THE KROGER CO. | Respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining at THE KROGER CO.

Status
Filed
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
KR
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Decent work
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Staples
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a report analyzing whether Kroger’s internal policies regarding non-interference, workers’ freedom of association, and collective bargaining rights are consistent with the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights at reasonable cost and omitting privileged information.
Whereas clause
Freedom of association and collective bargaining are fundamental human rights under internationally recognized human rights frameworks. The United States has seen a “revival of union power” leading to significant changes in employee contracts in multiple industries.[1] A Gallup poll found that almost 70 percent of Americans approve of unions, this support has held steady for the last five years and is the highest approval rating of 60 years.[2],[3]

Should The Kroger Co. (Kroger) brand be linked to poor union practices, it risks losing customers. Moreover, the presence of unions has been positively correlated with low turnover, improved diversity, investment in training, and reduced legal and regulatory violations.[4] Conversely, companies that actively oppose unionization experience declines in productivity relative to those that are less opposed; “the overall negative effects are driven by manager’s or owner’s dislike of working with unions rather than economic costs of unions.”[5]

Kroger’s Human Rights Policy states “We commit to the corporate responsibility to respect human rights as defined by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). We also commit to respect internationally recognized human rights as defined by . . . [t]he ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” Kroger also commits to “embed this Human Rights Policy in our company’s culture, operations and supply chain, conduct human rights due diligence, and provide access to remedy as appropriate.”[6]

The last clear update to this policy was in 2022, and the last progress update to its “Commitment to Respect Human Rights” was for fiscal 2021.[7]

Despite its stated commitments, in the Richmond and Tidewater areas in Virginia, it has been alleged that Kroger is refusing to recognize unions at 11 stores, despite a majority of associates at these stores having agreed to unionization. The local labor union, UFCW Local 400, believes that the company has engaged in an effort to keep the union out of new stores, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement they have in place. Concerns have also been raised that Kroger has closed union stores and replaced them with non-union stores.

Given this inconsistency, a review is requested of the company’s implementation of its stated policies. This would provide investors with greater confidence that Kroger is appropriately managing its relationship to labor.

[1] https://hbr.org/2023/10/are-we-seeing-a-revival-of-union-power

[2] https://www.afge.org/article/new-gallup-poll-70-of-americans-approve-of-labor-unions/

[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/694472/labor-union-approval-relatively-steady.aspx

[4] https://www.workerscapital.org/our-resources/shared-prosperity-the-investor-case-for-freedom-of-association-and-collective-bargaining/

[5] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/press-kits/2023/assa/unionization-employer-opposition-preview.pdf , p.3

[6] https://www.thekrogerco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Kroger-Human-Rights-Policy-Feb-2022.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[7] https://www.thekrogerco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Kroger-Human-Rights-Progress-Update-Policy-Feb-2022.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

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.