Sustainability Reporting describing the company’s environmental, social and governance business practices—co-filed with Walden Asset Management

Emerson Electric: re-filed resolution which received 34% last year. C.R. Bard: a slightly modified version of last year’s resolution was filed. After it received 28% last May, the company met informally with ICCR but then declined to move to greater transparency.

 

Hydraulic Fracturing: Community Impacts – Risk Assessment -- disclosure on the impacts of fracking on local community and the financial risks of these impacts. This resolution includes both environmental impacts to water quality, health impacts from exposure to water and air, and is broad enough to include social ills documented in fracking towns.

 

ExxonMobil: last year’s toxic chemical disclosure received a 28.2% vote Chevron: last year’s toxic chemical disclosure received a 41% vote

 

Here is a sampling of the significant press coverage after last year’s votes.

 

New: Political Spending Resolution – response to Citizens United ruling. Calls on corporations to review policies and oversight processes related to political spending and public policy, both direct and indirect including through trade associations, and present a summary report by September 2012.

 

IBM: Review and disclosure of any direct and indirect expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, for issue ads designed to affect political races, including dues and special payments made to trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

October 26, 2011

NEW YORK – Shareholders of AT&T Inc. have filed a proposal calling for the company “to publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles” that would maintain open access to the Internet on wireless networks.

The filing comes only weeks before implementation of new Federal Communications Commission rules on network neutrality that provide a broad exemption for wireless broadband networks – the fastest growing segment of the Internet.

AT&T has sought in the past to block shareholders from voting on network neutrality issues. A similar shareholder proposal on wireless networks was excluded from AT&T’s 2011 proxy ballot following a Securities and Exchange Commission staff ruling that net neutrality was not a “significant public policy issue.”

The latest AT&T proposal has been filed by institutional investors including the Nathan Cummings Foundation as well as individual investors including Mike D of the Beastie Boys. Unless the proposal is blocked again, it’s expected to be voted on at the company’s annual meeting in April 2012.

“Net neutrality is clearly a material issue of import for AT&T and for the whole country, which is why it’s critical that shareholders be heard,” said Farnum Brown, Chief Investment Strategist for Trillium Asset Management, LLC, an independent investment firm with more than $900 million under management, which represents some of the filers.

According to Laura Campos, director of shareholder activities at the Nathan Cummings Foundation, “This issue has important implications for both social and economic justice and long-term shareholder value. As a shareholder, the Foundation is concerned that over the longer-term, a failure to operate its wireless broadband network in accordance with the principles of network neutrality could negatively impact AT&T’s market share and damage its reputation with consumers.”

The AT&T shareholder proposal cites research by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University which concluded that an open Internet accounts for billions of dollars of economic value for Americans.”This economic and social value is an important factor in the growth of our economy and widely diversified investment portfolios,” the proposal states.

The proposal also notes that open Internet policies on wireless networks have particular importance for minority and economically disadvantaged communities. People of color access the Internet via cell phones at a much greater rate than their white counterparts, according to a report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. “The digital freedoms at stake are a 21st century civil rights issue,” says Colorofchange.org, an organization representing African-Americans, which is cited by the shareholders.

The shareholder proposal calls on AT&T to proactively ensure that its wireless networks remain open and provide equal access and non-discriminatory treatment for all content.“

Maintaining the existing system of net neutrality for our mobile networks is a win-win – its good for economic growth and good for the principles of free expression that underpin our democracy – the greatest platform the world has known for sustainable economic growth,” said Jonas Kron, Deputy Director for Shareholder Advocacy at Trillium.

The shareholder initiative at AT&T was organized by Open MIC – the Open Media and Information Companies Initiative – a nonprofit organization that seeks to inform corporations’ responsible media management practices. “Net neutrality is necessary to insure competition, entrepreneurship, innovation, and free expression in the digital economy,” said Michael Connor, Open MIC’s Executive Director. “That’s why it is so important that the investor voice be heard.”

The complete text of the AT&T wireless network neutrality proposal is available on the Open MIC web site and can be downloaded here (PDF).

For more information about recent net neutrality issues, visit www.openmic.org.

The Open Media and Information Companies Initiative – Open MIC – is a non-profit organization working to promote a vibrant, diverse media ecosystem through market-based solutions. Founded in late 2006, Open MIC is a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

For more information, contact:Michael ConnorExecutive Director212-537-9401mconnor@openmic.orgwww.openmic.org

September 2, 2011

Increasingly investors have been evaluating the role ofcompanies as they seek to influence legislation, regulation and the publicpolicy debate.

Obviously one way for a company to be an active advocate,especially post the Supreme Court CitizensUnited decision, is to use corporate funds or their PACs to providefunds to affect elections director or indirectly.

Yet companies also work to influence public policy bylobbying directly as well as through trade associations and other third partyorganizations.  And some companies also actively co-ordinate“grassroots lobbying” whereby they reach out to employees and othersupportive groups around the country urging them to write their local Membersof Congress so they can hear from local constituents directly and not from acompany’s Public Affairs office in another state.

For example, when the McConnell Bill was presented to limitthe role of the EPA in addressing Greenhouse Gases related to Climate Change,one oil company sent an email alert to all employees urging them to contacttheir Senator / Representative to support this amendment which constituted afrontal attack on the EPA.

This powerful but indirect grassroots lobbying is much likethe U.S. Chamber of Commerce which sends out regular alerts to its membersurging them to contact their representatives.

Federal Law requires that a company’s federal directlobbying expenditures are publicly disclosed (see sample set of companyprofiles covering two years of expenditures), but indirect expenditures throughthird party and grassroots lobbying are not.  And only 21 states requireany disclosure regarding lobbying of state legislators. In addition, investorsdo not have easy access to this information unless a company adds it to theirwebsite so it is really not directly available.

Thus it is appropriate and timely to ask companies to reporton their lobbying policies, oversight and expenditures just like we seektransparency on political spending.

And some companies do a pretty good job of disclosing suchinformation on their website.

Last year AFSCME took an important step in addressing thisissue by filing resolutions seeking disclosure of lobbying with companies. Theresolution passed muster at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Formerly, lobbying resolutions had been considered “OrdinaryBusiness” and omitted by the SEC.

Now we know that such a request can properly be presented toa company for inclusion in their proxy for a vote.

I believe that proposing lobbying disclosure for a companyis separate but closely connected to our requests for full transparency onpolitical spending.  However, even though connected, I also believe it iswise to keep the two requests separate and not muddy the waters by combiningthem in one resolution.

I enclose a sample resolution which I have drafted seekinglobbying disclosure.  We also enclose a series of charts on samplecompanies lobbying expenditures we researched.

Note that the resolution seeks more clarity and furtherdisclosure than what is disclosed on the Government website.

I look forward to conversations about your interest in suchan approach as well as companies and industries where such a request should bea priority.

Timothy Smith

Senior Vice President

Director of ESG Shareowner Engagement

Request for Disclosure of Lobbying Policies and Practices

Whereas, businesses, like individuals, have a right to express opinions to legislators and regulators on public policy matters.

However, we believe it is important that our company’s lobbying positions, as well as processes to influence public policy, are transparent.  Public opinion is skeptical of corporate influence on Congress and public policy and questionable lobbying activity may pose risks to our company’s reputation. For example, corporate political spending and lobbying which might harm consumers or the public. Hence, we believe full disclosure of Company’s policies, procedures and oversight mechanisms is warranted.

Resolved:

The shareholders of Company request the Board authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:

1. Company policy and procedures governing the lobbying of legislators and regulators, including through trade associations. The disclosure should include both direct and indirect lobbying and grassroots lobbying communications.

Payments (both direct and indirect, including payments to trade associations) used for direct lobbying as well as grassroots lobbying communications, including the amount of the payment and the recipient.

Membership in and payments to     any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation     composed of both corporate members and state legislators.

Description of the decision-making process and oversight by the management and Board for

a.   direct and indirect lobbying contribution or expenditure;

b.   payment for grassroots lobbying expenditure.

For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation.

Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.

The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee of the Board or other relevant oversight committees of the Board and posted on the company’s website. 

Supporting Statement

As shareholders, we encourage transparency and accountability on the use of staff time and corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation both directly and indirectly as well as grassroots lobbying initiatives. We believe such disclosure is in shareholder best interests. Absent a system of accountability, company assets could be used for policy objectives contrary to a company’s long-term interests posing risks to the company and shareholders.

For example, a company may lobby directly or through a trade association to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or stop the EPA from regulating climate change or trying to limit the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Company funds of approximately $XXXX million from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011 supported direct federal lobbying activities, according to disclosure reports.  (U.S. Senate Office of Public Records http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/opr.htm)  This figure may not include grassroots lobbying, to directly influence legislation by mobilizing public support or opposition. Also, not all states require disclosure of lobbying expenditures to influence legislation or regulation.

We encourage our Board to require comprehensive disclosure related to direct, indirect and grassroots lobbying.

Jonas Kron, JD

In the Winter 2011 issue of Investing For A Better World, our colleague Farnum Brown described shareholder advocacy as version 2.0 on SRI’s (socially responsible investment’s) travels towards 3.0, and discussed the importance of directly pressing companies to improve their environmental and social impacts. Similarly, Amy Domini of Domini Social Investments recently wrote passionately in the Huffington Post about the importance of shareholder advocacy as a meaningful way for investors to have a positive impact on the world. Both pieces touched upon the ongoing debate about what to call our field. What was once “socially responsible” or “ethical” investing is now “ESG” (environmental, social and governance) investing or “sustainability” investing. We welcome the newest arrival, “impact investing” into the lexicon as a term that encompasses the new types of enterprises being started by social entrepreneurs as well as one that describes what labor plans, religious shareholders and socially concerned investors been doing for three decades.

Both Farnum’s and Amy’s pieces also noted some examples of successful shareholder advocacy that speak to the impact of SRI/ESG investing. We thought it might be a useful contribution to the nomenclature discussions to devote some space to reviewing some of the most recent “impactful” shareholder campaigns from SRI/ESG firms (with apologies to language purists).

Toxic Chemical Phaseouts. Some of shareholder activists’ “greatest hits” have been in persuading companies to reduce or eliminate their use of toxic chemicals. They are found in virtually every ecosystem in the world, and up to 300 toxic chemicals have been found in humans. The following are examples of company actions taken following shareholder dialogues and/or proposals:

1. General Mills announced that it would no longer use bisphenol A (BPA) in its Muir Glen brand tomatoes packaging (2010)

2. Apple announced it would stop using brominated flame retardants in its computers (2007)

3. Sears Holdings (Sears and K-Mart) began a multi-year process of phasing out PVC products and packaging (2007)

4. Whole Foods announced that it would remove baby bottles and other products that contain BPA from its shelves (2006).

Political Spending Disclosures. The Citizens United Supreme Court case of 2010 renewed attention to the role of the corporate sector in politics and the public policymaking process. Shareholders have been working to lift the veil on corporate political spending since 2004. Assisted by the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability, shareholders have persuaded 52 major corporations (including 35 in the S&P 100) to disclose and require board oversight of their political spending with corporate funds, beyond what is required to comply with the laws.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Before SRI investors founded Ceres and the Global Reporting Initiative, standardized corporate sustainability reporting was virtually nonexistent, and where it did exist it was guided by trade association criteria that lacked public credibility. Today, thanks to persistent and diligent shareholder advocacy, about 1,800 companies produce reports based on the GRI guidelines, and demonstrating that “what gets measured gets managed.”

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender nondiscrimination policies. Shareholder advocates can rightly claim credit for persuading many of the nation’s most prominent corporations to adopt inclusive nondiscrimination policies. Activists have filed well over 200 resolutions that have led to better policies at 150-plus corporations – affecting the lives of millions of workers around the world. Many additional companies have changed policies simply in response to inquiries from shareholders.

Home Depot Wood Purchasing Policy. In the late 1990s a broad coalition of shareholders added their voices to the campaign demanding that the world’s largest retailer of lumber products stop selling wood products from endangered forests. Using the vehicle of a shareholder resolution and outreach to large institutional investors, the shareholders generated twice as much support as was typical for a resolution in the 1990s. The campaign resulted in a commitment to phase out sales of wood products from endangered forest areas within three years, and the company’s commitment to give preference to Forest Stewardship Council certified lumber wherever possible.

 Read the original article here.

ORRVILLE, Ohio - The J.M. Smucker Co. perked up coffee-lovers by announcing that after four straight price hikes in little over a year, the company was cutting prices by an average of 6 percent.

The Orrville food company, which is holding its annual shareholders meeting today, said Tuesday's news applies to the prices on a majority of its coffee products sold in the U.S., including top-selling Folgers Coffee, Folgers Gourmet Selections and Dunkin' Donuts packaged coffee sold in supermarkets.

Smucker cut prices in response to declines in the price of raw green coffee futures, which slipped to $2.10 per pound in July, down 9 percent from a 34-year-high of $2.31 per pound in April.

That's still 65 percent higher than the $1.27-per-pound price in April 2010, but represents the third-straight monthly decline after more than a year of steadily climbing prices, according to the International Coffee Organization.

Those rising prices, on top of higher fuel and other production costs, prompted Smucker to increase its own coffee prices four times:

• 4 percent on May 18, 2010;

• 9 percent on Aug. 3, 2010;

• 10 percent on Feb. 8, 2011;

• and 11 percent on May 24.

Smucker's rivals, including Starbucks, Maxwell House, Peet's Coffee & Tea and Green Mountain Coffee have raised their coffee prices over the past year, too, but have not yet responded to Tuesday's announcement.

Dominic Caruso, vice president of Caruso's Coffee Inc., a specialty coffee roaster in Brecksville, said that while prices for some kinds of raw beans have fallen, they remain significantly higher than they were a year ago.

He said that while mass-produced coffee blends like Folgers and Dunkin' Donuts can compensate for more expensive beans by increasing the amount of cheaper robusta beans, coffee houses that specialize in premium beans or single-source coffees have less wiggle room to lower prices.

"On certain coffees, like breakfast blends and doughnut shop blends, we're going to try to pass along that savings to the customer," he said. "But on other coffees, like African coffees or Indonesian Sumatras and Javas, we're stuck" with higher prices.

Caruso doesn't expect many coffee house regulars to switch to brewing at home, however, because coffee is still an affordable indulgence. "The customer who's going to the coffee shop is going there for a lot of reasons besides price," he said.

The price cut news also came a day before Smucker's annual shareholders meeting, where two shareholder groups that advise investors on responsible and sustainable companies are seeking more information about the company's long-term coffee strategy.

Calvert Investment Management Inc. of Bethesda, Md., and Trillium Asset Management LLC of Boston want shareholders to approve their Proposal 5, requiring Smucker to provide a report to shareholders about how the company plans to deal with possible climate changes and threats to family coffee farms within six months of the annual meeting.

Because coffee makes up 40 percent of Smucker's net sales and 48.6 percent of its profit, the groups wrote a letter to shareholders saying that they want to know how the company plans to respond to climate changes like global warming, changes in rainfall patterns, and its "responsibility for its impact on the coffee farming families in its supply chain."

Rebecca Henson, Calvert's sustainability analyst, said: "The proposal is meant to encourage the company to take more meaningful steps" to protect shareholders, because so much of its business depends on coffee. "We just think there's more they can do to manage this risk."

Calvert, a mutual fund which offers advice to more than 400,000 individual and institutional investors, owns 4,269 shares of Smucker stock.

Trillium, the oldest and largest independent adviser devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing, advises several hundred clients who own about 90,000 shares of Smucker.

Both groups say Smucker has provided "woefully inadequate" guidance on these topics and that it "lags significantly behind" its global peers Nestle, Sara Lee and Kraft in providing that information.

Sara Lee, for example, aims to have 20 percent of its coffee volume certified sustainable by 2015, while Nescafe will distribute 220 million disease-resistant coffee plantlets to coffee farmers around the world by 2020.

Smucker declined to answer questions Tuesday about the price cut or Proposal 5, saying that it was in its quiet period prior to Thursday's earnings conference call.

In an Aug. 9 letter to shareholders, however, Co-Chief Executives Tim and Richard Smucker responded that the company had already answered those requests.

They said that "in making the decision and expending time and resources to voluntarily publish a corporate responsibility report, it has taken appropriate action to address shareholder concerns" and that adopting Proposal 5 would be "unnecessary, duplicative and inappropriate."

Read the original article here.