Resolved,  the shareowners of International Paper (IP) request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing: 1.   Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications.  2. Payments by IP used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.  3. Description of management?s decision-making process and the Board?s oversight for making payments described above, including how company handles misalignment between company priorities and policy positions of indirect lobbying groups. For purposes of this proposal, a ?grassroots lobbying communication? is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation. ?Indirect lobbying? is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which IP is a member. Both ?direct and indirect lobbying? and ?grassroots lobbying communications? include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.  The report shall be presented to Public Policy and Environment Committee and posted on IP?s website.  Supporting Statement  Full disclosure of IP?s lobbying activities and expenditures is needed to assess whether its lobbying is consistent with its expressed goals and shareowner interests. IP spent $58,407,743 from 2010 ? 2023 on federal lobbying. This does not include state lobbying, where IP also lobbies. For example, IP spent $596,361 on lobbying in California from 2010 ? 2023. And IP lobbies abroad, spending between ?300,000 ? 399,999 on lobbying in Europe for 2023. Companies can give unlimited amounts to third party groups that spend millions on lobbying and undisclosed grassroots activity. [1] IP fails to disclose its payments to trade associations and social welfare groups, or the amounts used for lobbying, to shareowners. IP discloses memberships in the Business Roundtable and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which together have spent over $625 million on federal lobbying since 1998, yet fails to disclose trade associations receiving under $50,000 that lobby, such as the Northwest Pulp & Paper Association or the Tennessee Forestry Association, which has spent $1,470,458 lobbying in Tennessee since 2009. [2] IP?s lack of disclosure presents reputational risk when its lobbying contradicts company public positions. For example, IP is committed to advancing the circular economy, yet reportedly lobbied against the Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act. [3] And IP is committed to a deliberate global transition to a low-carbon economy, yet the Business Roundtable filed an amicus brief opposing the Securities and Exchange Commission climate risk disclosure rules [4] and NAM leverages its ?influence to obstruct climate policy progress in the U.S. at the federal, state and local levels.? [5]   Reputational damage stemming from these misalignments could harm shareowner value. IP should expand its lobbying disclosure.   [1] https://theintercept.com/2019/08/06/business-group-spending-on-lobbying-in-washington-is-at-least-double-whats-publicly-reported/ . [2] https://tennesseelookout.com/2024/04/11/cash-for-clout-tennessees-million-dollar-club/ . [3] https://campaignlegal.org/update/unnoticed-influence-special-interests-climate-change-and-pollution-legislation . [4]   https://www.eenews.net/articles/investors-question-business-roundtables-climate-rule-battle/ . [5] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/dont-play-both-sides-take-3-steps-now-fix-your-trade-group-gap .