Producer Responsibility for Packaging – Proctor & Gamble (2012)

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 debris migrates to oceans where it damages fisheries, tourism and marine life.

Paper and packaging comprise 43% of 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, hose greenhouse warming potential is far more potent than C02. Metal and plastic packaging have large embodied energy and emissions profiles because of the high costs of producing packaging 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 NA have 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 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 post-consumer packaging, and keep packaging from flowing into oceans where it threatens marine life.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Shareowners of Procter & Gamble request that the board of directors issue a report at reasonable cost, omitting confidential information, by February 1, 2013 assessing the feasibility of adopting a policy of Extended Producer Responsibility for post-consumer product packaging as a means of increasing rates of packaging recycling, 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.

MSN Money: Shareholder Spring? Protesters Roil Annual Meetings

The Fiscal Times/MSN Money recently ran a story on how shareholders and protesters are paying more attention to annual shareholder meetings.

“ In Charlotte, city officials braced themselves for the biggest turnout of protesters yet, as Bank of America held its own annual meeting Wednesday and hundreds of protesters gathered outside the banks’ headquarters.”, writes Suzanne McGee.

“To a growing number of investors, the definition of acting in the best interests of a company’s shareholders is changing, slowly but steadily, as is that of what constitutes an acceptable return on their investment. It’s no longer enough to generate outsize returns if they come at the expense of the environment, human rights or other “social responsibility” issues. More investors are putting money into funds like those run by Trillium Asset Management, which in turn is urging support for “no political spending” shareholder proposals like that coming up for debate today at Bank of America”, McGee continues.

The entire article can be read here

Huffington Post: Bank of America Targeted By Protesters and Investors

Prior to Bank of America’s annual shareholder meeting, The Huffington Post has been reporting on Trillium’s shareholder resolution that calls on the company to adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election or campaign.

“In recent years, significant percentages of shareholders at some large companies have voted to require their firms to provide increased disclosure about the extent of their political donations, although none of these resolutions have passed to date. And Trillium views its more aggressive proposal to get BofA to end all political spending as intimately connected with a campaign pressuring the SEC to require disclosure.

‘For the better part of the last decade, we’ve seen consistent and increasingly strong shareholder votes on political spending proposals,’ said Shelley Alpern, Vice President of Shareholder Advocacy for Trillium. A growing number of investors consider this area to be a material factor in evaluating the financial worth a company and the strength of its governance mechanisms. Investors will be better off when the SEC requires disclosure from all publicly traded companies. Companies deserve a level playing field and investors need the information.”

The entire article can be read here.

Lobbying Disclosure – FedEx Corporation (2012)

Whereas, businesses, like individuals, have a recognized legal right to express opinions to legislators and regulators on public policy matters. 

It is important that our company’s lobbying positions, and processes to influence public policy, are transparent.  Public opinion is skeptical of corporate influence on Congress and public policy and questionable lobbying activity may pose risks to our company’s reputation when controversial positions are embraced. Hence, we believe full disclosure of FedEx’s policies, procedures and oversight mechanisms is warranted. 

Resolved, the stockholders of FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) request the Board authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, and disclosing: 

1.   Company policy and procedures governing the lobbying of legislators and regulators, including that done on our company’s behalf by trade associations. The disclosure should include both direct and indirect lobbying and grassroots lobbying communications. 

2. A listing of payments (both direct and indirect, including payments to trade associations) used for direct lobbying as well as grassroots lobbying communications, including the amount of the payment and the recipient.

 3. Membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation. 

4. Description of the decision making process and oversight by the management and Board for 

     a. direct and indirect lobbying contribution or expenditure; and

     b.  payment for grassroots lobbying expenditure. 

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation. 

Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels. 

The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee of the Board or other relevant oversight committees of the Board and posted on the company’s website.  

Supporting Statement  

 As stockholders, we encourage transparency and accountability in the use of staff time and corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation both directly and indirectly. We believe such disclosure is in stockholders’ best interests. Absent a system of accountability, company assets could be used for policy objectives contrary to FedEx’s long-term interests.     

FedEx spent approximately $38.7 million in 2010 and 2011 on direct federal lobbying activities, according to disclosure reports.  (US Senate Office of Public Records).This figure may not include grassroots lobbying to directly influence legislation by mobilizing public support or opposition. Also, not all states require disclosure of lobbying expenditures. And FedEx does not disclose its contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as FedEx’s $25,000 contribution to the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”) annual meeting (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/05/288823/alec-exposed-corporations-funding/). 

Membership and financial support of ALEC became very controversial when ALEC’s role in creating and promoting model state legislation on Arizona style immigration bills, Stand Your Ground legislation, anti-environmental legislation and restrictions on voter registration was exposed. 

Facing this controversy, companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Wendy’s and Kraft Foods withdrew their involvement and funding of ALEC.

Coffee, Climate Change and Sustainable Sourcing – J. M. Smucker Company (2012)

Whereas:

Our company is one of the four largest coffee companies in the world. It provides industry leadership through brands such as Folgers not only in consumer expectations but also with regard to pricing.

The coffee business is critically important for our company by providing approximately 40% of our company’s revenue. It is equally important to the well-being of 25 million coffee farming families worldwide.

Climate change may present a number of important risks and opportunities for our company and these communities, as it impacts temperature, rainfall patterns, frequency of severe weather events, and disease vectors, among other effects, in the world’s coffee growing regions.

According to Kenya’s Coffee Research Foundation director of research, “We have seen climate change in intermittent rainfall patterns, extended drought and very high temperatures.” Furthermore, “Coffee operates within a very narrow temperature range of 19-25 degrees (Celsius). When you start getting temperatures above that, it affects photosynthesis and in some cases, trees wilt and dry up.” Peter Baker, CABI Bioscience coffee expert, stated, “I often call coffee a Goldilocks plant. It likes it not too hot, not too cold. It likes it not too wet, not too dry.”

Competitors in the coffee business – Nestlé, Kraft, and Sara Lee – are making public efforts to address coffee sustainability and to provide for a consistent and reliable supply chain of quality coffee. All three have made public commitments to specific goals or data disclosures—often including targets, timeframes, and investment levels– of sourcing coffee in a more sustainable fashion.

Resolved: Shareholders request that within six months of the 2012 annual meeting, the Company develop and publish, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary and confidential information, an enhanced green coffee sustainability plan that goes beyond its 2011 plan and includes (1) quantitative goals for quantities of certified coffee purchases; (2) a method for evaluating the success of the plan in addressing the challenges of climate change to the Company and the farmers and ecosystems in its coffee supply chain.

Supporting Statement: It is the Proponents’ intention that the enhanced green coffee sustainability plan provide investors with a reasonable level of detail about our company’s plan. Our company has not provided information about how much certified coffee it will purchase in terms of percentages or absolute amounts. We are not seeking to impose a specific goal, but seek a reasonable amount of disclosure. With respect to a method for evaluating the success of the plan, we believe our company should be able to provide its shareholders with some basic evidence that its plan is beneficial to the farming communities and ecosystems from which it sources coffee. While our company’s 2011 Corporate Responsibility report mentions the 2010 impact of TechnoServe on some farmers, there has not been any effort to discuss the beneficial impacts of Smucker’s green coffee sustainability plan on the environment, communities and/or our company.

Prohibit Political Spending From Corporate Treasury Funds – Bank of America (2012)

WHEREAS:

Political spending and corporate money in politics is a highly contentious issue, made more prominent in light of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case that affirmed companies’ rights to make unlimited political expenditures to independent groups. In the 2012 election year, we expect even more media and public attention to corporate spending to influence elections. Experts predict that an unprecedented amount of money will be spent in the 2012 election season.

Recent polls highlight the public’s disapproval. In a June 2010 Harris poll, 85% of voters said that corporations “have too much influence over the political system today….” In February 2010, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% opposed Citizens United, noting, “the bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times.”

Corporate political contributions can backfire on a corporation’s reputation and bottom line. In 2010, Target and Valero received unwanted attention, consumer boycotts, and protests for their support of controversial candidates and ballot measures. In a Harris Poll released in October 2010, a sizable portion (46)% of respondents indicated that if there were option, they would shop elsewhere if they learned that a business they patronized had contributed to a candidate or a cause that they oppose.

According to the Institute for Money in State Politics, Bank of America’s political spending on the state and federal levels totaled over $2.1 million in 2007-2008. However, this figure does not include payments to trade associations or other tax-exempt organizations that may channel corporate money to political ends.

Many trade associations that receive corporate contributions spend vast sums in electoral politics; these payments are not required to be disclosed. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged to spend between $50 and $75 million in the 2010 election season, and announced that it would work to unseat any member of Congress who voted for healthcare reform.  According to Public Citizen, only 32% of groups broadcasting electioneering communications in the 2010 primary season revealed the identities of donors in their Federal Election Commission filings, down from nearly 100 percent in the 2004 and 2006 cycles.

Increasingly, companies such as IBM, Colgate Palmolive, Wells Fargo and others are adopting policies prohibiting spending of political funds directly or indirectly to influence elections.

Given the risks and potential negative impact on shareholder value, the proponents believe Bank of America should adopt a policy to refrain from using treasury funds in the political process.

RESOLVED:

The shareholders request that the board of directors adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election or campaign.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

We believe this policy should include any direct or indirect contribution that is intended to influence the outcome of an election or referendum. It should also prohibit the use of trade associations or non-profit corporations from channeling our company’s contributions or membership dues to influence the outcome of any election or referendum.

Hydraulic Fracturing – Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (2012)

Report on BPA Use – Coca-Cola Company (2012)

WHEREAS:

The value of Coca-Cola’s brand is based on consumer trust. Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA can leach out of the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages resulting in human exposures.  BPA can mimic estrogen in the body; a number of animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and to tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Experts are particularly concerned about exposure to BPA by the very young and pregnant women.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. The US Food and Drug Administration has expressed concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children, and supports additional research.

The proponents believe that Coca-Cola has misrepresented the scientific consensus. For example, its Bisphenol A Assessment (11/11) claims “current levels of exposure to Bisphenol A (BPA) through beverage packaging pose no health risk to the general population, including children.” Yet, ten US states and several local governments have banned BPA in children’s reusable food and beverage containers. The European Union, China and Malaysia instituted bans on BPA in baby bottles in 2011. Canada added BPA to its list of toxic substances in 2010. Japan took BPA out of can linings in the 1990’s.

Proponents believe the use of BPA poses regulatory, reputational and legal risk. More than 20 states and multiple federal bills have introduced legislation to ban or limit the use of BPA.  Coca-Cola has received considerable media coverage over its use of BPA. Health organizations including the Breast Cancer Fund have conducted high profile consumer campaigns targeting food companies over their use of BPA in their can linings. Class action lawsuits against other companies contend that manufacturers and retailers failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

Companies, including Hain Celestial, ConAgra, and H.J. Heinz use BPA-free can linings for certain products, and have timelines to transition to BPA-free packaging across all products.  Nestle and Kroger also publicly stated they will remove BPA from their products. General Mills and Campbell’s have publicly stated that they are conducting hundreds of tests looking for alternatives to BPA can linings.

RESOLVED:  Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2012, 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, its role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Chubb Corp (2012)

     Resolved, that the shareholders of Chubb Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

 1.    Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

 2.    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:

 a.     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

 b.    The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

      The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website.

Stockholder Supporting Statement

            As long-term shareholders of Chubb Corp., 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.

            Chubb Corp. contributed at least $415,000 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 spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some 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 used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Merck, MetLife and Microsoft that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

            The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Halliburton (2012)

Resolved, that the shareholders of Halliburton Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semiannually, disclosing the Company’s:

 1.    Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

 2.    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:

 a.     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

 b.    The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.

The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant board oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.

Stockholder 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.

            Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some 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 used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Prudential, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

            The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets.

            In 2011, this proposal received support from more than 46% of shares voted. We urge you to vote  For this critical governance reform.