Albertsons | Report on risks of state policies on reproductive health care at Albertsons

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
6
Resolution details
Company ticker
ACI
Lead filer
Presbyterian Church U.S.A. Foundation
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Public health
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Staples
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board issue a public report omitting confidential information and at reasonable expense, detailing any known costs to the company caused by state policies severely restricting reproductive rights or access to reproductive health medications, and detailing any strategies beyond litigation and legal compliance that the company may deploy to minimize or mitigate these risks.
Whereas clause
Comprehensive reproductive health care is essential for workers and their families, increases labor force participation, and boosts the economy. The lack of access to reproductive health care correlates with higher rates of poverty, maternal morbidity and mortality, and a reduction in the female labor force. These impacts disproportionately affect Black and Latina women (https://bit.ly/3YQkpfw). Women who cannot access abortion when needed are three times more likely to leave the workforce, and four times as likely to slip into poverty (https://bit.ly/37qrmMw).
 
 
Companies in the U.S. must navigate a patchwork of state laws regarding reproductive health care. Abortion is banned or heavily restricted in many states, including Idaho, where Albertsons is headquartered, and which has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. Many of Albertson’s 137,000 female employees may face steep challenges in their ability to access reproductive healthcare. Nationwide, more than 171,000 patients traveled out of state to obtain abortion care in 2023 (https://bit.ly/3YlILfH).
 
 
Employers also bear the cost of restricted abortion access. One study estimates that bans may cost the U.S. as much as $68 billion annually; Idaho's portion of that loss is estimated at $1.1 billion in Idaho, and the loss of 1.3% of its female workforce per year (https://bit.ly/4ele8gF).
 
 
Abortion bans discourage top talent from taking jobs in states with restrictions to care. A 2023 Morning Consult poll found that by a 2:1 margin, workers prefer to live in states where abortion is legal and accessible (https://bit.ly/4cqqrIA). Economists have found evidence suggesting that total abortion bans are causing significant population outflows since the overturn of Roe v. Wade (about 128,700 residents across 13 states), and the migrations appear to have grown stronger over time (https://bit.ly/3PLLjzS). Additionally, according to a 2022 Lean In survey, strong majorities of women under 40, regardless of political affiliation, would prefer to work for a company that supports abortion access (https://bit.ly/48oc4mC) and 64 percent of Americans say employers should ensure employees access to reproductive health care (bit.ly/3nmzd2U). Relatedly, Albertson’s operates 1,730 pharmacies in the U.S, but has repeatedly declined to clarify whether it will provide abortion medication to its customers where it is legal to do so.
Supporting statement
Shareholders recommend that the report include evaluation of new laws and legislation severely restricting reproductive rights, and similar restrictive laws proposed or enacted in other states. In its discretion, the Board’s analysis may include any effects on employee hiring, retention, and productivity, and decisions regarding closure or expansion of operations in states proposing or enacting restrictive laws and strategies such as any public policy advocacy by the company, related political contributions policies, and human resources or educational strategies.

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.