This Proposal asks Campbell’s to report if and how it intends to measure and disclose its regenerative agriculture program’s success, including pesticide reduction, a key criterion to regenerating healthy soil. A healthy soil ecosystem is alive, with thriving microorganisms that retain nutrients and water, prevent topsoil loss, and assist plants in making use of available nutrients. Healthy soils also increase farm resiliency in the face of climate-related droughts, extreme heat, and floods and increase soil’s ability to sequester carbon.1 Pesticides kill soil microorganisms, thereby reducing soil health and increasing risk to farm resiliency. This problem is only intensified as climate-related risks increase and hinder crop production. 2,3,4 Pesticides also create negative health impacts for farm workers and fenceline communities, increase water pollution, and harm biodiversity. Therefore, regenerative agriculture programs that fail to significantly reduce pesticide use are unable to effectively achieve regenerative outcomes. Other aspects of regenerative agriculture, such as no-till or reduced tillage or crop rotation, can help retain healthy soils in place and help reduce crop disease, but they are insufficient alone. The base of a successful regenerative agriculture system is healthy soils, which are incompatible with heavy pesticide use. Tracking regenerative outcomes, including pesticide reduction, is necessary for investors, and the Company, to effectively manage risk. While Campbell’s reports that it collects data from its potato growers practicing cover cropping and crop rotation,5 it does not publicly disclose such data, nor does it report pesticide reduction data, leaving shareholders with insufficient information to understand the success of the Company’s regenerative agriculture program and whether it adequately mitigates the risks in the Company’s agricultural supply chains. Campbell’s similarly does not report improved biodiversity, water quality, or soil health to disclose the success of its regenerative program. In such case, shareholders require pesticide use and reduction data to assess a program’s ability to reduce risk and achieve regenerative outcomes. Campbell’s unwillingness to disclose pesticide reductions also leaves our Company vulnerable to claims of greenwashing and competitive risks, as Campbell’s falls behind peers. Campbell’s’ competitors, including Lamb Weston and Conagra, are measuring and publicly reporting pesticide reduction data across their supply chains to disclose the effectiveness of their regenerative agriculture programs. These actions are responsive not only to investors, but to concerned customers and advocates seeking the elimination or reduction of pesticide use, including consumer advocacy groups petitioning for more protective regulatory standards to address environmental and human health.6 In addition, Campbell’s potential failure to significantly reduce pesticide use in its regenerative agriculture program leaves our Company susceptible to decreased farm resiliency and litigation associated with pesticide-related health harms. Finally, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) estimates that farmers adopting regenerative practices will see between 70% to 120% higher profitability over time, above peers farming conventionally, due to increased resiliency7 and reducing the input costs from significant pesticide and fertilizer use. By promoting the adoption of effective regenerative agricultural practices in its supply chain, Campbell’s can help stabilize farmers’ incomes and crop production, thereby improving its own resiliency.