Salesforce.com, inc. | Assessment of cost vs benefit of retaining Salesforce HQ in San Francisco at Salesforce.com, inc.

Status
Omitted
AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
CRM
Lead filer
National Legal and Policy Center
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Corporate purpose
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board of Directors’ Business Transformation Committee
– designed to “[oversee] management’s efforts to transform the business and strengthen our
foundation for sustained operational excellence and value creation”18 – to oversee an assessment
of the costs versus benefits of retaining Salesforce’s headquarters presence in San Francisco
compared to relocation in other potential states, by a third-party consultant if preferred.
Consideration of other states’ willingness to offer economic incentives should be evaluated, in
addition to other obvious business factors. No report is requested, as an advisory vote is intended
to simply represent shareholders’ will, in an effort to improve corporate value and performance.
Whereas clause
With unrelenting trends of excessive regulatory, taxation and anti-freedom
burdens, the State of California has seen an exodus of population, business and industry.1 2
Annual surveys designed to identify the “Best and Worst States for Business” of CEOs by Chief
Executive magazine have for several years ranked California 50th.
“Just as CEOs have solidified opinions about the welcoming top states,” the publication reported,
“their assessment of the worst has ossified.”3 For 2024, the magazine discovered that 49 percent
of CEOs said they were more open to examining new locations for their business, and 35 percent
were considering shifting operations to a new state.4 At least 60 corporate headquarters have left
San Francisco since 2020.5
Other Golden State anti-business policies have produced chronic problems including
undependable electricity supply and management;6 rampant crime and homelessness;7 8
inadequate preparation to mitigate natural disasters including wildfires and floods;9 property
non-insurability that has caused multiple carriers to flee the state;10 anti-free speech actions and
litigation;11 12 and many other public policy issues that are managed far better in other U.S.
states.
Supporting statement
Salesforce, Inc., based in San Francisco, is not exempt from
these negative consequences. The city is stuck in a “doom loop,” with its tallest skyscraper –
Salesforce Tower – emptied of six of its 30 floors due to attrition, a “beacon of hope turned
mausoleum.”13 CEO Marc Benioff in 2023 had to pressure the city to clean up the area in
advance of the company’s annual Dreamforce conference, asking, “Why can’t they do it every
day?”14
Companies whose identity was once intertwined with San Francisco are bailing out, with Wells
Fargo putting its headquarters building on the market and shuttering its corporate history
museum.15 Meanwhile those that have looked to shift decision-making operations from high-tax,
high-regulation states to less burdensome ones have discovered welcome mats rolled out, with extensive tax breaks and other economic incentives,
16 often producing relocation bidding wars
between jurisdictions.17
California and the City by the Bay are business-unfriendly and diminish the Company’s
capabilities to recruit talent, provide safe environs for workers, sustain asset values, and
maximize revenues and profits. The Board of Directors should consider relocation of its
headquarters elsewhere in the United States.

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.