Meta (FACEBOOK, INC.) | Paris-Aligned Climate Lobbying - Framework at Meta (FACEBOOK, INC.)

AGM passed
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
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders of Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta”) request that the Board of Directors report to shareholders (at reasonable cost, omitting confidential/proprietary information) on its framework for identifying and addressing misalignments between Meta’s lobbying and policy influence activities and positions--both direct and indirect through trade associations, coalitions, alliances, and social welfare organizations (“Associations”) and Meta’s Net Zero emissions commitment across its value chain by 2030, including the criteria used to assess alignment; the escalation strategies used to address misalignments; and the circumstances under which escalation strategies are used (e.g., timeline, sequencing, degree of influence over an Association).
Supporting statement
Research continues to highlight critical gaps between the climate commitments made by national governments and the actions necessary to prevent the worst effects of climate change on society. A 2022 global assessment makes it clear that nations are not doing enough to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius[1] and that this goal is now almost entirely out of reach unless immediate and dramatic changes are implemented to limit fossil fuel use, and re-envision energy, transport, and land development.[2]
Companies like Meta have a crucial role to play in both empowering policymakers to close these gaps and in addressing the rising energy demands of its own sector. Investors need clear information on how companies are addressing these challenges, including an analysis of the alignment between companies’ direct and indirect policy advocacy efforts and their own climate targets.
Companies may tout their climate efforts, but often fail to account for their support for organizations and initiatives that work to block critical climate policies needed on a broader scale. As Unilever succinctly notes, “Progress on our own climate change targets means nothing in an overheated world.”[3]
Corporate lobbying that is inconsistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement further poses mounting systemic risks to our financial systems and infrastructure, as delays in curbing greenhouse gases increase physical threats from extreme weather, weaken regional economic stability, and heighten portfolio volatility.[4] Proponents view climate scenarios of 3 degrees Celsius or more as economically destabilizing, and are therefore more critically scrutinizing the potential misalignment between companies' climate strategies and their policy advocacy efforts.[5]  
A review of Meta's disclosed trade association and other memberships[6] reveals concerning inconsistencies with Meta's actions on, and commitments to, its own Net Zero ambitions.[7][8] Meta further supports the direction of some of these potentially misaligned organizations by serving on their boards.[9]
While Meta’s recent policy record includes statements supporting climate science, the need for renewable energy leadership, and the importance of new business alliances tackling gaps in policy, Meta continues to underperform its peers on the strength of its climate policy engagement,[10] its governance and oversight of political influence activity,[11] and in its addressing of widespread climate policy disinformation on its platforms.[12]

SEC filing:


How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Dana Investment Advisors For
Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Foundation For
EFG Asset Management For A vote FOR this proposal is warranted, as additional reporting on the company's direct and indirect lobbying
practices, policies, and expenditures would benefit shareholders in assessing its management of related risks
Rothschild & co Asset Management For

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.