Enbridge Inc. | Report on lobbying in line with net zero GHG target at Enbridge Inc.

18.77% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board produce a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, examining whether Enbridge’s pattern of lobbying and political donations in the U.S. is creating unnecessary business risk and is consistent with its net zero goal. The report should disclose evaluation criteria and external stakeholders consulted, if any.
Supporting statement
In November 2021, Politico ran a story with the headline: “The Canadian energy company in the way of Whitmer’s campaign,”1 accusing Enbridge of “trying to scuttle Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s re-election bid.” She went on to win.

The story details “six-figure ad buys” by Enbridge advocating for the continued use of Line 5 directly and indirectly via front groups like ‘Great Lakes. Michigan Jobs.’2 Enbridge has spent over US$100,000 on lobbying in Michigan in each of the past four years.3

In Minnesota, Enbridge also used a front group during the Line 3 controversy – ‘Minnesotans for Line 3’4 which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising and tries to position itself as a grassroots organization but which the media discovered had Enbridge executives listed as responsible for TV ads.5

Enbridge caused international headlines6 for partially funding Minnesota police during enforcement actions against Line 3 protestors – nearly 900 people were arrested. The payments totalled US$8.6 million and are now the subject of legal action alleging violation of due process and equal protection of protestors since the payments amount to third-party influence over law enforcement.7

In New York, Enbridge serves on the steering committee of ‘New Yorkers for Affordable Energy,’8 a front group that has been accused9 of lobbying against the implementation of New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

Despite their prominence and controversial nature, none of Enbridge’s activities with these front groups in Michigan, Minnesota, and New York have been disclosed by the company in investor materials.
Federally in the U.S., Enbridge has a pattern of donating to pro-fossil fuel politicians. In 2022 Enbridge’s biggest donations were to Senator Joe Manchin10 who achieved notoriety for single-handedly blockingnational climate action,11 and Rep. Jack Bergman12 who has a 10% pro-environment lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters.13

InfluenceMap scores Enbridge with a D on lobbying, saying the company remains “actively engaged with both local and regional energy policies in North America to promote fossil fuels in the energy mix.”14
Enbridge’s pattern of lobbying and political expenditures in the U.S. iTs causing significant controversy and creating business risk associated with alienation of decision makers and key constituencies while appearing to be unaligned with its goal to achieve net zero. This pattern and lack of disclosure merits due consideration and oversight by the Enbridge Board.

This proposal is consistent with the investor-created Global Standard on Corporate Climate Lobbying.15
We respectfully request that shareholders vote FOR this proposal.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
MN For
Anima Sgr For Additional reporting and disclosure of the company's lobbying practices, policies, and expenditures, including its pattern of lobbying and political donations, would allow shareholders to better assess the company's management of related risks and benefits.
PGGM Investments For We recommend to vote in favour, as this should increase transparency to shareholders about the company's lobbying activities.
Irish Life Investment Managers For
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU. Against We believe that the Company has demonstrated some level of responsiveness to this issue and that its existing and planned reporting sufficiently satisfies the request of this resolution

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.