The Internet has become a defining infrastructure of our economy and society; Internet Service Providers like Verizon forge rules that shape, enable and limit Internet use.

Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Genachowski recently noted that a free and open Internet is an “unprecedented platform for speech, democratic engagement, and a culture that prizes creative new ways of approaching old problems.” A free and open Internet, he said, demands Americans’ attention because the Internet must play a critical role in solving the “great challenges [we face] as a nation right now, including health care, education, energy, and public safety.” He asserted: “We have an obligation to ensure that the Internet is an enduring engine for U.S. economic growth, and a foundation for democracy in the 21^st century.”

These issues have attracted considerable public interest since at least 2005 when the FCC first articulated open Internet principles and may present financial risk to the company.

The widespread interest in a free and open Internet (so-called “net neutrality”) is echoed by recent letters from hundreds of organizations including the American Library Association, Writers Guild of America, West, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and Consumer Federation of America. As a letter from minority advocates put it, applications of net neutrality principles “to wireline and wireless networks are essential for extending the proven benefits of the Internet to poor people and people of color.”

Hundreds of federal and state legislators have written to the FCC on these issues. Congress is now considering the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and the Internet Freedom Act. The FCC is also considering a proposed rule.

Verizon’s opposition to the FCC’s proposed rule-making was formulated and announced even before the proposed changes were made public in October 2009.  One day earlier, Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg told an industry convention it would be a “mistake, pure and simple” for the FCC to impose a “burdensome regime” of regulation on the Internet.  In contrast, the CEO of Qwest Communications, speaking one week after the FCC announcement, told Wall Street analysts that Qwest is not concerned with the issue and believes the rules which might be put in place will be adequate.

The Washington Post and OpenSecrets.org report that Verizon is among the most active lobbyists on these issues.

We believe independent members of the Board should give the Company’s position on this issue a second look to insure that the Company is adequately considering its social obligations as well as the risks and opportunities presented by this issue.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request a committee of independent directors publish a report, by August 2010 at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, re-examining our Company’s policy position and discussing how the Company could address the challenges presented by the free and open Internet issue in the context of Verizon’s corporate social responsibility, its reputation, and the impact of the company’s policies on customers, communities, and society.

Related posts

• AT&T – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Open MIC, founded by Trillium, files shareholder resolutions with 10 Internet Service Providers (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)

The shareholders of State Street (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

1.    Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

2.    Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:

a.     An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;

b.    Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and

The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with recent federal ethics legislation. Political activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate. Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.

Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures. For example, payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political contributions, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations.

The financial crisis highlights the need for this disclosure. Despite widespread calls for comprehensive regulatory reform to prevent another crisis, there has been surprisingly little action by Congress or the Administration. The role of the financial industry and trade associations in the failure to achieve meaningful reform was raised this fall when President Obama and administration officials called on the financial industry to stop lobbying against proposed financial reforms.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Related posts

• Haliburton – Report on Political Contribution (0)
• Ford Motor Company – Political Contributions (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• Proxy Voting Guidelines – Social Issues (0)

Questar does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (or gender expression) in its written employment policy;

Over 87% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 97% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and over 40% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression;

We believe that corporations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool;

According to a June 2008 survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs, 65% of gay and lesbian workers in the United States reported facing some form of job discrimination related to sexual orientation. An earlier survey found that almost one out of every 10 gay or lesbian adults also reported that they had been fired or dismissed unfairly from a previous job, or pressured to quit a job, because of their sexual orientation;

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, and more than 180 cities and counties, have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; 12 states, the District of Columbia, and more than 104  cities and counties have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression;..

Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles have adopted legislation restricting business with companies that do not guarantee equal treatment for gay and lesbian employees; the City of Minneapolis’s nondiscrimination laws reference both sexual orientation and gender identity;

Our company has operations in and makes sales to institutions in states and cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

A growing number of companies in the energy sector, such as BP and Chevron, explicitly prohibit sexual orientation in their written policies;

National public opinion polls consistently find more than three quarters of the American people support equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. In a Gallup poll conducted in May 2007, 89% of respondents favored equal opportunity in employment for gays and lesbians.

RESOLVED

The Shareholders request that Questar amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression and substantially implement the policy.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity diminishes employee morale and productivity.  Because state and local laws are inconsistent with respect to employment discrimination, our company would benefit from a consistent, corporate-wide policy to enhance efforts to prevent discrimination, resolve complaints internally, access employees from the broadest talent pool, and ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees. Questar will enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.

Related posts

• Gardner Denver – Gender Identity Non Discrimination (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

Shareholders request the Board of Directors to report to shareholders, within six months, on how the corporation ensures that it responsibly discloses its environmental impacts in all of the communities where it operates. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost; omit proprietary information; and go above and beyond existing legal obligations and legal compliance systems. The report should contain the following:

1. how the corporation makes available reports regarding its emissions and environmental impacts on land, water, and soil—both within its permits and emergency emissions—to members of the communities where it operates;

2. how the corporation integrates community environmental accountability into its current code of conduct and business practices; and

3. the extent to which the corporation’s activities have negative health effects on individuals living in economically poor communities.

WHEREAS

PPG is a global supplier of coatings, chemicals, with over 140 facilities worldwide.

PPG is committed to “operating in a manner that is protective of people and the environment” and “is focused on stewardship and conservation, which not only helps protect the environment, but also gives PPG a competitive advantage in the marketplace.”  (2008 Corporate Sustainability Report).

Yet, a recent analysis by Riskmetrics ranks PPG “worst in sector for Toxics Release Inventory emissions normalized by US sales.”

A report by noted scientist Wilma Subra links PPG’s Lake Charles facility’s emissions to documented medical conditions afflicting residents of neighboring Mossville, LA. (Chemical and Industrial Sources of the Chemicals Associated with the Medical Symptoms and Health Conditions of Mossville Residents, 5/25/09.)  PPG is named as a source for over 60% of the chemicals identified and associated with medical ailments, the highest correlation rate of the five industrial plants analyzed in the study.

PPG was named as one of the top 100 U.S. corporate air polluters in 2005, according to researchers at the University of Massachusetts. (http://www.peri.umass.edu/ej/)

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

We believe that corporations have a moral responsibility to be accountable for their environmental impacts. No corporation can operate without the resources that local communities provide, but often these communities bear the brunt of corporate activities.

The proponents are also concerned about the effects of corporate activities on low-income areas and communities of color.  Many communities bordering industrial facilities, including those owned by PPG, are majority African American.  One study has found that industrial facilities operating in more heavily African-American counties “seem to pose greater risk of accident and injury than those in counties with fewer African-Americans.”  (“Environmental Justice: Frequency and Severity of U.S. Chemical Industry Accidents and the Socio-economic Status of Surrounding Communities,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, (2004)).  We believe that all communities have a right to clean air, water, and soil.

Stakeholder engagement is featured prominently in PPG’s 2008 CR report, but no formal stakeholder engagement policy is in effect. The requested report would do much to assure shareholders and other stakeholders that the corporation takes seriously its ethical responsibilities to all of the communities that host its facilities.

Related posts

• ExxonMobile – Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands (0)
• ConocoPhilips – Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)

Shareholders of Plum Creek Timber Company request the board of directors to adopt a policy that provides shareholders the opportunity at each annual shareholder meeting to vote on an advisory resolution, proposed by management, to ratify the compensation of the named executive officers (“NEOs”) set forth in the proxy statement’s Summary Compensation Table (the “SCT”) and the accompanying narrative disclosure of material factors provided to understand the SCT (but not the Compensation Discussion and Analysis).  The proposal submitted to shareholders should make clear that the vote is non-binding and would not affect any compensation paid or awarded to any NEO.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

In our view, senior executive compensation at Plum Creek Timber has not always been structured in ways that best serve shareholders’ interests.  For example, while shareholders were experiencing negative total shareholder return for 2008, CEO Rick Holley received more than $8 million in reported compensation, including more than $6 million in option awards.

We believe existing SEC rules and stock exchange listing standards do not provide shareholders with sufficient mechanisms for providing input to boards on senior executive compensation. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, public companies allow shareholders to cast a vote on the “directors’ remuneration report,” which discloses executive compensation. Such a vote isn’t binding, but gives shareholders a clear voice that could help shape senior executive compensation. A 2007 study of executive compensation in the U.K. before and after the adoption of the shareholder advisory vote there found that CEO cash and total compensation became more sensitive to negative operating performance after the vote’s adoption.  (Sudhakar Balachandran et al., “Solving the Executive Compensation Problem through Shareholder Votes?  Evidence from the U.K.” (Oct. 2007).)

Currently U.S. share exchange listing standards require shareholder approval of equity-based compensation plans; those plans, however, set general parameters and accord the compensation committee substantial discretion in making awards and establishing performance thresholds for a particular year.  Shareholders do not have any mechanism for providing ongoing feedback on the application of those general standards to individual pay packages.

Similarly, performance criteria submitted for shareholder approval to allow a company to deduct compensation in excess of $1 million are broad and do not constrain compensation committees in setting performance targets for particular senior executives.  Withholding votes from compensation committee members who are standing for reelection is a blunt and insufficient instrument for registering dissatisfaction with the way in which the committee has administered compensation plans and policies in the previous year.

Accordingly, we urge our board to allow shareholders to express their opinion about senior executive compensation by establishing an annual referendum process.  The results of such a vote could provide our company with useful information about shareholders’ views on the company’s senior executive compensation, as reported each year, and would facilitate constructive dialogue between shareholders and the board.

Related posts

• UnitedHealth Group – Say on Pay (0)
• J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. – Pay Disparity Report (0)
• Intel – Say on Pay (0)
• ‘Say on Pay’ Gathers Steam Heading Into 2009 (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)

Recent events have increased concerns about the extraordinarily high levels of executive compensation at many U.S. corporations.  Concerns about the structure of executive compensation packages have also intensified, with some suggesting that the compensation system incentivized excessive risk-taking.

In a Forbes article on Wall Street pay, the director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard Law School noted that, “compensation policies will prove to be quite costly—excessively costly—to shareholders.”  Another study by Glass Lewis & Co. declared that compensation packages for the most highly paid U.S. executives “have been so over-the-top that they have skewed the standards for what’s reasonable.”  That study also found that CEO pay may be high even when performance is mediocre or dismal.

In 2008, Federal Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner stated that, “executive pay is out of control and the marketplace cannot be trusted to rein it in.”  Legislative attempts to address executive compensation include the Excessive Pay Shareholder Approval Act, which mandates that no employee’s compensation may exceed 100 times the average compensation paid to all employees of a given company unless at least 60% of shareholders vote to approve such compensation.

A 2008 piece in BusinessWeek revealed that, “Chief executive officers at companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index earned more than $4,000 an hour each [in 2007].”  It also noted that an S&P 500 CEO had to work, on average, approximately 3 hours in 2007 “to earn what a minimum wage worker earned for the full year.”

A September 2007 study of Fortune 500 firms showed that top executives’ pay averaged $10.8 million the previous year, or more than 364 times the pay of the average U.S. worker.  Another study by the Economic Policy Institute found that between 1989 and 2007, average CEO pay rose by 163% while the wages of the average worker in the United States rose by only 10%.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request the Board’s Compensation Committee initiate a review of our company’s executive compensation policies and make available, upon request, a summary report of that review by October 1, 2010 (omitting confidential information and processed at a reasonable cost).  We request that the report include:

1. A comparison of the total compensation package of senior executives and our employees’ median wage in the United States in July 2000, July 2004 & July 2009.

2. An analysis of changes in the relative size of the gap and an analysis and rationale justifying this trend.

3. An evaluation of whether our senior executive compensation packages (including, but not limited to, options, benefits, perks, loans and retirement agreements) are “excessive” and should be modified to be kept within reasonable boundaries.

4. An explanation of whether sizable layoffs or the level of pay of our lowest paid workers should result in an adjustment of senior executive pay to “more reasonable and justifiable levels” and whether JPMorgan Chase should monitor this comparison going forward.

Related posts

• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• UnitedHealth Group – Say on Pay (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)

Intel has announced that it is discontinuing its physical stockholders meeting in 2010 and will hold the meeting online.

We strongly support the use of new technologies to make annual meetings accessible to stakeholders who cannot attend in person.  This will make “attendance” simpler for investors globally and is a creative tool for expanding outreach to owners.

But we do not believe that Internet-only meetings should be substituted for traditional in-person annual meetings.  Instead, they should be a complementary. We believe the tradition of in-person annual meetings plays an important role in holding management accountable to stockholders.

In contrast, online-only annual meetings could allow companies to control which questions and concerns are heard and manipulate the exchanges between shareowners and the company. Face-to-face annual meetings allow for an unfiltered dialogue between shareholders and management.

The Council of Institutional Investors, a coalition of America’s largest pension funds with portfolios valued over $3 trillion, has among its published corporate governance guidelines for effective governance of public companies, “Cyber meetings should only be a supplement to traditional in-person shareholder meetings, not a substitute.”

Additionally, we believe in-person annual meetings are necessary for several reasons:

• Annual meetings are one of the few opportunities for top management and the Board to interact directly, face-to-face, with a cross section of their shareholders.
• The digital divide persists in the United States and not all shareholders have access to computers.
• Annual meetings provide for direct questions to be posed to the Chair of the Audit, Compensation or Governance Committees of the Board.
• While some corporations argue that eliminating the face-to-face annual meeting is a way to reduce costs and improve efficiency, we believe the investment in creating a physical space for shareholder meeting is money well spent.
• We believe Intel’s decision is a controversial one for a company with a positive reputation on corporate governance.  This decision sets a precedent and creates a “slippery slope” that will encourage other companies that desire to insulate themselves from shareholders to follow suit.  Imagine a company that wanted to downplay investor frustration over compensation policies or practices, or poor business decisions leading to substandard financial performance, or questionable governance or environmental records: “virtual” online meetings would be a perfect way to insulate themselves from shareholder interaction or to “spin” any opposition as insignificant.
• In addition, if there was a major crisis with a company or a merger being proposed, the last thing investors would want is a company’s refusal to hold an actual stockholder meeting.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that Intel adopt a corporate governance policy affirming the continuation of in-person annual meetings in addition to internet access to the meeting, adjust its corporate practices accordingly, and publicize this policy to investors.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) is a fair employment practice and an investment issue. We believe that companies with a good EEO record have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees. Moreover, we believe Home Depot customers are increasingly diverse; therefore a similarly diverse work force is more likely to anticipate and respond effectively to consumer demand. EEO reporting has economic relevance.

Home Depot shareholder votes in favor of a diversity report surpassed 22%, 25%, and 25% in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively – sending a consistent signal to management that shareowners desire increased accountability.

The Company annually files an EEO-1 report with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hence, this information could be made available to shareholders at a minimal additional cost.

Allegations of discrimination in the workplace burden shareholders with costly litigation that can damage a company’s reputation.

Home Depot has paid out more than $100 million to settle discrimination lawsuits in the last 13 years.  The most significant EEO settlement of $87 million was in 1997. In 2004, Home Depot agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle charges of class-wide gender, race and national origin discrimination at more than 30 Colorado stores. In 2006, Home Depot paid $125,000 to settle a racial discrimination suit.

RESOLVED

The shareholders request that Home Depot prepare a diversity report, at reasonable cost and omitting confidential information, available to investors by September 2010, including the following:

1. A chart identifying employees according to their gender and race in each of the nine major EEOC-defined job categories for the last three years, listing numbers or percentages in each category;

2. A summary description of any affirmative action policies and programs to improve performance, including job categories where women and minorities are underutilized; and

3. A description of any policies and programs oriented specifically toward increasing the number of managers who are qualified females or minorities.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

In 2006, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported racial minorities comprised 32% of private industry but just 17% of executives and managers.  Likewise, women represented 48% of the workforce, but just 36% of executives and managers. Employment and advancement barriers persist.

Several major U.S. corporations provide diversity reports with detailed EEO information including Wal-Mart, IBM, Intel, Merck, Costco and Coca-Cola.

In 2001, Home Depot began providing EEO information to investors upon request.  Since then Home Depot reversed its policy on disclosure of this information.

We agree with a recommendation of the 1995 bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission that “public disclosure of diversity data—specifically data on the most senior positions—is an effective incentive to develop and maintain innovative, effective programs to break the glass ceiling barriers.”

The Social Investment Forum and RiskMetrics concluded in a 2008 study of corporate disclosure of EEO data that corporate transparency on EEO progress is necessary to assess the risks and opportunities of an investment.

Home Depot has demonstrated leadership on many corporate social responsibility issues.  We ask the company to again demonstrate leadership in diversity by committing to EEO disclosure.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

The Investor Statement calls on companies to address the role conflict minerals play by implementing a system for determining the origins of materials, creating a non-conflict material policy and working with their suppliers to ensure adherence to it.

The DRC, which has been plagued by a civil war since 1998, continues to lose 45,000 people each month to violence and disease, even though the war officially ended in 2003. In total, more than 5.4 million people have lost their lives and millions more have been displaced.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the widespread sexual violence against women in the eastern Congo “a crime against humanity.”

The militias that are responsible for the conflict use the abundance of coltan, gold, tin and tungsten deposits (which make the DRC one of the most mineral rich countries in the world) to finance their operations.  These militias, who control most of the mines in the eastern DRC, demand bribes, unofficial taxes and other payments for the minerals. The minerals are smuggled into neighboring countries including Rwanda and Burundi, smelted and eventually used in making laptops, cell phones, medical devices, airplane engines, and other consumer goods.

Some companies are already addressing this issue, most notably Hewlett Packard, which has implemented a metals traceability project. In addition, the EICC (Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition) and GeSI (Global E-Sustainability Initiative) have recently commissioned the nonprofit organization RESOLVE to map the supply chain of various metals including tin and tantalum, which is made from processing coltan.

For more information:

“Investor Statement Regarding Conflict Minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” January 11, 2010.

“Boundaries of Responsibility,” Investing For a Better World, October 2008.

“Investors Urge Companies to Keep Minerals from War-Torn Congo Out of Supply Chains,” Social Investment Forum press release, January 14, 2010.

Related posts

• NEWS & VIEWS (0)
• “GLOBAL WARNING”(A) (0)
• Working Capital: The Power of Labor’s Pensions(Archive) (0)
• Women’s Initiative for Self-Employment 15th Anniversary Celebration(A) (0)
• Will Chevron Be Held Accountable for Rainforest Damage?(A) (0)

The shareholders of Halliburton (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

• Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds;
• Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:
  • An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;
  • Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and

The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

As long-term shareholders of Halliburton, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.

Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with recent federal ethics legislation.  Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.

Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures.  For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In many cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political contributions, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Aetna and American Electric Power that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Related posts

• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Ford Motor Company – Political Contributions (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• Proxy Voting Guidelines – Social Issues (0)

Investors increasingly seek disclosure of companies’ social and environmental practices in the belief that they impact shareholder value. Many investors believe companies that are good employers, environmental stewards, and corporate citizens are more likely to be accepted in their communities and to prosper in the long-term.

Sustainability refers to development that meets present needs without impairing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It includes “encouraging long lasting social well being in communities where [companies] operate, interacting with different stakeholders (e.g. clients, suppliers, employees, government, local communities, and non-governmental organizations) and responding to their specific and evolving needs, thereby securing a long-term ‘license to operate,’ superior customer and employee loyalty, and ultimately superior financial returns.” (Dow Jones Sustainability Group)

Globally, approximately 1,500 companies produce reports on sustainability issues (Association of  Chartered Certified Accountants, www.corporateregister.com), including more than half of the global Fortune 500 (KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2005).

Many large institutional investors have made sustainability reporting a key priority and regularly vote in favor of requests for sustainability reporting. According to a Risk Metrics 2008 ESG Background Report, the average level of support for sustainability reporting resolutions has been increasing each year, up to 28.1% in 2008.

American Electric Power has stated, “management and the Board have a fiduciary duty to carefully assess and disclose to shareholders appropriate information on the company’s environmental risk exposure.”

A June 2009 letter from the Investor Network for Climate Risk representing $1.4 trillion in assets called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to require companies to disclose material environmental and social risks using the Global Reporting Initiative as a framework.

A 2009 report from the Boston College Carroll School of Management entitled “The Value of Social Reporting” highlighted the important role sustainability reporting can play in both communication and performance management.

Global expectations regarding sustainability reporting are changing rapidly. The European Commission recommends corporate sustainability reporting, and listed companies in Australia, South Africa and France must now provide investors with information on their social and environmental performance.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request the company issue a sustainability report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, by April 1, 2011.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

We believe the report should include the company’s definition of sustainability, as well as a company-wide review of company policies and practices related to long-term social and environmental sustainability. We recommend that the company look to the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (”The Guidelines”) in preparing the report. The Global Reporting Initiative (www.globalreporting.org) is an international organization with representatives from the business, environmental, human rights and labor communities. The Guidelines provide guidance on report content, including performance in six categories (direct economic impacts, environmental, labor practices and decent work conditions, human rights, society, and product responsibility). The Guidelines provide a flexible reporting system that permits the omission of content that is not relevant to company operations. Over 700 companies use or consult the Guidelines for sustainability reporting.

Related posts

• Costco – Sustainability Reporting (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• The Importance of Being Google’s Sustainability Report (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)

Investors increasingly seek disclosure of companies’ social and environmental practices in the belief that they impact shareholder value. Many investors believe companies that are good employers, environmental stewards, and corporate citizens are more likely to generate stronger financial returns, better respond to emerging issues, and enjoy long-term business success.

Globally over 2,700 companies issued reports on sustainability issues in 2007 (www.corporateregister.com). A recent survey found that 80% of the Global Fortune 250 companies now release corporate responsibility data, which is up from 64% in 2005 (KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2008).

Mainstream financial companies are also increasingly recognizing the links between sustainability performance and shareholder value. Information from corporations on their greenhouse gas emissions, environmental stewardship policies, and overall sustainability strategies is essential to investors as they assess the strengths of corporate securities in the context of climate change and increased public awareness of corporate social and environmental responsibility.

As such, it is no surprise that Wal-Mart, Tesco, and other major retailers have taken leadership roles in this area through the publication of comprehensive sustainability reports that address company impacts with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, environmental stewardship, product safety, and other related considerations.

Costco, however, lags behind its global industry peers on sustainability reporting, especially regarding key issues such as environmental stewardship and climate change. In a recent report authored by RiskMetrics, the company received the second lowest score of big-box retailers in terms of climate change governance practices.

It is vital that our company address and report on the impacts of its operations on the environment and on society.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a sustainability report including strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and addressing other environmental and social impacts of Costco’s operations such as water use and seafood sustainability. The report, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, should be published and publicly-available by June 2010.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The report should include the Costco’s definition of sustainability and a company-wide review of company policies, strategies, practices, and metrics related to long-term social and environmental sustainability, on issues including climate change, water and sustainable seafood.

We recommend that Costco uses the Global Reporting Initiative’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines to prepare the report. The Global Reporting Initiative (www.globalreporting.org) is an international organization developed with representatives from the business, environmental, human rights and labor communities. Their guidelines provide a flexible reporting system that allows the omission of content that is not relevant to company operations.

Related posts

• Google – Sustainability Reporting (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)

Environmental expertise is critical to the success of companies in the energy industry because of the significant environmental issues associated with their operations.  Shareholders, lenders, host country governments and regulators, and affected communities are focused on these impacts.   A company’s inability to demonstrate that its environmental policies and practices are in line with internationally accepted standards can lead to difficulties in raising new capital and obtaining the necessary licences from regulators.

Chevron has repeatedly been cited for allegedly harmful environmental practices:

• Chevron is on trial in Ecuador for widespread contamination of Amazonian land and water resources by Texaco in the 1970s. Plaintiffs suing Chevron are challenging the adequacy of a remediation effort completed in 1998. A court-appointed expert in the Ecuadorian litigation has recommended that Chevron could be held liable for up to $27.3 billion in damages.
• Chevron is accused of polluting land and water resources by its Niger Delta operations, and damaging the local fishing economy through dredging of waterways. These practices have fueled civil unrest, protests, and a related lawsuit alleging Chevron’s complicity in security forces’ killing of two protestors.
• Chevron faces allegations of environmental and health damages to local communities from its operations in Kazakhstan. In 2007, a consortium in which Chevron has a 50% interest was fined approximately $609 million for illegally storing sulphur.

We believe that these controversies have the potential to damage shareholder value and that the company must respond to environmental challenges in an effective, strategic and transparent manner in order to restore trust and minimize the adverse impact of its operations.

Chevron does not currently have an independent director with environmental expertise. We believe it would benefit the company to address the environmental impact of its business at the most strategic level – by appointing a specialist to the board.  An authoritative figure with acknowledged environmental expertise and standing could perform a valuable and strategic role for the company by enabling Chevron to more effectively address the environmental issues inherent in its business. It would also help ensure that the highest levels of attention focus on the development of environmental standards for new projects.  Such a board role would strengthen the company’s ability to demonstrate the seriousness with which it is addressing environmental issues.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that, as the terms in office of elected board directors expire, at least one candidate be recommended who:

• has a high level of expertise and experience in environmental matters relevant to hydrocarbon exploration and production and is widely recognized in the business and environmental communities as an authority in such field, in each case as reasonably determined by the company’s board, and
• will qualify, subject to limited exceptions in extraordinary circumstances explicitly specified by the board, as an independent director under  standards applicable to the company as an NYSE listed company,

in order that the board includes at least one director satisfying the foregoing criteria, which director shall have designated responsibility on the board for environmental matters.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Trillium Lobbies Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders in Support of Sustainability Reporting Proposal (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• Proxy Voting Guidelines – Social Issues (0)

Coca-Cola is the world’s largest beverage company, annually selling almost 570 billion servings of beverages. A significant part of Coca-Cola’s business includes selling beverages in aluminum cans. Our company has developed a valuable premium brand based on the trust of consumers and our company’s market leadership.

Coca-Cola’s Product Safety Policy states that Coke uses “the highest standards and processes for ensuring consistent product safety and quality.”  Yet, Coca-Cola’s canned beverages use linings containing Bisphenol A (BPA), a potentially hazardous chemical.

BPA has received media attention for its use in polycarbonate plastic bottles, which Coca-Cola does not use.  However, BPA is a chemical also used in the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages.  BPA can leach out of these containers and into food and beverages, resulting in human exposures.  BPA is known to mimic estrogen in the body; numerous animal studies link BPA, even at very low doses, to potential changes in brain structure, immune system, male and female reproductive systems, and changes in tissue associated with increased rates of breast cancer. Exposure to BPA by the very young as well as pregnant women are among the greatest concerns to experts.

A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association also associated BPA with increased risk for human heart disease and diabetes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing the safety of BPA after significant concerns were raised by its own scientific subcommittee about the validity of its previous analysis of the chemical.

Manufacturers of baby and sports bottles have been eliminating BPA-containing plastics due to consumer concerns. According to US News & World Report, US-based Eden Organics has developed a can lining that does not contain BPA, and has been using it for several years.  In contrast, the Washington Post reported in May 2009 that Coca-Cola was involved in meetings to “devise a public relations and lobbying strategy to block government bans” of BPA in can linings.

The US Congress, as well as some US states and cities, have proposed legislation banning BPA in certain food and beverage packages.   Canada’s health agency has already banned BPA-containing baby bottles.

In addition to potential bans, proponents believe our company faces liability or reputational risks from defending and continuing to use BPA in cans. For instance, class action lawsuits against other companies already contend that manufacturers and retailers of BPA-containing products failed to adequately disclose BPA’s risks.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request the Board of Directors to publish a report by September 1, 2010, at reasonable cost and excluding confidential information, updating investors on how the company is responding to the public policy challenges associated with BPA, including summarizing what the company is doing to maintain its position of leadership and public trust on this issue, the company’s role in adopting or encouraging development of alternatives to BPA in can linings, and any material risks to the company’s market share or reputation in staying the course with continued use of BPA.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

Gardner Denver, Inc. does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (or gender expression) in its written employment policy;

Over 87% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have more than 97% of Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Nearly 70% of the Fortune 100 and over 40% of the Fortune 500 now prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression;

We believe that corporations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool;

According to a June 2008 survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs, 65% of gay and lesbian workers in the United States reported facing some form of job discrimination related to sexual orientation. An earlier survey found that almost one out of every 10 gay or lesbian adults also reported that they had been fired or dismissed unfairly from a previous job, or pressured to quit a job, because of their sexual orientation;

Twenty-one states, the District of Columbia, and more than 180 cities and counties, have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; 12 states, the District of Columbia, and more than 104  cities and counties have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression;

Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles have adopted legislation restricting business with companies that do not guarantee equal treatment for gay and lesbian employees;

Our company is based in Illionois where at least 189 major employers have sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies and at least 52 include gender identity or expression in their nondiscrimination policies.

Our company has operations in and makes sales to institutions in states and cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;

National public opinion polls consistently find more than three quarters of the American people support equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. In a Gallup poll conducted in May 2007, 89% of respondents favored equal opportunity in employment for gays and lesbians.

RESOLVED

The Shareholders request that Gardner Denver amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression and substantially implement the policy.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity diminishes employee morale and productivity.  Because state and local laws are inconsistent with respect to employment discrimination, our company would benefit from a consistent, corporate-wide policy to enhance efforts to prevent discrimination, resolve complaints internally, access employees from the broadest talent pool, and ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees. Gardner Denver will enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.

Related posts

• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

Shareholders of Ford Motor (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

• Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.
• Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:
  • An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;
  • Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and

The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

As long-term shareholders of Ford Motor, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.

Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with recent federal ethics legislation.  Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.

Ford Motor contributed at least $1.7 million in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle.  (CQ’s PoliticalMoneyLine:  http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)

However, relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures.  For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In many cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political contributions, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Aetna and American Electric Power that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.

The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.

Related posts

• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Haliburton – Report on Political Contribution (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Trillium Lobbies Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders in Support of Sustainability Reporting Proposal (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)

ConocoPhillips has extensive interests in oil sands operations in the Canadian boreal forest region. Our company is the operating partner of the Surmont oil sands venture and is a partner in the FCCL Oil Sands Partnership, in addition to having interests in other properties.

Oil sands extraction presents a unique set of challenges due to its resource intensive and environmentally damaging nature. Oil sands mining requires heavy water use, land disturbance, toxic waste storage, and emission of air pollutants. These environmental impacts, along with their implications for local populations and wildlife, can introduce legal, regulatory and reputational problems to oil sands companies.  In addition, volatile oil prices and changing oil demand during the lifetime of these projects can impact both their costs and associated income.

Industrial logging and oil sands have reduced the boreal to less than 40% of its original size; the remaining forest is fragmented, with harmful impacts on many species.  According to the Canadian Parks and Wildness Association, it will take over 300 years before reclaimed areas become functioning forest again.

Oil sands companies have not proven that full reclamation of toxic tailing ponds is possible. The long-term persistence of these ponds, which have been shown to leak toxic pollutants into local water sources, presents additional challenges to companies.

Extracting one barrel of bitumen requires 2-5 barrels of fresh water.

An average barrel’s extraction requires enough natural gas to heat a Canadian home for 1.5-5.5 days, and the removal of four tons of earth.  While processed sand must be replaced and the site reclaimed, in 40+ years of oil sands operations, not a single acre has received a reclamation certificate from the Canadian government.

Oil sands have made Alberta the largest emitter of industrial pollutants in Canada.

Litigation from First Nations presents possible problems to both oil sands and pipeline companies, which may face increased costs and restrictions on development. Even after a project has been approved, it can be subject to lawsuits challenging its development.

Oil sands extraction projects are long-term, capital-intensive developments with multi-decade payback horizons. Compliance with local, regional and national regulations may not be enough to protect our company from adverse consequences.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that an independent committee of the Board prepare a report (at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information) on the environmental damage that would result from the company’s expanding oil sands operations in the Canadian boreal forest. The report should consider the implications of a policy of discontinuing these expansions and should be available to investors by November 2010.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The requested report should discuss the intense environmental and social impacts of oils sands operations that occur despite best efforts at mitigation, including the environmental impact on water resources and biodiversity, and the social impact on Albertans, including indigenous populations.

Related posts

• ExxonMobile – Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• ConocoPhillips – Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• Trillium Organizes Tour of ‘Cancer Alley’ (0)

ExxonMobil has significant investments in the Canadian oil sands. ExxonMobil owns 69.6% of Imperial Oil, one of Canada’s largest oil companies. Imperial is 100% owner of the Cold Lake oil sands project and also owns 25% of Syncrude. ExxonMobil and Imperial jointly own and operate 100% of the Kearl oil sands project. According to ExxonMobil’s FY2008 10-K, 1.1 billion barrels (over 50%) of our company’s additional proven reserves come from Kearl, demonstrating our company’s dependence on Canada’s oil sands for long term growth. There are significant environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands. The resource-intensive and environmentally damaging nature of oil sands development may introduce regulatory, operational, liability and reputational risks to oil sands companies.

Water scarcity is a growing operational concern for oil sands development. Local annual water flows are projected to decrease 24-68% over the coming century. According to the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada, “rapidly growing demands for water… will drive and limit development.”

The persistence of tailing ponds, which are known to leak toxic pollutants into groundwater, may present risks along with significant reclamation costs not currently carried on our balance sheet.

Lawsuits filed by Aboriginal peoples against the Canadian government challenge oil sands and pipeline projects even after approval. Mining the oil sands’ tar-like bitumen is expensive, with multi-decade payback horizons. Volatile oil prices and changing demand can impact the viability of these projects. The International Energy Agency found that since oil prices peaked in July 2008, 85% of deferred or cancelled non-OPEC production capacity was in the oil sands. According to Ernst & Young’s 2009 Business Risk Report: Oil and Gas, “*c+ompanies that invest in long term oil projects with a high marginal cost of production, such as… oil sands, are likely to be the most vulnerable.” Nexen, another oil company, dedicates over three pages of its FY2008 10-K to risks associated specifically with its “heavy oil” (oil sands) projects. Shareholders believe ExxonMobil has not adequately reported on how possible risks associated with oil sands projects may impact our company’s long term financial performance, given our company’s significant investments in this area.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that the Board prepare a report discussing possible long term risks to the company’s finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost, omit proprietary and legal strategy information, address risks other than those associated with or attributable to climate change, and be available to investors by August 2010.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The Board shall determine the scope of the report. Proponents believe risk information of interest to shareholders could include, among other things, assessing the impact of worst-case along with reasonably likely scenarios regarding:

Environmentally-related restrictions that might hinder or penalize operations, including those associated with water, land and tailings;

Potential effects of Aboriginal lawsuits against the Canadian government;

Vulnerabilities to market forces that might lead to oil sands project cancellations.

Related posts

• ConocoPhilips – Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)

Chipotle has stated that “ ’Food With Integrity’ isn’t a marketing slogan. . . . It’s a philosophy that we can always do better in terms of the food we buy.”   Yet, Chipotle has not systematically addressed the use of pesticides in its food sources. (http://www.chipotle.com/html/fwi.aspx)

Chipotle customers and shareholders have come to expect the company to provide leadership in product sustainability. The company has begun gathering important information on water treatment and pesticide management from its avocado suppliers, but Chipotle does not report on this information to the public.  Reporting on such practices as those used in its avocado assessment tool, and extending similar techniques to other Chipotle produce suppliers is critical to the company’s brand in the U.S., Canada, and especially in stores opening in the U.K. in 2010.

The growth in organic food sales, which according to the USDA’s Agriculture Census, more than tripled to $1.7 billion in 2007 from $393 million in 2002, is evidence of strong public interest and demand for reduced pesticide use.

Providing further evidence of public interest, in November 2009, 85 advocacy groups launched a campaign opposing President Obama’s choice of a pesticide industry official to represent U.S. interests in agricultural trade negotiations.

Pesticides impose a heavy burden on farmworkers, adjacent communities, and the environment. In turn, a reduction in pesticide use can lessen these burdens and production costs. Reduced pesticide use and reduced worker exposure to pesticides can also yield reputational benefits.

Companies leading the way in pesticide use reduction include:

• Sysco Corporation, which supplies Wendy’s, Applebee’s, and other restaurant providers, has established an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program that in its first three years reduced pesticide use by nearly 900,000 pounds. Sysco’s program requires its suppliers to prepare IPM programs and employs third party auditors.
• McDonald’s, formerly Chipotle’s corporate parent, has begun a process of gathering and disseminating information on best management practices for pesticide use reduction in its potato supply chain.

Similarly, in Idaho, a multi-stakeholder collaborative demonstration project has shown that mustard greens can be used successfully as a “bio-fumigant” instead of chemical pesticides to control insects and plant diseases affecting potato crops, at reduced cost.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that within one year a committee of independent directors of the board publish a comprehensive report to shareholders discussing how the company is addressing pesticide use reduction in its supply chain, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

While the company has the discretion to determine the precise content of the report, we believe the following information would be useful to shareholders: identifying those fruit and vegetable supply chains where pesticide use education and farmworker and community benefits are most promising; key performance indicators; incentives, technical assistance mechanisms, and other methods; and timetables and future goals. We also believe the report should identify methods and best practices for monitoring farmworker and community health, treating and reducing farmworker exposure to pesticides, and reporting publicly on these activities.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)

Bank of America (BAC) recognizes that its ability to attract and retain customers and employees could be adversely affected “to the extent our reputation is damaged” and that “failure to address, or to appear to fail to address various issues” could damage the Corporation and its business prospects (2005 Annual Report).

BAC also recognizes that:

• The company’s health is dependent on the health of communities and our society;
• Climate change and atmospheric pollution represent a risk to the ultimate stability and sustainability of our way of life; and
• Every part of our business has a potential impact on our environment.

(http://www.bankofamerica.com/environment/index.cfm?template=env_clichangepos)

As a leading financial institution, BAC implemented a goal of reducing direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its facilities by 9% and indirect GHGs within its energy and utility portfolio by 7%. However, BAC’s greatest impact on climate change and the environment arises from its financing of businesses and activities such as coal mining that emit substantial greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide and methane) and other pollutants.

Mountain top removal (MTR) coal mining, in particular, has serious adverse impacts on communities, the environment, and public health. MTR causes massive environmental devastation. Forests are clear-cut, the tops of mountains blasted away to reveal coal seams and the rubble dumped in the valleys below, filling streams and destroying water resources.

The U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) found that approximately 1,200 miles of headwater streams in the Appalachian coal region (or 2% of the streams in the study area) were directly impacted by MTR. (http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm)

Recently, EPA placed 79 MTR projects on hold to review of the permits due to concerns about water quality and environmental health.  (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=aJjhGdHTDUH4)

Between 1992 and 2012, EPA estimates MTR will have destroyed approximately 7% of Appalachian forests in coal mining regions studied. (http://www.epa.gov/Region3/mtntop/pdf/mtm-vf_fpeis_full-document.pdf)

Deforestation is the second leading source of GHG emissions worldwide. (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm)

Old growth forests, like those found in Appalachia, are important carbon sinks that store atmospheric carbon dioxide.  The carbon in forests destroyed by MTR each year roughly equals the annual emissions from two 800-megawatt coal-fired power plants.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that BAC’s Board publish a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, by October 2010, describing (i) the implementation of its policy barring funding of companies engaged predominantly in MTR and an assessment of the efficacy of the policy in reducing GHG emissions and in protecting BAC’s reputation; and (ii) assessing the probable impact on GHG emissions and environmental harm to Appalachia of expanding the policy to bar project financing for all MTR projects.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Recognizing the particularly damaging impacts of MTR, BAC adopted a policy that bars it from financing companies “whose predominant method of extracting coal is through mountaintop removal.”  However, BAC hasn’t reported on how this policy has impacted its lending.  Furthermore, unless the policy is broadened by barring all “project financing” for MTR projects, we doubt that it will significantly impact on the environmental concerns caused by MTR.

Related posts

• Verizon – Free and Open Internet (0)
• State Street – Political Contributions Report (0)
• Questar – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy (0)
• PPG – Community Accountability Report (0)
• Plum Creek Timber Co. – Say on Pay (0)