Granite Construction Inc. | Report on risk of environmentally high-risk projects at Granite Construction Inc.

18.03% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Biodiversity / nature
  • Land use inc. deforestation
  • Local communities and/or indigenous rights
  • Waste and pollution
  • Water and oceans
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board issue a report, at reasonable cost and excluding proprietary information, assessing the risks posed by the Projects apparent misalignment with the Companys disclosed environmental and community engagement commitments.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: Granite Construction discloses to shareholders that: (i) GraniteÕs environmental goals include conserving natural resources and protecting water, air, land, and wildlife, (ii) the Company is focused on meeting or exceeding requirements of applicable environmental laws, and (iii) Granite recognizes the importance of engaging with impacted communities on environmental issues.[1]

Granites own materiality assessment defines these issues Ñ air quality, environmental compliance, water use, ecological biodiversity, community engagement & consideration Ñ as critical to the CompanyÕs business and stakeholders.[2] More specifically, Granite has disclosed to shareholders that upholding the CompanyÕs environmental commitments Òprovides a direct benefit to our clientsÓ and Òis just good business.Ó[3]

However, a review of GraniteÕs operations appears to indicate that the CompanyÕs disclosed environmental commitments to shareholders are not upheld in practice.

A chief example is Granites actions related to its I-80 South Quarry project in Utah (Project). In contrast to conserving natural resources and protecting water, air, land, and wildlife, the Project would install a major industrial operation in a protected watershed area, expose nearby communities to toxic fugitive dust, excavate up to 634 acres of forest land, and displace the known presence of elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion, golden eagle, and other species.[4]

In contrast to the Companys stated goal of meeting or exceeding requirements of applicable environmental laws, Granites partner has filed a lawsuit to weaken Salt Lake Countys mining ban, which currently prevents mining in the proposed site of the Project.[5]

Further, in contrast to engaging with impacted communities on environmental issues, Granites observable local engagements include: (a) a website accusing the local community of alarmist É outrageous claims,[6] and (b) the Companys first financial contributions to Utah state politicians since 2019, prior to the passage of a bill that added protections for gravel pit operators.[7]

To the extent that Granites actions related to the Project are representative of how the Companys disclosed environmental commitments to shareholders are applied in practice, there are reasons to conclude that these commitments do not actually translate to the projects Granite selects and the ways those projects are executed. Given the Companys own materiality assessment of these critical issues, shareholders appear to have cause to be concerned about Granites practices more broadly and the I-80 South Quarry project in particular.

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.