PHILLIPS 66 | Paris-Aligned Climate Lobbying at PHILLIPS 66

AGM date
Previous AGM date
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
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors conduct an evaluation and issue a report (at reasonable cost, omitting confidential or proprietary information) describing if, and how, the Company’s lobbying and policy influence activities (both direct and indirect through trade associations, alliances, and other organizations) align with the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit average global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C, and how it plans to mitigate the risks presented by any misalignment.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: United Nations Climate Change asserts that greenhouse gas emissions must decline by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. If that goal is not met, even more rapid reductions, at greater cost, will be required to compensate for the slow start on the path to global net zero emissions.1
Even with the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, critical gaps remain between Nationally Determined Contributions set by the U.S. government and the actions required to prevent the worst effects of climate change. Domestically and internationally, companies have an important and constructive role to play in enabling policymakers to close these gaps.
Corporate lobbying that is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement presents increasingly material risks to companies and their shareholders, as delays in emissions reductions undermine political stability, damage infrastructure, impair access to finance and insurance, and exacerbate health risks and costs. Further, companies face increasing reputational risks from consumers, investors, and other stakeholders if they appear to delay or block effective climate policy.
Of particular concern are trade associations and other politically active organizations that say they speak for business but too often present forceful obstacles to addressing the climate crisis.
Proponents appreciate that Phillips 66 (the Company) has announced that it intends to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions intensity from its operations companywide 50% by 2050. While recognizing that this is short of goals set by peers and is not aligned with the Paris Agreement, it is an important step towards addressing climate change risk.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: The Company’s previously published Lobbying Activities Report2 does not address the concerns of investors adequately. The Report lists the stated positions on climate change of the Company’s trade associations but does not address actual lobbying activities on climate-related legislation and regulations. The Climate Action 100+ Benchmark finds that the Company lacks a Paris Agreement-aligned climate lobbying position and does not ensure that lobbying activities are aligned with Paris.3 Influence Map rates Phillips in the second to last performance band.4 The proponents believe the request in this proposal is consistent with the investor expectations described in the Global Standard on Responsible Climate Lobbying, and that this Standard is a useful resource for implementation.5 Phillips 66’s disclosure of its policy engagement on climate should be improved.
1 2 lobbying_APPENDIX.pdf

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.