Restaurant Brands International Inc. | Lobbying Expenditures Disclosure at Restaurant Brands International Inc.

Status
24.69% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
6
Resolution details
Company ticker
QSR
Lead filer
SOC Investment Group
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
Canada
Resolved clause
RESOLVED, Company stockholders request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing: 
1. Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications. 
2. Payments by the Company used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.  
3. Description of management’s decision-making process and the Board’s oversight for making payments described above. 

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation. “Indirect lobbying” is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which the Company is a member. 
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 Governance Committee and posted on the Company website.     
Whereas clause
WHEREAS, we believe in full disclosure of lobbying activities and expenditures of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (“Company”) to assess whether the Company lobbying is consistent with its expressed goals and stockholder interests. 
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement: Restaurant Brands does not currently report on the full extent of its lobbying efforts. We do know that Restaurant Brands spent $1,160,000 from 2019-2022 on federal lobbying. The company spent $100,000 in California, largely to oppose AB 257 in 2022, a state law that creates a council to set minimum standards on working conditions, and that industry groups now seek to overturn.  
Beyond that, there is not a complete picture of the company’s lobbying activities.   

State level lobbying disclosures are uneven, incomplete or absent.  

Restaurant Brands does not disclose donations to third party groups that spend millions on lobbying and often undisclosed grassroots activity; these groups may be spending “at least double what’s publicly reported.”1     
Restaurant Brands does not provide a comprehensive list of trade association memberships, just a self-selected list of "key memberships." Nor does it disclose any indirect lobbying expenditures through industry groups like the International Franchise Association or the National Restaurant Association (NRA), both of which Restaurant Brands is a member. In 2022, for example, the NRA spent $2,110,000 and previously lobbied Congress against paid sick leave during the Covid-19 pandemic.        
Restaurant Brands states that “integrity and honesty are simply not optional” Complete reporting would shed light on how that commitment operates in practice. 

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.