U.S. Older coal plants emit substantially more of these pollutants per megawatt hour (MWh) than newer plants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving, in some cases pursuant to court order, to tighten regulation of the air, water and waste impacts of coal plants. Industry analysts (Bernstein Research, Jeffries & Company, Standard & Poor’s, Wood Mackenzie) have concluded that the cost of additional environmental control equipment for NOx, particulates and mercury may make it uneconomic to retrofit small, older coal plants. Pending EPA regulations governing storage and disposal of coal combustion wastes will likely increase operating costs for coal plants.
EPA is also developing regulations for CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, the lack of national climate policy to reduce CO2 emissions further adds to economic uncertainty for coal plants. Commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage technology for coal plants is 10 to 15 years away and “would increase electricity costs by about 30 – 80%,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports.
This unprecedented combination of forces has led a number of utility companies to announce coal plant retirements. Dominion has stated that it expects to close two aging coal plants in Massachusetts and Indiana within 5-7 years if environmental regulations occur as expected, as it would become uneconomic to run them. Nevertheless, with 41% of its 2009 electric generation originating from coal-fired units, Dominion will remain heavily reliant on coal. Coal combustion contributes more than 90% to the company’s total NOx, SO2, CO2 and mercury emissions, according to a data extrapolated from the report Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2010).
RESOLVED
Shareowners request that Dominion’s Board of Directors, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, issue a report by September 2011 on the financial risks of continued reliance on coal contrasted with increased investments in efficiency and cleaner energy, including assessment of the cumulative costs of environmental compliance for coal plants compared to alternative generating sources.
Trillium Joins Investors in Challenging Nine Oil and Gas Companies on Hydraulic Fracturing Practices
January 21, 2011
Trillium Files Resolution with Anadarko Petroleum to Spur More Responsible “Fracking” Practices
BOSTON – Leading U.S. investors today announced they have filed shareholder resolutions with nine oil and gas companies, pressing them to disclose their plans for managing water pollution, litigation and regulatory risks that are increasingly associated with ever-expanding natural gas hydraulic fracturing operations (also known as “fracking”) in the United States.
Resolutions were filed with many of the natural gas industry’s significant players, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Ultra Petroleum, El Paso, Cabot Oil & Gas, Southwestern Energy, Energen, Anadarko and Carrizo Oil & Gas.
“Oil and gas firms are being too vague about how they will manage the environmental challenges resulting from fracking,” said New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, whose office filed a resolution with Cabot Oil & Gas asking for a specific plan to reduce or eliminate the hazards. “The risks associated with unconventional shale gas extraction have the potential to negatively impact shareholder value. I urge companies working in this field to share their risk mitigation and management strategies with investors and the public.”
The shareholder proposals ask companies to disclose their policies and strategies for reducing environmental and financial risks from chemicals use, water impacts and a host of other issues. The resolutions also request adoption of best management practices, such as:
* recycling and reusing waste waters;
* reducing the volumes and toxicity of chemicals;
* disclosing the chemicals used in fracturing operations; and
* assuring the integrity of well cementing through pressure testing and other methods.
Use of hydraulic fracturing, which involves high-pressure injection of water, chemicals and particles deep underground to break up shale formations and release trapped natural gas, has escalated in recent years. Oil and gas companies are increasingly turning to hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” to unlock vast, yet previously unavailable reserves as conventional natural gas supplies have dwindled. ExxonMobil, for example recently spent $36 billion to buy shale-gas company XTO Energy while Chevron purchased Atlas Energy in a $4 billion deal.
The Energy Department recently more than doubled estimates of recoverable shale reserves to 827 trillion cubic feet, the energy equivalent of 140 billion barrels of oil. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that 60 to 80 percent of natural gas wells drilled in the next decade will require hydraulic fracturing.
Environmental risks stem largely from poor well-construction practices, which can lead to drinking water contamination, well blowouts and gas leaks, and from inadequate wastewater recycling and management practices. Concerns about water contamination incidents are growing as operations expand, creating reputational and litigation liabilities for companies.
Lawsuits have been filed against four companies over alleged water contamination in Pennsylvania. New York State adopted a temporary moratorium on new permits for fracking. Philadelphia’s city council has urged a ban on fracking in the Delaware River Basin until environmental studies have been completed, and Pittsburgh, which sits atop gas deposits, has banned fracking within city limits.
“High profile water contamination incidents, new litigation, and public protests that include calls for moratoria on natural gas permitting all suggest sizeable and rising business risks to companies and attendant threats to shareholder value,” said Richard Liroff, executive director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), which helped coordinate the resolutions. “Shareholders need assurance that companies are candidly disclosing these risks and are adopting best management practices to minimize them.”
Investors filing the resolutions include the New York State Comptroller (Cabot Oil & Gas, Carrizo Oil & Gas), Domini Social Investments (Southwestern Energy), As You Sow (ExxonMobil and Ultra Petroleum), Trillium Asset Management (Anadarko), Miller/Howard Investments (El Paso and Energen), and The Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia (Chevron). Cabot Oil & Gas, Carrizo Oil & Gas, El Paso, Southwestern and Ultra Petroleum are headquartered in Houston; Energen is based in Birmingham, Alabama; Anadarko in The Woodlands, Texas; Exxon Mobil in Irving Texas, and Chevron in San Ramon, California.
According to Kristina Curtis, senior vice president at Green Century Capital Management (GCCM), which coordinated the resolutions with IEHN, “It is critical that shareholders of natural gas companies understand and address the business risks associated with this type of gas drilling. Companies and regulators must ensure this development is done in a way that protects the environment, especially our drinking water, and mitigates potential financial risks”
Though investors are concerned about the bottom line impacts of hydraulic fracturing, many also contend that cleaner-burning natural gas has a critical role to play in both increasing domestic energy supplies and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that unconventional methods like fracking make it possible for natural gas to fill that role.
“Natural gas can play a major role in meeting our nation’s near-term climate and energy challenges, but hydraulic fracturing must be done in a way that protects the environment and public health,” said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres and director of the $9 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk. “Investors believe that companies can profitably minimize fracking’s water contamination, gas leaks and other material risks by adopting best management practices and by phasing out the most toxic chemicals.”
In the 2010 proxy season investors filed resolutions with a dozen oil and gas companies and, among those receiving resolutions, Williams began disclosing the measures it takes to ensure well integrity, described its recycling practices, and discussed “green completions” that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance profitability. Range Resources reported its recycling measures in the Marcellus Shale that have saved approximately $200,000 per well and Hess stated it is working with its suppliers to reduce the amount and toxicity of fracking fluids used.
Trillium is currently in dialogue with Anadarko concerning the details of their proposal.
To read the resolution Trillium filed at Anadarko, click here.
Ford Motor Company – Political Contributions
RESOLVED
The shareholders of Ford Motor (“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 contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used to participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and used in any attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, with respect to elections or referenda. The report shall include:
- An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above; and
- The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure.
The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
As long-term shareholders of Ford Motor, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates. Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with federal ethics laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision recognized the importance of political spending disclosure for shareholders when it said “[D]isclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Gaps in transparency and accountability may expose the company to reputational and business risks that could threaten long-term shareholder value.
Ford Motor contributed at least $1,921,037 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: 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 spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Aetna, American Electric Power and Microsoft 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.
Dominion Resources – Financial Risks of Continued Reliance on Coal
WHEREAS
For electric power companies, continued reliance on coal is increasingly problematic in the face of declining reserves of high quality central Appalachian coal, unprecedented price increases and coal price volatility, and the high cost of carbon capture and storage for coal plants. By comparison, natural gas prices have reached record lows and supplies are increasingly abundant in the U.S., and costs for wind and solar are declining.
Coal combustion for electricity is a major contributor to air pollution, accounting for one third of the nitrous oxides (NOx), 50% of the mercury, a hazardous air pollutant, and over 36% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted in the U.S. Older coal plants emit substantially more of these pollutants per megawatt hour (MWh) than newer plants.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving, in some cases pursuant to court order, to tighten regulation of the air, water and waste impacts of coal plants. Industry analysts (Bernstein Research, Jeffries & Company, Standard & Poor’s, Wood Mackenzie) have concluded that the cost of additional environmental control equipment for NOx, particulates and mercury may make it uneconomic to retrofit small, older coal plants. Pending EPA regulations governing storage and disposal of coal combustion wastes will likely increase operating costs for coal plants.
EPA is also developing regulations for CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, the lack of national climate policy to reduce CO2 emissions further adds to economic uncertainty for coal plants. Commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage technology for coal plants is 10 to 15 years away and “would increase electricity costs by about 30 – 80%,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office reports.
This unprecedented combination of forces has led a number of utility companies to announce coal plant retirements. Dominion has stated that it expects to close two aging coal plants in Massachusetts and Indiana within 5-7 years if environmental regulations occur as expected, as it would become uneconomic to run them. Nevertheless, with 41% of its 2009 electric generation originating from coal-fired units, Dominion will remain heavily reliant on coal. Coal combustion contributes more than 90% to the company’s total NOx, SO2, CO2 and mercury emissions, according to a data extrapolated from the report Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Power Producers in the United States (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2010).
RESOLVED
Shareowners request that Dominion’s Board of Directors, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, issue a report by September 2011 on the financial risks of continued reliance on coal contrasted with increased investments in efficiency and cleaner energy, including assessment of the cumulative costs of environmental compliance for coal plants compared to alternative generating sources.
Halliburton – Political Contribution
RESOLVED
The shareholders of Halliburton (“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 contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used to participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and used in any attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, with respect to elections or referenda. The report shall include:
- An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above; and
- The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure.
The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
As long-term shareholders of Halliburton, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.
Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with federal ethics laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision recognized the importance of political spending disclosure for shareholders when it said “[D]isclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Gaps in transparency and accountability may expose the company to reputational and business risks that could threaten long-term shareholder value.
Halliburton contributed at least $204,000 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: 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 spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Aetna, American Electric Power and Microsoft 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.
Comcast – Network Neutrality
WHEREAS
A free and open Internet is critical to our nation’s economy and society.
To maintain its many benefits, broad non-discrimination principles must be vigorously applied to the fastest-growing segment of the Internet – wireless broadband networks.
These non-discrimination principles are commonly referred to as “network neutrality.” According to the Congressional Research Service, network neutrality seeks “to ensure equal access and non-discriminatory treatment” for all content.
Network neutrality rules are needed to “facilitate the growth of the Internet and give private companies the correct incentives to continue investing in this significantly valuable good,” according to a 2010 report by the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, which finds that an open Internet accounts for billions of dollars of economic value for Americans.
The principle of non-discrimination has been an engine for economic growth, empowering millions of America’s small and medium-sized businesses through direct access to the Internet. Musicians and creative artists rely on open Internet principles, for access to audiences.
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Genachowski has said that a free and open Internet must play a critical role in solving the “great challenges [we face] as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety.”
Widespread support of network neutrality is demonstrated by letters to the FCC from thousands of organizations including the American Library Association, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Consumer Federation of America.
Open Internet policies on wireless networks have particular importance for minority and economically disadvantaged communities. People of color access the Internet via cell phones at a much greater rate than their white counterparts, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. In 2010, Pew reported, only 33% of whites accessed the Internet on cell phones compared to 51% of English-speaking Latinos and 46% of African Americans; 30% of whites sent or received e-mail on cell phones compared to 47% of Latinos and 41% of African-Americans.
“The digital freedoms at stake are a 21st century civil rights issue,” says Colorofchange.org, an organization representing black Americans. Network neutrality on wireless networks is essential “to avoid unintentionally treating communities of color, people living in rural areas, and the poor as second-class digital citizens,” according to an FCC filing by Latinos for Internet Freedom and a coalition of over 150 organizations representing the poor and communities of color.
Our Company has operated with de facto network neutrality policies for many years. With network neutrality, we believe content innovation will prosper, furthering demand for ubiquitous high-speed Internet access on wireless networks. Conversely, failure to embrace non-discrimination principles will open our Company to potential competitive, legal and reputational risk.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request the company publicly commit to market and sell only wireless broadband products which abide by Internet network neutrality principles – i.e., operate a neutral network with neutral routing along the company’s wireless infrastructure such that the company does not privilege, degrade or prioritize any packet transmitted over its wireless infrastructure based on its source, ownership or destination
Dentsply – Toxic Chemicals in Products: Bisphenol A (BPA)
WHEREAS
Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical, has received media attention for its use in a variety of consumer products. However, BPA is also used in the production of dental sealants and composites. BPA can leach out of these products resulting in human exposures. BPA is known to mimic estrogen in the body; numerous animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and changes in tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Exposure to BPA by the very young, as well as pregnant women, are among the greatest concerns to experts.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. In January 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration reversed its stance on the safety of BPA, concluding that the agency has “some concern” about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research. Most recently, Canada’s health and environmental agencies added BPA to its list of toxic chemicals.
The US Congress, as well as some US states and cities, have proposed legislation banning BPA in certain food and beverage packages. In addition to potential bans, proponents believe our company might face liability or reputational risks from using BPA. For instance, class action lawsuits against other companies already contend that manufacturers and retailers of BPA-containing products failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.
RESOLVED
Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2011, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, the company’s role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in dental products, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in continued use of BPA.
