CHEVRON CORPORATION | Establish board committee on decarbonization risk at CHEVRON CORPORATION

1.60% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Amend board structure
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Net Zero / Paris aligned
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Be It Resolved: Shareholders request the Board of Directors charter a new Board Committee on Decarbonization Risk to evaluate Chevron Corporation’s (the Company) strategic vision and responses to calls for Chevron decarbonization on activist-established deadlines. The charter should require the committee to engage in formal review and oversight of corporate strategy, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, to assess the company’s responses to demands for such decarbonization schedules, including the potential impacts on the Company from flaws in activists’ climate models, the possibility that the U.S. will not force decarbonization according to such schedules, thus obviating “stranded asset” calculations, the possibility that other countries will not adopt similar targets, thus making Company efforts meaningless, concerns about technological or economic infeasibility, and other relevant considerations.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement:

Chevron has repeatedly stated its commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It does not appear from publicly available information, however, that Chevron has fully considered the risk that decarbonization on activist schedules

might entail. Claims about the need for decarbonization at all, but especially by some activist-generated date certain, are based on a long series of assumptions that are either counterfactual or insufficiently examined. For decades, for instance, claims have been made that action must be taken before some date, or it will be too late.1 If those claims were right, it’s too late for decarbonization to matter now, so we should be building up economic resources to deal with climate change. If they were wrong, then the odds are high that current claims are also wrong. Chevron’s decarbonization will be meaningless if other countries do not follow the same decarbonization schedules, and there is abundant evidence that they will not.2 The United States government has never mandated net-zero by statute or authorized regulatory action3, and is unlikely ever to do so; this contravenes the assumptions of “stranded asset” analysis. If decarbonization is neither required nor technologically feasible, Chevron will lose significant markets and revenues to private equity firms and (less clean-producing) state actors, thus harming shareholders while also harming the environment. These and all relevant considerations should be fully and objectively examined.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
EFG Asset Management Against A vote AGAINST this resolution is warranted, as the company's existing board framework appears adequate to
allow for robust oversight of issues related to corporate sustainability issues and, absent clear performance
concerns, the board is generally given latitude to determine its committee structure.
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.