THE HOME DEPOT, INC. | Political contributions congruency analysis at The Home Depot, Inc.

Status
37.97% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
HD
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
The Home Depot publish, at least annually, a report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies.
Supporting Statement:
Proponents recommend that such report also contain management's analysis of risks to our company's brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with company values. “Expenditures for electioneering communications" means spending, from the corporate treasury and from the PAC, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, on printed, internet or broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a specific candidate.
Whereas clause
The Home Depot’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee annually reviews The Home Depot's political contributions. The Home Depot has stated, “In an effort to ensure that the federal, state and local governments of those countries in which we conduct business act responsibly and in the best interest of our customers and associates, Home Depot actively participates, and encourages its associates to participate, in the political process.”
Home Depot sponsors a political action committee (PAC) which “supports public officials and candidates who understand the issues affecting Home Depot and promote a favorable business climate for the Company.”
However, The Home Depot’s politically focused expenditures appear to be misaligned with its public statements of its views and operational practices. For example, The Home Depot has committed to achieving a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2035, yet is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has long and consistently lobbied to roll back specific US climate regulations and promoted regulatory frameworks that would significantly slow a transition away from a GHG emission-intense energy mix.
In addition, The Home Depot has evidenced a strong commitment to gender diversity through its support of a women’s employee resource group, a “Women in Leadership” curriculum, and other actions, including the provision of strong reproductive health and maternity benefits. Yet based on public data, the proponent estimates that in the last three election cycles, The Home Depot and its employee PAC has made political donations totaling $6.5 million to politicians and political organizations working to weaken access to abortion.
If the company’s actions appear to conflict with its expressions of social and environmental intention, stakeholders may become concerned that its statements are “corporate puffery,” language described by the United States Federal Trade Commission as marketing exaggerations intended to “puff up” products and not able to be relied upon by consumers and investors.
Corporate political spending that conflicts with companies’ priorities is gaining attention in the media, with coverage by prominent media outlets such as Bloomberg, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, New York Times, STAT and the Guardian in 2020 alone.
Proponents believe The Home Depot should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk to the firm's reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political spending that are in contrast to its stated diversity and environmental policies.

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.