Our Guide features ICCR member-sponsored proposals for 2026 corporate proxies along with a preliminary overview of the proxy season. Please feel free to share this resource widely with your networks. And, if you are an investor, we urge you to exercise your shareholder rights by voting your proxies.
Please join us on Friday, 3/20 from 11:30 am to 12:30 pm ET for a preview of ICCR members’ 2026 shareholder proposals and our 2026 Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide.
Our webinar will help contextualize the more than 400 resolutions filed by ICCR members for this proxy season, with a deeper discussion by proponents of the rationale for key initiatives.
Learn about ICCR member resolutions on the following topics:
- The impacts of growing AI-driven data center energy demand, including a shifting of costs for new data center construction onto residential consumers, and an expansion of fossil-fuel infrastructure;
- The human rights risks for companies involved in U.S. immigrant detention and deportation, and the reputational risks faced by retail stores where day laborers who gather for hire are vulnerable to federal immigration raids;
- How growing regulatory pressure, litigation, and consumer demand for transparency are creating risks for food and beverage companies using additives in their products; and,
- The necessity of strong guardrails for AI to prevent and mitigate potential legal, reputational, and customer trust risks.
As always, there will be a Q&A after the presentations where you will be invited to ask questions of the presenters.
All registrants will receive a link to download the Guide following the webinar.
SAFETY & CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT:
ICCR grants access to this webinar only to registered users whose identities have been verified beforehand. To attend, you must register using your name, email address and organization/affiliation. We will be manually confirming the identify of participants who have signed up to attend and reserve the right to remove any person.
On February 12, 2026 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officially rescinded the Endangerment Finding, which dates back to 2009 and has underpinned the ability of the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, vehicles, and other heavy emitters. This action will severely compromise the federal government’s ability to respond to the threat of climate change.
In response to the Trump administration’s decision, Erica Lasdon, Director for Climate and Environmental Justice at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), issued the following statement:
“This latest policy move by the administration is wrongheaded and profoundly harmful. For more than 16 years and across multiple administrations, the Endangerment Finding has safeguarded public health and contributed to a solid foundation for the innovations necessary to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. On its own, this was not enough to position the United States for leadership in the global response to the climate crisis. But without this crucial guardrail, millions of Americans from Peoria to Pasadena will suffer the health and economic consequences of dirtier air and a weak national response to climate change –all while our country’s economic edge and moral standing continue to erode under the weight of shortsighted and irrational decision-making by the federal government.
At ICCR, we understand the sacred responsibility of disciplined environmental stewardship. We also appreciate the importance of policy certainty for the wider economy and the potential damage that can occur from governments more beholden to big donors than science and rational economics. The human and environmental impacts of this policy decision will be fatal and severe. The economic toll will also be profound, and most investors will struggle to find the coherence and stability they need to allocate their capital strategically and for long-term prosperity. From a moral, public policy and economic perspective, scrapping the Endangerment Finding is a massive step backwards.
We will continue to work with our partners and policymakers to sound the alarm on the economic costs of ignoring climate risk and the vast potential in building and investing in a greener future. We will also encourage business leaders to remember the ways they adhered to and even thrived under the public safety standards first established by the Endangerment Finding. The administration has undermined a secure environmental and economic future with this action, but the rest of us don’t have to do the same.”
Authors Sehr Khaliq is the Director of Program Evaluation, and Timothy Smith is the Senior Policy Advisor at the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR). This post is based on their ICCR report.
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander[i] recently urged three of the city’s pension funds to drop BlackRock, Fidelity, and PanAgora because of “inadequate” climate plans. In September 2025, PFZW[ii], the 11th biggest pension fund in the world withdrew €14.5bn from BlackRock on sustainability concerns. And in August 2025, 17 Democratic state and local financial officers wrote to 17 asset managers[iii] critiquing their “retreat from long-term risk management”.
There is a growing number of asset owners looking to review their managers’ stewardship programs, and examining proxy voting records is an essential part of that review. This article seeks to offer asset owners data into how their managers’ 2025 proxy voting on director elections and environmental and social proposals compares to others in the industry.
Proxy voting is one of the most powerful tools an investor has to influence corporate behavior. The proxy voting data of the largest asset managers offers useful insights into how they exercise their oversight of corporate managements’ decision-making, reveals how they align their recognition of material risk with their asset owner clients and how they address significant environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. Often times asset owners do not have access to their managers’ proxy voting data in ways that allow them to compare their managers’ voting record to that of other firms in the market – this article seeks to address that gap.
A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
The data – provided by Canbury Insights[iv] – is drawn from asset manager NP-X filings for the July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025, period that are submitted to the SEC annually by the end of August. Data shown is for all United States company holdings that had votes in that period (number of votes will vary based on the manager’s portfolio). Vote categories are asset manager-reported SEC categories, adjusted for consistency across managers and includes votes on both management and shareholder proposals. The data aggregates voting across an asset manager’s mutual funds and ETFs. Note that Geode Capital is based on Fidelity’s index fund. Where there was split voting, it is counted as the majority share, i.e. 51 votes For and 49 votes Against is counted as For. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.
DIRECTOR ELECTION VOTES 2025
Voting on director election is an investor’s most powerful tool for holding boards accountable. This applies for financial performance and oversight and when companies fail to respond to engagements on critical policies and performance related to climate, human rights, and racial justice. In our sample, Capital Group had the highest support for director elections followed by JPMorgan, Vanguard and Geode Capital, all of whom exercised their vote against directors in less than 5% of the director votes cast in 2025. It’s also worth noting the abstentions in the data below e.g. BlackRock abstained on 2.6% of the 20,495 director elections it voted on – meaning the firm abstained 532 times.
… continued:
Read the full article on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
New York, NY, December 19, 2025 – This week the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) released a new report analyzing the 2025 proxy voting activity of more than 15 large asset managers. This latest report comes at a time of mounting asset owner scrutiny of how managers are providing oversight for material risks connected to environmental, social and governance (ESG)-related concerns.
ICCR prepared the report in partnership with Canbury Insights. The report draws on proxy voting disclosures of some of the largest asset managers in the world including BlackRock ($BLK), Vanguard ($VTI) and State Street ($STT). Those disclosures specifically related to developments between July 2024 and June 2025.
Several key findings in the analysis include:
- Asset managers’ support for director elections remains strong, with 12 out of the 17 firms examined supporting directors in more than 90% of the cases.
- On environmental proposals, 9 of the 17 asset managers examined supported fewer than 5% of shareholder proposals raising environmental risks. In contrast, Morgan Stanley ETF Trust supported over 88% of such proposals, and Nuveen supported almost half.
- Widely divergent approaches to executive compensation across the leading asset managers, with U.S.-based entities largely deferring to management and rarely voting against pay proposals, while European firms have shown more willingness to confront management in such votes.
“A growing number of asset owners on both sides of the Atlantic are reviewing their mandates to ensure that material risks are being appropriately managed by their investment managers,” said Tim Smith, Senior Policy Advisor at ICCR. “Reviewing proxy voting records is an essential part of that exercise. This report offers these investors an opportunity to compare the large asset managers voting on director elections, compensation and environmental and social proposals on proxy in 2025. We hope it will allow these asset owners a means of having more data-driven conversations with their managers.”
“Now more than ever, fiduciaries must not abdicate or shy away from voting their proxies according to their understanding of all the risks that companies – and therefore, shareholders – face,” said Katie McCloskey, Vice President of Social Responsibility at Mercy Investment Services. “Climate and social risks remain destabilizing forces to corporate outcomes, whether or not a manager is being pressured to vote a certain way. Unfortunately, it seems this pressure is impacting the world’s largest asset managers.”
“It will come as no surprise to those who following proxy voting closely that Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity and BlackRock are highly deferential to management in their Say on Pay votes,” said Matthew Illian, Director of Responsible Investing at United Church Funds. “This ICCR report demonstrates that some European firms take a very different view and these differences carry significant implications for asset owners and asset managers, given the growing scrutiny on executive compensation design.”
“Wespath votes the majority of our proxies in house,” said Lucas Schoeppner, Director for Sustainable Investment Strategies at Wespath Benefits and Investments. “Nonetheless, proxy voting policies and voting records are an important part of Wespath’s selection, appointment, and monitoring of the asset managers we partner with. Reports like this one help Wespath understand the alignment between our organization and external investment teams on material issues like systemic risk. We believe a strong shareholder voice is key in ensuring good corporate governance, values alignment, and long-term value creation.”
About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a broad coalition of more than 300 institutional investors collectively representing over $4 trillion in invested capital. ICCR members, a cross-section of faith-based investors, asset managers, pension funds, foundations, and other long-term institutional investors, have over 50 years of experience engaging with companies on environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues that are critical to long-term value creation. ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually in an effort to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on LinkedIn, Bsky Social, and Facebook.
CONTACT:
Alex Tucciarone
Director of Communications
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
atucciarone@iccr.org
Introduction
Environmental justice (EJ) is a defining factor in how companies secure their license to operate, grow, and deliver returns. For asset managers, EJ considerations now cut across the entire investment lifecycle, influencing mergers and acquisitions, capital project approvals, permitting, community relations, and even day-to-day manufacturing decisions. These are no longer a niche policy concern but are in fact a key factor in whether companies are positioned for sustainable, long-term success.
At its core, EJ is about who benefits from economic development and who bears the costs. EJ promotes justice and accountability in environmental matters, focusing on the respect, protection and fulfilment of environmental rights, and the promotion of the environmental rule of law (United Nations Development Programme). For companies, this means that siting facilities near vulnerable communities, relying on hazardous chemicals, or neglecting stakeholder engagement can trigger litigation, reputational damage, and stranded assets. For investors, it translates into heightened operational risk, disrupted cash flows, and declining valuations. Adherence to EJ principles positions companies to avoid these risks.
As regulatory protections shift and community advocacy strengthens, EJ is a material driver of both downside risk and long-term value creation. The 2026 investment landscape demands a more rigorous, proactive integration of EJ into portfolio strategies as a core component of fiduciary duty.
State of Play
The regulatory and policy terrain for EJ has entered a period of heightened volatility predominantly in the U.S. Under the Biden administration, federal tools such as EJScreen and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool expanded transparency and established a baseline for integrating equity into environmental decision-making. These frameworks have now been dismantled under the Trump administration, creating an uneven national landscape.
The Trump administration has reduced federal environmental obligations across climate, pollution, and EJ, lowering near-term compliance costs but introducing significantly greater regulatory volatility, state–federal divergence, and legal risk.
Without robust federal oversight and leadership, EJ risks have multiplied. Companies now face a patchwork of state-level mandates, local permitting requirements, and intensifying community activism. This fragmentation increases market risk and regulatory uncertainty, exposing businesses to inconsistent standards, delays, and mounting threats of litigation.
For companies, the absence of federal guardrails means that the burden has shifted to corporate boards and management to define responsible practices. Strategic planning that accounts for this volatility through proactive adherence to EJ standards has become the most effective defense against looming reputational harm and costly disputes.
For asset managers, the state of play is clear: EJ is now a frontline portfolio risk shaped by three forces—regulatory retreat at the federal level, rising state and community pressure, and growing investor demand for accountability. Companies that anticipate and integrate EJ concerns will avoid likely legal and financial shocks and be positioned as leaders in a market increasingly defined by transparency, equity, and trust. Investors should track pending court challenges, state policies, and company strategies to manage policy whiplash and where appropriate consider weighing in on policies with position papers.
Why Environmental Justice Matters for Asset Managers
For investors, EJ is now a material driver of both risk and opportunity. Companies that fail to adequately account for EJ concerns increasingly face exposure to regulatory delays, litigation, and reputational harm. Asset valuations can erode quickly when projects encounter local opposition or when hazardous emissions disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. In addition, the rollback of federal protections in the U.S. has not reduced the salience of EJ risks but has instead created a volatile patchwork of state-level mandates and intensified community advocacy. This regulatory fragmentation increases uncertainty and raises the probability of costly disruptions, stranded assets, and brand damage.
At the same time, integrating EJ considerations into core business strategy offers measurable long-term value. Companies that engage communities proactively, disclose facility impacts transparently, and prioritize safer materials enjoy smoother permitting processes, faster project approvals, and stronger brand trust. Research shows that businesses aligning with principles of sustainability and environmental stewardship are more resilient in the face of market shifts and regulatory changes, and are more likely to attract sustainable investment flows[1]. For asset managers, this means that EJ is not just a risk mitigation strategy but a pathway to portfolio resilience, as firms that anticipate and address these issues are better positioned to compete in markets increasingly defined by transparency and accountability.
From a fiduciary perspective, ignoring EJ considerations can amount to overlooking material risks that affect long-term performance. Asset managers are well-positioned to incorporate EJ into due diligence, proxy voting, and corporate engagement strategies. Doing so strengthens the ability to identify leaders versus laggards, and to channel capital toward business models aligned with equity and sustainability. In practice, EJ integration reinforces fiduciary duty by ensuring that portfolios are not exposed to avoidable social, legal, and operational risks, while simultaneously capturing opportunities linked to safer chemistry, community trust, and sustainable innovation.
For asset managers, EJ can materially affect a company’s operational performance, litigation exposure, and license to operate while mitigating portfolio risk. In the 2025 landscape, where federal protections are receding, the onus is increasingly on capital providers to integrate EJ into their investment strategies.
For asset managers, EJ is most material in sectors with:
- Facility siting near vulnerable communities
- Hazardous emissions or chemical use
- High exposure to permitting and regulatory oversight
- Public-facing brands vulnerable to reputational risk
Why Environmental Justice Matters for Companies
For companies, EJ is a critical determinant of operational continuity and long-term competitiveness. Failure to account for EJ concerns can result in litigation, regulatory delays, community protests, and negative media coverage — all of which directly undermine productivity and profitability. Companies with facilities near vulnerable populations are particularly exposed, as permitting challenges, lawsuits, or shutdowns can translate into stranded assets and higher costs of capital. In addition, global consumers and supply chain partners increasingly expect companies to demonstrate alignment with equity, sustainability, and safety standards. Reputational damage from poor EJ performance can therefore ripple outward, eroding brand trust and market share[2].
On the other hand, companies that proactively integrate EJ considerations into governance and operations can capture clear strategic benefits. Early engagement with local stakeholders reduces the likelihood of costly project delays and builds community goodwill, a critical factor in securing and maintaining a company’s “social license to operate”. Research shows that firms prioritizing equity and environmental risk reduction are more likely to achieve smoother permitting processes, enjoy favorable regulatory treatment, and secure stronger relationships with investors and customers. Companies also benefit from adopting safer materials and cleaner production processes, which reduce long-term liability risks, enhance workforce health and productivity, and create differentiation in competitive markets increasingly shaped by sustainability[3].
Moreover, aligning with EJ principles positions companies to anticipate and adapt to emerging policy landscapes. Even as U.S. federal oversight has weakened, state-level regulations and global frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)[4] and Green Deal are setting higher standards for hazard disclosure, community engagement, and equitable practices. Companies that lead on EJ will be better prepared to comply with evolving mandates, while laggards risk regulatory penalties, market exclusion, and declining investor confidence. In this way, EJ is not simply a compliance issue but a forward-looking strategy for resilience, growth, and long-term value creation.
Call to Action: Fiduciary Tools and Strategies
Asset managers can use their influence and analytical capabilities to mitigate EJ risk across portfolios:
- Embed EJ in Due Diligence and ESG Analysis
- Integrate environmental justice into risk models, especially for infrastructure, manufacturing, and extractive industries
- Use state-based community-level screening data in evaluating new investments
- Ask Targeted Questions in Engagement
- Does the company disclose facility locations and community impact assessments?
- Has it assessed EJ risk under NEPA, TSCA, or RCRA obligations?
- What metrics does it use to track chemical hazard reduction or facility emissions?
- Is there a plan to transition to safer alternatives?
- How does the company engage communities to ensure concerns and needs are met?
- Vote Proxies and Resolutions with EJ in Mind
- Support shareholder proposals seeking chemical hazard disclosure or community impact reporting
- Oppose management where poor EJ governance threatens brand and operational stability
- Support Collective Initiatives
- Join the Investor Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWGEJ) — an ICCR working group co-supported by the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN), a program of Clean Production Action
Looking Forward: Aligning Risk Management with Equity
EJ is now a proxy for how well a company manages operational risk, regulatory foresight, and stakeholder trust. In the absence of federal enforcement, investors must lead in advancing inherently safer, community-aligned production systems. This includes moving capital away from polluting practices and toward companies that prioritize equity, transparency, and long-term resilience.
Asset managers have both the tools and fiduciary responsibility to act. Integrating EJ considerations is now central to protecting asset value and advancing more equitable investment outcomes.
[1] McKinsely Quarterly: Five ways that ESG creates value: Getting your environmental, social, and governance (ESG) proposition right links to higher value creation.
[2] Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money: Corporate social irresponsibility and portfolio performance: A cross-national study
[3] Harvard Business Review. “The Comprehensive Business Case for Sustainability.” 2016
[4] European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
Let’s be honest, the Swedish Church’s decision to re-evaluate how it manages its vast forests – a chunk of land bigger than some European countries – feels a bit like a royal family arguing over the inheritance. It’s a surprisingly complex situation bubbling up from a seemingly simple question: Should a centuries-old institution focused on spiritual guidance prioritize merely making money from its land, or should it genuinely embrace a more holistic approach that considers the planet? And, crucially, can they even legally change course after all this time?
By Sehr Khaliq, Director of Program Evaluation
Forty years ago in the spring of 1985, when student protestors in all parts of the U.S. consistently demanded that U.S. colleges and universities divest their holdings in U.S. companies doing business in apartheid South Africa, they were joined by a number of faith communities. These faith-based investors, many of whom were the founding members of ICCR, were responding to a call to action from South African anti-apartheid faith leaders who called on churches and faiths to “radically revise” their investment policies because their investment in apartheid South Africa were not an apolitical act and their money had “largely been used to support the prevailing patterns of power and privilege“. This recognition that money is not neutral continues to inform investment stewardship programs and investor engagement with not only companies, but also asset managers.
In the last few months, we have seen several asset owners hold their managers accountable on stewardship concerns. In February 2025, The People’s Pension, one of the UK’s largest defined contribution master trusts with more than £30B in assets, cut back on its investments with U.S. manager State Street, citing misalignment on climate stewardship as one of the factors influencing the decision. A month later in March, AkademikerPension a Danish pension fund and ICCR member announced it was also scaling back its investments in State Street on stewardship concerns. In April, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander announced that the Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS), New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) and Board of Education Retirement System (BERS) had instructed their public markets asset managers to submit a written plan describing their net zero plans, by June 30. And then in June Dutch pension fund PME issued a blanket warning to U.S. money managers amid concerns America’s investment industry is caving in to political pressure to abandon basic principles of stewardship.
ICCR and its members have been actively and publicly engaging their managers on proxy voting and stewardship. In April 2023, ICCR wrote to eight asset managers (see letters embedded in press release), highlighting concerns about their 2022 proxy voting on environmental and social shareholder resolutions. A number of ICCR members also wrote to these asset managers in support of the ICCR letters as clients and/or shareholders. Over the course of the summer of 2023, several of these firms responded to the letters and organized dialogues with ICCR members. However, the dialogues and the 2023 proxy voting record of these asset managers only increased asset owners’ concerns. In December 2023 some ICCR members decided to take these concerns to proxy by filing shareholder resolutions at BlackRock, State Street, Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase challenging these asset managers on their poor voting records and urging them to evaluate misalignments between their public commitments on climate and racial justice, and their proxy voting records in 2024. In December 2024, ICCR members wrote to four of the largest global fund managers – which collectively manage roughly $23.6T in assets representing nearly one-quarter of global capital markets – as clients, highlighting contradictions created by the asset managers’ dramatically declining proxy support for shareholder proposals despite their public commitments to sustainability, particularly commitments to mitigate climate risk.
But ICCR members are not alone in these engagements. In April the Committee on Workers’ Capital mobilized 20 global asset owner representatives – with a combined assets under management (AUM) of nearly $1.8T – to engage with BlackRock to articulate their expectations around the managers’ approach to labor rights stewardship. Also in April, pension fund members of the Ethos Engagement Pool (EEP) International, comprising 122 institutional investors representing more than 1.5 million insured people and CHF 300B in AUM, decided to engage in a constructive dialogue with their main asset managers to ensure that their voting rights at the general meetings of the companies in which they invest are exercised in accordance with their wishes and sensitivities. There is a growing belief that the current political climate is stimulating a rebalancing of power between institutional investors and asset managers and pension funds are increasingly leveraging their position as clients.
ICCR’s history of successful shareholder engagement offers countless examples of the value of collaborative investor action and arguably puts ICCR in a unique position to leverage this shared history to mobilize asset owners to engage not just companies but asset managers on environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks. Many agree that this is both a societal and a business imperative for asset managers, whose own research indicates that funds are finding it “increasingly difficult” to market products that are not registered as “ESG”, and this trend is likely to persist and strengthen.
If you want to learn more about ICCR’s work on engaging asset managers on ESG risks please connect with Tim Smith, Senior Policy Advisor, ICCR at tsmith@iccr.org.
In five shareholder proposals, investors illustrate how the company’s business model, policies, and practices create risks for multiple stakeholders that threaten shareholder value.
NEW YORK, NY, TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2025 – At Amazon’s ($AMZN) annual meeting last Thursday, five shareholder proposals were presented for a vote, each raising issues that illustrate how the company’s business model, dominance across multiple industries, and its lack of adequate risk management structures expose the company, its stakeholders and society to significant and material risks.
Amazon is one of the largest companies in the world by market cap and the second-largest employer in the U.S. For several years, shareholders, including ICCR members, have been pressing the company through shareholder proposals to implement policies that will mitigate adverse social and/or environmental impacts. While all the proposals failed, investors say they will continue to raise the issues as they present material risks.
This proxy season, ten resolutions were filed, but Amazon sought no action relief from the SEC on nearly all proposals, and only five made it onto the proxy for a vote by shareholders. While the company faces several controversies related to freedom of association, that proposal was excluded from the proxy as a result of the no-action process. Worker rights have been a consistent theme at Amazon given the company’s business model, which subjects warehouse and delivery workers to ever-increasing production and speed pressures, and board/management’s strong opposition to employees’ unionization efforts.
“Tulipshare’s proposal, shaped by four years of engagement and backed by investors representing billions in assets, was built on a simple premise: workers power businesses,” said Antoine Argouges, CEO and founder of Tulipshare. “Although Amazon brands itself as ‘Earth’s Safest Place to Work,’ periodic reports have revealed a mounting safety and injury crisis in its warehouses, with employees facing unsafe working conditions and unfair treatment globally. This is a critical point in the company’s trajectory for Amazon to act on its stated values and take meaningful action towards protecting its workers. We investors must monitor Amazon’s leadership and guide the company to ensure that basic human rights are upheld in one of the world’s largest supply chains.”
On May 15th, ICCR hosted an investor briefing, The Hidden Liabilities of Amazon’s Workforce Model, which featured several Amazon employees who had suffered workplace injuries. The video recap from this event can be viewed here. Also on May 15th, the Strategic Organizing Center released a report, Failure to Deliver, which presented data from 2024, indicating that the rate of serious injuries in Amazon’s warehouses was nearly double that of non-Amazon warehouses, highlighting that Amazon’s operations have continued to be dramatically more dangerous for workers than the broader warehouse industry.
“Amazon shareholders and company leadership continue to ignore the company’s astronomical injury rate and brutal treatment of workers — even after the scathing findings of the Senate HELP Committee and the corporate-wide OSHA settlement“, said Bianca Agustin, Co-Executive Director of United for Respect Education Fund. “Amazon sacrifices safety for speed, leaving workers injured, underpaid, and struggling to survive. UFR is doubling down in our efforts to ensure Amazon associates get the dignity and respect they deserve.”
Investors also sought to understand how Amazon was overseeing social and environmental risks related to its increasing use of AI. A proposal filed by the AFL-CIO requested that the company assess potential human rights and worker rights impacts stemming from its use of tech and AI in the workplace.
“The AFL-CIO Equity Index Funds’ proposal requests an independent, third-party assessment of human rights risks associated with Amazon’s use of Artificial Intelligence,” said Isaiah Thomas, RWDSU union organizer and former Amazon warehouse employee. “The right to a safe and healthy workplace is an internationally recognized human right, and Amazon’s use of computer algorithms to set warehouse production quotas and its use of AI-powered robots creates potential safety risks that must be addressed.”
Two proposals highlighted how Amazon’s size and business model will significantly increase the GHG emissions responsible for driving the climate crisis, including a new proposal centered on Amazon’s accelerated build-out of data centers globally, which received 23% support.
Said Eliza Pan, spokesperson for Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, “The AI race is here and it’s changing both literal and political landscapes across the world. How shortsighted Amazon’s Board and investors must be to dismiss getting detailed and transparent information about how Amazon will ensure its ambitious AI buildout plans don’t conflict with climate and environmental impacts. With massive AI data center plans in fossil-fuel dependent places like Saudi Arabia and Virginia, or drought-vulnerable places like Mexico, without corresponding renewable or community investment, Amazon is setting itself up to fail meeting its own Climate Pledge, let alone the science-based climate targets that are needed from large companies.”
“Amazon’s current disclosures only account for the material emissions from approximately 3% of its retail sales,” said Parker Caswell, Climate and Energy Sr. Associate at As You Sow. “This significantly understates the Company’s true emissions, misleading investors and greatly diminishing the value of its disclosures.”
An additional proposal highlights how Amazon’s massive ecommerce and retail businesses make it a significant contributor to the global plastic pollution crisis.
“Our proposal asks Amazon to assess the risks of using non-recyclable flexible plastic packaging,” said Conrad MacKerron, Sr. VP at As You Sow. “Use of flexible plastic packaging, including pouches and sachets for food and beverage applications, has grown rapidly. Flexibles are usually made from several different kinds of plastic and so cannot be recycled in conventional recycling systems. Competitors like Target and Walmart have disclosed their use of flexible plastic and their intent to make all packaging recyclable by a specific date. Amazon has not.”
Although Amazon has been one of the top recipients of shareholder proposals for several years, in the majority of instances and to the frustration of investors, the company has remained reticent to engage with shareholders about their concerns and consistently opposes all ESG-related proposals submitted for its proxy. This remained true this proxy season.
Said, Ryan Gerety, Director of the Athena coalition, “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and CEO Andy Jassy, along with the rest of Amazon’s Board of Directors, still refuse to address serious concerns about the corporation, including its illegal interference with the rights of workers to unionize, refusal to address the injury crisis in its warehouses, failure to live up to its climate commitments amidst its data center boom, and provision of cloud computing to customers with demonstrated human rights violations and war crimes. Amazon executives and the Board, flanked by large Wall Street investors like Vanguard, can close their eyes to the company’s negative impacts—but the public and workers across all parts of the company certainly will not.”
CONTACT:
Susana McDermott
Director of Communications
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
201-417-9060 (mobile)
smcdermott@iccr.org
About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a broad coalition of more than 300 institutional investors collectively representing over $4 trillion in invested capital. ICCR members, a cross-section of faith-based investors, asset managers, pension funds, foundations, and other long-term institutional investors, have over 50 years of experience engaging with companies on environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues that are critical to long-term value creation. ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually in an effort to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on LinkedIn, Bsky and X.
About five years ago, environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing was all the rage. It’s a strategy that considers how issues like climate change might affect investments in the future. But long before ESG was a concept adopted by Wall Street, there were smaller investors weighing environmental and social issues: Religious investors.