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

8.25% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
  • Net Zero / Paris aligned
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
BE IT RESOLVED: Meta shareholders request that the Board report publicly on its framework for identifying and addressing misalignment between Meta’s lobbying and policy influence activities and positions, and its Net Zero (emissions) climate commitments (done at reasonable cost, omitting confidential/proprietary information). This report should cover activities done both directly and indirectly through trade associations, coalitions, alliances, and social welfare organizations (“Associations”), and reference the criteria used to assess alignment, the escalation strategies employed to address misalignment, and the circumstances under which escalation strategies are used (e.g., timeline, sequencing, and degree of influence over an Association).
Supporting statement
Meta Platforms Inc. (“Meta” or “Company”) pays trade association dues and other membership fees to organizations that consistently doubt the scientific consensus on climate change.[1] The Company scores below its peers on many other aspects of climate policy advocacy as well.[2]
Clean energy policy should matter to Meta, since its greenhouse gas emissions increased 50% from 2021 to 2022, and electricity usage rose 22.5% in one year alone (2021-2022), according to its own reporting.[3][4]
Meta notes that for it to reach its “net zero emissions goal in 2030, [we] need governments around the world to move toward a net zero economy.”[5] Yet a review of Meta's direct climate lobbying and its disclosed trade associations 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 potentially misaligned organizations by serving on their boards, and by lobbying against legislation requiring enhanced corporate climate disclosure[9] [10]
While Meta notes it doesn’t always agree with the positions and policies of its trade association and membership organizations,[11] it has not disclosed the policy positions, actions, assessment framework, nor escalation considerations needed for investors to analyze and address the risk of misalignment in the Company’s current lobbying activities.
Such alignment matters because dangerous gaps continue to exist between national climate targets and the actions required to meet them, and lobbying to stall robust action threatens market stability as this implementation gap rises. “As global temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions break records, the latest Emissions Gap Report…finds that current pledges under the Paris Agreement put the world on track for a 2.5-2.9°C temperature rise….” [12] [13]
Proponents believe Meta’s current business model would face significant threats under such a scenario.
Shareholders need clear, credible information on whether Meta’s lobbying is aligned with the Company’s stated climate targets – because evidence shows that some companies tout their climate efforts while allowing themselves or the organizations and initiatives they support to block genuine climate progress. [1];;;;;;
[2]; In-N-Out Burger, Meta fight California climate change bill (

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Wesleyan Assurance Society For
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.