STARBUCKS CORPORATION | Annual emissions congruency report at STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
8
Resolution details
Company ticker
SBUX
Lead filer
National Center for Public Policy
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • GHG targets / emissions
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that Starbucks Corporation publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of (1) Starbucks’ carbon emissions, including those generated by in-house personnel travel-related policies, during the preceding year, and (2) Starbucks’ publicly stated environmental commitments.
Whereas clause
Starbucks touts its “decades-long commitment to find solutions to mitigate the impacts of climate change,” and claims achieving this goal “takes all of us,”(1) it nonetheless has allowed new Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol to commute weekly from his California home via private jet.(2)

“Niccol’s private jet perk has brought some attention to the climate change implications of those flights and Starbucks’ projection as an environmentally friendly business.”(3) Estimates, likely on the low side, “indicate that his commute will release nearly nine tons of carbon dioxide each round trip. That’s roughly the annual energy-consumption footprint of the typical American household.”(4) This creates reputational risk in the form of potentially exposing the Company’s environmental commitments as greenwashing, which can result in costly boycotts(5) and fines(6).

The jet perk also raises reputational risk in terms of the Company’s relationship with its employees, who would not be granted a similar perk, as well other stakeholders. For example, one set of commentators noted: “We’d like to see him explain to California’s dairy farmers … why they should have to install cumbersome and costly ‘anaerobic digesters’ to manage emissions from cow manure while the new Starbucks CEO jets up and down the West Coast to keep his Newport Beach lifestyle.”(7)
Supporting statement
It is not enough for Starbucks to publish environmental goals and greenhouse emissions. In order to comply with its fiduciary duties, the board should also determine whether (1) the commitments are unrealistic or (2) the emissions too much or (3) both. For example, the Company has published a goal of “50% absolute reduction in scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse (GHG) emissions representing all of Starbucks direct operations and value chain by 2030,” and yet FY22 and FY23 results showed an increase in emissions from the FY19 baseline.(8) Furthermore, the recent issue involving CEO travel warrants updating any related assessments previously conducted. Finally, shareholders deserve publication of this analysis given that reputational and financial risk to companies abound when consumers cannot trust the commitments made by company leaders.

A congruency report that examines the extent to which Starbucks’ rules for executives, and the results achieved by those rules, align with its outward facing promises is essential to ferreting out corporate hypocrisy that could negatively impact the Company. Such a report can help identify decision-making defects that led to gaps between the Company’s commitments and practices including, possibly, the extent to which such gaps are the result of the Company’s environmental commitments being driven, at least in part, by ideologically-rooted activism rather than realistic cost-benefit analysis.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation nameDeclared voting intentionsRationale
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU.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.