BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC. | Political engagement by investee company directors at BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

Status
0.83% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
9
Resolution details
Company ticker
BRK/A US
Lead filer
American Conservative values ETF (ACVF)
Resolution ask
Strengthen board oversight of issue
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors encourage a Senior Management Commitment at Berkshire Hathaway and its portfolio companies to avoid supporting or taking a public position on any controversial social or political issues (collectively “political speech”), without having previously, comprehensively and without bias justified by action on the basis of underlying business strategy, exigencies, and priorities.
Whereas clause
Whereas: We view Berkshire Hathaway and all corporations as being organized to provide the best quality goods and services to its customers while maximizing the return to investors who fund the Company. In the recent past we have witnessed several instances of corporate America’s senior managers engaging in seemingly unnecessary political speech on behalf of the corporations they manage, which partisan assertions subsequently became controversial and created massive reputational, legal, and financial risk. As an example, the CEO of Coca Cola, one of Berkshire’s largest holdings, engaged in divisive speech regarding Georgia voting laws, thereby creating an unnecessary maelstrom of publicity, with far-reaching business consequences.

This previously underappreciated risk exists for all public corporations and needs to be recognized by shareholders and their representative boards. This significant risk factor seems easily and reasonably mitigated by senior management committing to avoid political speech made on behalf of the corporations they manage.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement: As Shareholders we acknowledge that a potential cost pertains to reducing senior management’s freedom of action. Although that cost is justified by the magnitude of the business risk we seek to mitigate, we feel that such a cost should be considered and minimized. As such we recommend that the board use its discretion in determining guidelines defining political speech, delineating the senior management positions affected, and detailing the mechanism and measurement of commitment.

The fiduciary duty that all senior management owe to the company itself, and through it the shareholders, does not permit those managers to take political stances on behalf of the company that conform with the political policy preferences of those managers, or to take any controversial political or social stances on behalf of the company without having undertaken a full and unbiased analysis of all of the consequences that could follow from taking the stand, and ensuring that the stance is required by business necessity rather than driven by the personal policy preferences of senior managers.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Anima Sgr Against Given the fact that there are no well-known controversies related to senior executives’ political speech, such micromanaging of senior executives’ speech is not necessary.
Rothschild & co Asset Management Against

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.