STARBUCKS CORPORATION | Majority voting requirements at STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Status
Filed
AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Company ticker
SBUX
Resolution ask
Adopt or amend a policy
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Shareholder rights
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that our board take the steps necessary so that any voting requirement that calls for a greater than majority vote be replaced by a requirement for a majority of the votes entitled to be cast on applicable proposals.
Supporting statement
Starbucks requires a two-thirds supermajority vote to approve mergers and share exchanges. Although this is the default standard under Washington corporate law (where Starbucks is incorporated), companies can replace that onerous requirement with a majority standard instead. Because supermajority standards are detrimental to shareholders, we believe Starbucks should instead adopt majority voting as the law permits.

Indeed, if action is good for the company, the Board should make its case to shareholders and seek majority approval; if it cannot make its case, shareholders should be able to meaningfully exercise their rights to stop such action.

Thus, we believe all matters permitted by law to be approved via simple majority should be presented to shareholders without heightened barriers.

Glass Lewis agrees, concluding that “a simple majority is appropriate to approve all matters presented to shareholders.” Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), which supports eliminating supermajority requirements, calls them “materially adverse to shareholder rights.” And major asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard also generally support reducing or eliminating supermajority requirements.

Consider, also, that just some of the major companies whose recent proxy statements tout their lack of supermajority voting provisions: 3M, Allstate, BJ’s Wholesale, BNY Mellon, Boeing, Capital One, Chevron, CVS, Danaher, Darden, Dow, Ebay, FedEx, Ford, GE, GM, GoDaddy, Goldman Sachs, Hershey, IBM, Jack in the Box, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Korn Ferry, Lockheed Martin, McKesson, Motorola Solutions, Nasdaq, PG&E, Quest Diagnostics, Salesforce, United Airlines, Walmart, Western Union, and Wendy’s.

Given the broad-ranging support for simple majority voting requirements, it’s perhaps unsurprising that proposals to eliminate supermajority requirements have passed in landslide votes at other companies.

As just ten examples, supermajority proposals filed by shareholders but opposed by management have passed at Tesla, McDonald’s, Staples, Netflix, SpartanNash, Kellogg, Hess, UNFI, FirstEnergy, and Walgreen’s—with approval from approximately 75% of the voted shares, on average. At some of these companies, votes have exceeded 90%.

Based on the foregoing, we believe support for this request is clearly warranted. Thank you.

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.