JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. | Report on congruence of security, resiliency, and climate initiatives at JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Company ticker
JPM
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Climate change
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors publish a report, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary or legally privileged information, describing the Board’s oversight and evaluation for how the Company’s Security and Resiliency Initiative is congruent with existing climate related commitments.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan” or “Company”) has revealed its $1.5 trillion Security and Resiliency Initiative (“SRI”), which will “facilitate, finance and invest” in critical American industries. Chairman/CEO Jamie Dimon stated in a Company press release: It has become painfully clear that the United States has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products and manufacturing – all of which are essential for our national security. Our security is predicated on the strength and resiliency of America’s economy. America needs more speed and investment. It also needs to remove obstacles that stand in the way: excessive regulations, bureaucratic delay, partisan gridlock and an education system not aligned to the skills we need.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: JPMorgan’s sustainability goals could represent many of the obstacles to which Mr. Dimon refers. The Company’s Carbon Compass sets 2030 targets across eight emissions-intensive sectors: oil and gas, electric power, auto manufacturing, aviation, shipping, iron and steel, cement, and aluminum—ranging from -23% to -69% from their 2019 baselines. These targets are based on the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. Further confusing matters, the Company exited the Net Zero Banking Alliance at the beginning of 2025. Nonetheless, these frameworks guide JPMorgan’s client engagement and underwriting toward lower-emissions intensity in these critical sectors. According to the Company’s 2024 Climate Report: We developed our Carbon Assessment Framework (“CAF”) to help assess our clients’ decarbonization plans. CAF creates an opportunity for us to engage with our clients, understand their views, plans and constraints, as well as their capital needs. We use CAF as one element of our decision making; for each new proposed in-scope transaction, our CAF provides decision-makers at the Firm with insights into how the transaction may impact a portfolio’s carbon intensity. JPMorgan’s existing focus on carbon emission intensity reductions and its new SRI represent potentially conflicting objectives. The SRI breaks down into 27 sub-areas, covering energy reliability, re-industrialization, critical minerals supply chains, artificial intelligence, and defense manufacturing. Meeting power demand growth—from data centers and AI to reshored industry—necessitates abundant power generation, affordable hydrocarbon energy, nuclear build-out, and exponentially greater mining and processing. While the SRI and JPMorgan’s existing climate targets may not be mutually exclusive, neither are they seemingly compatible. Increased security and resilience likely demand increased carbon intensity. From a reliability-first, pro-growth perspective, investors need clarity on how the Board reconciles climate-target conformity with financing the hydrocarbon, nuclear, and heavy-industry projects that underwrite U.S. security and resilience. JPMorgan’s existing climate reporting does not reflect the new SRI reality.

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.