0.59% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Amend board structure
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors create a board committee on corporate financial sustainability
to oversee and review the impact of the Company’s policy positions, advocacy, partnerships and charitable giving on social and
political matters, and the effect of those actions on the Company’s financial sustainability. The Company should issue a
public report on the committee’s findings by the end of 2024.
Whereas clause
Whereas: The Company’s policy positions, advocacy, partnerships and charitable giving on significant social policy and
political matters should not alienate consumers, decrease sales, or diminish shareholder value.
The Company takes public and politically divisive positions over issues of significant social policy concern, including
discriminating in service provision against mainstream viewpoints with which its executives differ.1 Likewise, it opposed
common-sense voting-integrity provisions that most Americans of all surface-characteristic categories support.2
According to 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Ratings, the Company contributed tens of millions of shareholder dollars to
organizations it portrayed as “combating systemic racism.”3 These donations, and that portrayal, was incautious. Since those
donations the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, for instance, has opposed cash bail and other sensible publicsafety measures that put urban minority groups at particular risk and is itself an act of systemic discrimination.4
Millions more flowed to BLM, which, so far from being an organization that fights systemic racism, has shown itself to
embody the evil, calling for the destruction of Israel and boosting antisemitism.5 This leaves to one side what actually
happened to those shareholder assets, given the systemic misappropriation of donations that has characterized BLM.6
The Company is a platinum partner of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and partners with allied organizations,7 which
seeks to sow gender confusion in primary school children while destroying girls’ and women’s sports, threatening the safety
of the most vulnerable, and demolishing long-standing religious freedoms. It has a 100 percent rating on the HRC’s Corporate
Equality Index, which requires spending shareholder assets to embrace highly partisan positions on hot-button issues.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement: The Company supports divisive organizations and takes public stances on divisive issues that alienate
current and prospective consumers and draw even more regulatory and legislative attention than it’s already under.
Recent events have made clear that company bottom-lines, and therefore value to shareholders, drop when companies
take overtly political and divisive positions that alienate consumers. Following Bud Light’s embrace of partisanship and
disparagement of its customer base, its revenue fell $395 million in North America when compared to the same time a year
ago.8 This amounts to roughly 10 percent of its revenue in the months following its leap into contentious politics.9 Target
Corporation’s market cap fell over $15 billion amid backlash for similar actions.10 And Disney stock fell 44 percent in 2022—its
worst performance in nearly 50 years—amid its decision to put extreme partisan agendas ahead of parents’ rights.11

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU. Against
THEMATICS Asset Management Against
Whitley Asset Management Against
Legal & General Investment Management (Holdings) Against A detailed explanation for our vote intention can be found on the LGIM Blog:

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.