TYSON FOODS, INC. | Producer responsibility for plastic packaging at TYSON FOODS, INC.

3.98% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Waste and pollution
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Consumer Staples
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, describing opportunities for Tyson to support a circular economy for packaging.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: The growing plastic pollution and packaging waste crises pose increasing risks to Tyson Foods. Corporations could face an annual financial risk of approximately $100 billion should governments require them to cover the waste management costs of the packaging they produce.[1] Laws to this effect have significant momentum, having been recently adopted in four U.S. states, with additional introduced at the state and federal level.[2] The European Union has already enacted a $1 per kilogram tax on all non-recycled plastic packaging waste.[3] Additionally, consumer demand for sustainable packaging is increasing.[4]

A circular economy for packaging, whereby packaging is designed for reuse or recycling and kept in the economy and out of the environment, is critical to a net-zero emissions world. Tyson states it is committed to emissions reductions,[5] yet lacks commitments to ensure circularity of its product packaging,[6] even though its sold products and packaging contribute significantly to Scope 3 emissions at their end-of-life (ÒEOLÓ).[7]

More than 100 leading companies have committed to promoting a circular economy for packaging by acknowledging responsibility for the collection, sorting, and recycling of packaging at EOL, a policy known as Extended Producer Responsibility (ÒEPRÓ).[8] Absent legally mandated EPR, companies must voluntarily contribute to improve the collection and recycling of their packaging.

The Recycling Partnership (ÒTRPÓ), the leading recycling organization, finds that $17 billion is needed to modernize and expand recycling infrastructure, and that doing so will save the equivalent of 710 million metric tons of CO2 over ten years.[9] To improve plastic recycling infrastructure, TRP recommends that companies contribute at least $88 for every metric ton of plastic used.[10]

Competitors Kraft Heinz, KelloggÕs, NestlŽ, Procter & Gamble and at least 25 other companies make voluntary contributions to expand recycling infrastructure, a critical step in embracing EPR.[11] Tyson is not known to voluntarily contribute financial resources to ensure its packaging never becomes waste.[12]

Tyson received a ÒD-Ó grade on a recent report evaluating corporate packaging sustainability for its failure to financially support recycling infrastructure, endorse EPR, reduce plastic use, explore reuse opportunities, and make all packaging recyclable.[13]

Our Company could avoid regulatory, environmental, and competitive risks by adopting a circular economy approach to packaging and financially contributing to recycling infrastructure.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: The report should assess, at Board discretion:

The reputational, financial, and operational risks associated with failing to promote a circular economy for packaging;

The potential to increase packaging recyclability and transition to reusable packaging; and

Opportunities to develop policies or goals to endorse EPR and determine an appropriate level of voluntary financial contributions to recycling infrastructure.

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.