Resolved clauseShareholders request the Board of Directors to commission and publish, by March 31, 2027, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, a report evaluating Coca-Cola’s plastics packaging policies. The report should assess these policies in light of non-biased, scientifically accurate, and economically rigorous research, and include a quantifiable analysis of potential policy changes versus current practices as they affect the Company’s financial position.
Whereas clauseIn 2018 The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola” or “Company”) pledged under its unrealistic “World Without Waste” campaign that it would reach “100% of packaging recyclable globally by 2025,” to “collect or recycle a bottle or can for each one sold,” and to use “50% recycled content by 2030.”1 With those goals unreachable, in 2024 the Company replaced them with still-unworkable targets to “use 35% to 40% recycled material in primary packaging (plastic, glass and aluminum), including increasing recycled plastic use to 30% to 35% globally” and to “help ensure the collection of 70% to 75% of the equivalent number of bottles and cans introduced into the market annually.”2 Initiatives like Coca-Cola’s are driven by an alleged “plastics pollution crisis.”3 Yet objective evidence shows that plastic packaging in many ways offers net environmental and economic benefits,4 including lighter weight, durability, lower transportation costs, and reduced emissions compared to alternatives.5 Critics argue that to the degree there’s a problem, that it’s not plastic production, but inadequate waste management and disposal systems, particularly in developing economies.6 Global advocacy campaigns for a “circular economy,” which rely on biased reports such as Breaking the Plastic Wave7 and Plastics: The Costs to Society, the Environment, and the Economy,8 emphasize environmental “costs” while mostly ignoring the well-documented benefits of plastics and the trade-offs of substitutes. Materiality: In 2024, 48% of Coca-Cola’s global unit case packaging was plastic bottles.9 The Company dictates packaging policy and design standards, meaning bottlers execute strategy set by Coca-Cola, not independently.10 Packaging is one of the Company’s most visible and material operational issues, shaping brand reputation, investor expectations, and regulatory exposure. With Coca-Cola’s 2023 consolidated net operating revenues at nearly $46 billion,11 even conservative estimates show that packaging costs — and especially plastics — influence a significant share of the Company’s economics. Accordingly, shareholders have a right to request assurance that these policies are based on factual data and outcomes, not activist rhetoric (like “zero waste”) and “circular economy” fantasies.
Supporting statementCoca-Cola’s packaging strategy should be grounded in verifiable, scientific, and economic cost-benefit analysis. An objective evaluation would: 1. Comprehensively analyze the environmental impact of plastics versus alternatives, including lifecycle emissions, energy usage, and recyclability. 2. Assess the economic costs of replacing single-use plastics with higher-cost or heavier materials with recycled content inputs, and the implications for Coca-Cola’s supply chain and shareholders. 3. Examine whether corporate policy targets the true pollution culprit — poor waste management — rather than demonizing plastics as a material.