Lockheed Martin Corporation | Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Lockheed Martin Corporation</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2026 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Corporate Governance </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>CEO and Chair Separation </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> John Chevedden</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Chevedden Corporate Governance</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

<div class=”col-lg-9 content-page left-side”>
<section class=”section-a-single-resolutions resolutions-info top-content”>
<div class=”resolutions-contain”>
<div class=”top-content”>
<h4>Resolution Details</h4>
</div>
<div class=”bottom-content”>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Company:</strong>
<p>Lockheed Martin Corporation</p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Year:</strong>
<p>2025 </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Issue Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights & Worker Rights, Lobbying & Political Contributions </p>
</div>

<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Focus Area:</strong>
<p>Human Rights Due Diligence, Conflict Zones, Lobbying </p>
</div>
<div class=”row-info”>
<strong>Status:</strong>
<p>Filed</p>
</div>

</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</section>

<section class=”section-b-single-resolutions content-blocks”>
<div class=”top-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>
<h2>Resolution Text</h2>
<p><strong>RESOLVED</strong>: Shareholders request the Board of Directors annually conduct an evaluation and issue a public report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, describing the alignment of its political activities (including direct and indirect lobbying and political and electioneering expenditures) with its Human Rights Policy. The report should list and explain instances of misalignment, and state whether and how the identified incongruencies have or will be addressed.<br><br><strong>WHEREAS</strong>: Lockheed Martin (Lockheed), in its Human Rights Policy, commits to protecting and advancing human rights and minimizing the negative consequences of its business activities. However, in opposition to these commitments, Lockheed actively lobbies, makes political contributions, and otherwise pushes for government sales of its products and services to customers linked to irremediable human rights violations, especially in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.<br><br>Engaging in political activities that are misaligned with its Human Rights Policy presents material legal, reputational, regulatory, and litigation risks to Lockheed and its investors.1 Shareholders lack assurance that Lockheed’s lobbying activities are not encouraging weak regulation of its sales and products that present significant human rights risks. For example, Lockheed faces scrutiny for its role in manufacturing F-35 jets for the Joint Strike Fighter Program, the Department of Defense’s most expensive weapons system, which costs taxpayers over $2 trillion.2 Lockheed continues to lobby heavily to maintain and increase the F-35 budget,3 despite its technical issues, with the US Government reporting the “operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains below Service expectations and requirements.”4 F-35s have been used repeatedly by Israeli forces to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza and are connected to apparent war crimes.5 Despite this, in June 2024, Israel signed a $3 billion deal with Lockheed to sell 25 F-35s to Israel.6<br><br>Research organizations have recorded defense manufacturers exerting “deep influence through money in politics.”7 Lockheed spent over $14 million lobbying in 2023, much of which focused on defense appropriations and foreign military sales.8 Investors lack disclosure on these lobbying activities, particularly how they align with the Company’s Human Rights Policy. The UN has criticized the “symbiotic relationship” between governments and defense contractors, “which can cause States to approve arms exports despite genuine human rights risks that should prevent them.”9 Additionally, Lockheed makes significant contributions to think tanks, which are not required to disclose donations. For example, in 2023, Lockheed contributed at least $1 million to 7 think tanks that focus on nuclear weapons, which are prohibited under international law.10<br><br>Although Lockheed claims its political activities are conducted “in a responsible and ethical way,”11 they appear misaligned with its Human Rights Policy. Establishing clear policies and reporting on misalignment is critical to mitigating material risks that harm shareholder value.</p>
<p>—————</p>
<p>1 https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/dam/corp/advocate/investment-stewardship/pdf/perspectives-and-commentary/INVSPOLS_032021.pdf<br>2 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/2000000000000-f-35-stealth-fighter-truly-expensive-212108<br>3 https://prospect.org/power/lockheed-backed-reps-lobby-against-f-35-spending-cuts/; https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/10/defense-contractors-spent-70-million-lobbying-ahead-of-annual-defense-budget-bill-ndaa/<br>4 https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2023/other/2023annual-report.pdf?ver=d7gusiIrcbYmxM0oDkPSFg%3d%3d<br>5 https://investigate.afsc.org/company/lockheed-martin; https://caat.org.uk/news/investigation-reveals-israel-used-partly-uk-made-f-35-in-attack-on-gaza-humanitarian-zone-in-july-killing-90; https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/dutch-court-orders-halt-export-f-35-jet-parts-israel-2024-02-12/<br>6 https://breakingdefense.com/2024/06/amidst-gaza-tensions-israel-signs-f-35-deal-with-us-for-25-more-warplanes/<br>7 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/capitalizing-on-conflict/yemen-case-study<br>8 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lockheed-martin/summary?id=d000000104 ; https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/leadership-governance/board-of-directors/political-disclosures.html<br>9 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/BHR-Arms-sector-info-note.pdf<br>10 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf<br>11 https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/leadership-governance/board-of-directors/political-disclosures.html</p>

</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class=”middle-content editor-block”>
<div class=”content-block”>
<div class=”main-content”>

</div>
</div>
</div>

</section>
</div>
<aside class=”col-xl-3 right-side”>
<div class=”column-contain”>

<h3>Lead Filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Tom McCaney</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia</span></div>
</div>

<h3>Co-filer</h3>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Barbara McCracken</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Benedictine Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica</span></div>
</div>
<div class=”views-row”>
<div class=”views-field views-field-nothing”><span class=”field-content”> Barbara Aires</span></div><div class=”views-field views-field-title views-field-field-shareholder”><span class=”field-content”>Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth, NJ</span></div>
</div>

</div>

</div>
</div>

</div>
</div>
</aside&gt

Resolution Details

Company:

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Year:

2024

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

GHG Reduction and Targets

Status:

Filed

Resolution Text

WHEREAS: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that immediate and significant emissions reductions are required of all market sectors to stave off the worst consequences of climate change.1Decarbonizing the aviation industry is a critical component of global decarbonization, according to the International Energy Agency.2Investor demand for science-aligned emission reductions and transition planning reflects the reality that climate-related risk exposure is growing.3

Lockheed Martin is subject to substantial emerging regulation and increasing costs in the US and abroad regarding its emission-intensive operations and products.4 For instance, the proposed Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Rule would require large federal contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and set science-based emissions reduction targets.5 By reducing emissions from its full value chain, Lockheed Martin can reduce regulatory burdens and better assess technological changes, capital deployment needs, and financial opportunities.

Lockheed Martin’s current disclosures lack specific, forward-looking, and quantitative action plans that are sufficient to achieve alignment with the global aim of 1.5°C. While the Company set an emissions reduction target covering its operations, this goal covers less than 5% of the Company’s total emissions and fails to align with a 1.5°C ambition.6 Lockheed has yet to set a target to reduce emissions from its value chain, which constitutes 95% of the Company’s overall emissions. This absence of emission reduction targets across all scopes, coupled with the absence of a comprehensive transition plan, leaves investors without crucial information regarding the Company’s exposure to climate-related risks in its supply chain and customer use, as well as its strategies for mitigating these risks.

Aerospace and industrial companies are galvanizing action and investment toward decarbonizing. Lockheed risks falling behind as peers Airbus, BAE Systems, Cisco Systems, Deere & Company, Honeywell, and Safran have established targets through the Science Based Targets initiative across all scopes of emissions.7 By setting science-aligned emission reduction targets across its full value chain and providing a comprehensive transition plan, Lockheed Martin can improve its competitiveness against peers, prepare for regulation, and position itself to maximize climate-related opportunities.

BE IT RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, disclosing how Lockheed Martin intends to reduce its full value chain emissions in alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Proponents recommend, at Board discretion, that the report include:

A timeline for setting 1.5°C-aligned near-term emission reduction targets;
A timeline for setting long-term net zero goals;
A climate transition plan to achieve emissions reduction goals across all relevant emission scopes; and
Annual reporting demonstrating progress towards meeting emission reduction goals.

1 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_FullVolume.pdf , p.20

2 https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/13dab083-08c3-4dfd-a887-42a3ebe533bc/NetZeroRoadmap_AGlobalPathwaytoKeepthe1.5CGoalinReach-2023Update.pdf , p.87,88

3 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/climate-loss-and-damage-cost-16-million-per-hour/ ; https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/01/30/eu-finalizes-esg-reporting-rules-with-international-impacts/

4 https://www.ft.com/content/7a0dd553-fa5b-4a58-81d1-e500f8ce3d2a ; https://www.npr.org/2023/10/12/1205068747/climate-change-emissions-companies-disclosure-sec-california

5 https://www.sustainability.gov/federalsustainabilityplan/fed-supplier-rule.html

6 https://sustainability.lockheedmartin.com/sustainability/beyond-the-smp/carbon-strategy-and-climate-related-risk/ ; https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/sustainability/2023-cdp-climate-change-response.pdf , p.30-34

7 https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action

Resolution Details

Company:

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Year:

2024

Issue Area:

Corporate Governance, Human Rights & Worker Rights, Lobbying & Political Contributions

Focus Area:

Conflict Zones, Human Rights Policy, Lobbying, Political Contributions

Status:

Filed

Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors annually conduct an evaluation and issue a public report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, describing the alignment of its political activities (including direct and indirect lobbying and political and electioneering expenditures) with its Human Rights Policy. The report should list and explain instances of misalignment, and state whether and how the identified incongruencies have or will be addressed.

WHEREAS: Lockheed Martin (Lockheed), in its Human Rights Policy, commits to protecting and advancing human rights and minimizing the negative consequences of its business activities. However, in opposition to these commitments, Lockheed actively lobbies, makes political contributions, and otherwise pushes for government sales of its products and services to customers linked to irremediable human rights violations, especially in conflict-affected and high-risk areas.

Engaging in political activities that are misaligned with its Human Rights Policy presents material legal, reputational, regulatory, and litigation risks to Lockheed and its investors.1 Shareholders lack assurance that Lockheed’s lobbying activities are not encouraging weak regulation of its sales and products that present significant human rights risks. For example, Lockheed faces scrutiny for its role manufacturing F-35 jets for the Joint Strike Fighter Program, the DOD’s most expensive weapons system, which costs taxpayers over $1 trillion.2 Beyond the program’s technical issues and environmental damages,3 Lockheed’s F-35s have been used repeatedly to target civilians and are connected to apparent war crimes.4 Despite this, Lockheed continues to lobby heavily to maintain and increase the F-35 budget.5 In July 2023, Lockheed was awarded another $3 billion deal to sell 25 F-35’s to Israel, where escalating violence exacerbates a humanitarian crisis.6

Research organizations have recorded defense manufacturers exerting “deep influence through money in politics.”7 Lockheed spent nearly $7 million lobbying in 2022, much of which focused on defense appropriations and foreign military sales.8 Investors lack disclosure on these lobbying activities, particularly how they align with the Company’s Human Rights Policy. The UN has criticized the “symbiotic relationship” between governments and defense contractors, “which can cause States to approve arms exports despite genuine human rights risks that should prevent them.”9 Additionally, Lockheed makes significant contributions to think tanks, which are not required to disclose donations. Lockheed has donated to think tanks lobbying against emissions disclosures for defense companies, for increased nuclear weapons production, and for US military involvement in foreign conflicts.10

Although Lockheed claims its political activities are conducted “in a responsible and ethical way,”11 they appear misaligned with its human rights commitments. Establishing clear policies and reporting on misalignment is critical to mitigating material risks that harm shareholder value.

1 https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/dam/corp/advocate/investment-stewardship/pdf/perspectives-and-commentary/INVSPOLS_032021.pdf
2 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html
3 https://saveourskiesvt.org/
4 https://investigate.afsc.org/company/lockheed-martin ; https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/27/gaza-apparent-war-crimes-during-may-fighting#:~:text=The%20UN%20says%20that%20Israeli,civilian%20deaths%2C%20including%202%20children.
5 https://prospect.org/power/lockheed-backed-reps-lobby-against-f-35-spending-cuts/
6 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-buy-25-more-f-35-stealth-jets-3-bln-deal-2023-07-02/
7 https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/capitalizing-on-conflict/yemen-case-study
8 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?id=D000000104 ; https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/leadership-governance/board-of-directors/political-disclosures.html
9 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/BHR-Arms-sector-info-note.pdf
10 https://inthesetimes.com/article/heritage-foundation-lockheed-martin-weapons-industry-climate-regulation-biden ; https://quincyinst.org/report/defense-contractor-funded-think-tanks-dominate-ukraine-debate/ ; https://inkstickmedia.com/what-buying-the-support-of-top-us-think-tanks-gets-you/
11 https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are/leadership-governance/board-of-directors/political-disclosures.html

Resolution Details

Company:

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

GHG Reduction and Targets

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

35.40%

Lockheed Martin Corporation Climate Transition Plan and GHG Reduction Goals – Proxy Memo

2023.LMT_.1+Lockheed+Martin+Climate+Proxy+Memo_WEB.pdf

Resolution Text

WHEREAS: Climate change is creating systemic economic, environmental, and social risks. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently underscored that climate change could impair the productive capacity of the U.S. economy.[1] According to the IPCC, the window for limiting global warming to 1.5°C and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change is quickly narrowing. Immediate, sharp emissions reduction is required of all market sectors.[2]

In response to material climate risk, the Climate Action 100+ initiative (CA100+), a coalition of over 700 investors with $60 trillion in assets, issued a Net Zero Benchmark (“Benchmark”) outlining metrics that create climate accountability for companies and transparency for shareholders. Expectations include setting a net zero ambition, adopting 1.5°C aligned reduction goals across all relevant emission scopes, and disclosing decarbonization strategies.[3]

Credible climate transition planning protects against financial risk, increases economic opportunity, and prepares companies to address climate regulations which continue to expand globally.[4] More than 70 countries have now established Net Zero by 2050 commitments.[5] Similarly, in response to the aerospace industry’s 2.4% contribution to global annual carbon dioxide emissions, NATO’s leaders have committed to reduce defense emissions.[6] As governments strive to reach their climate goals, companies with net zero-aligned business models will be in a better competitive position to attract contracts and customers.

As a leading global security and aerospace company, Lockheed Martin creates significant carbon emissions from its value chain and is exposed to numerous climate-related risks. Failing to respond to this changing environment may make Lockheed Martin less competitive and have a negative effect on its cost of capital and shareholders’ financial returns.

While our Company has committed to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 70% intensity by 2030, Lockheed Martin has not established 1.5°C aligned reduction goals that cover all segments of its business, including its Scope 3 value chain emissions, which comprise over 90% of Lockheed’s total emissions.[7] By setting science-based reduction targets for its Scope 1-3 emissions, disclosing a decarbonization plan, and demonstrating progress toward achieving them, Lockheed Martin can provide investors with assurance that it is reducing its climate contribution and addressing the physical, transition, and competitive risks associated with climate change.

BE IT RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, disclosing how the Company intends to reduce its full value chain greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C degree goal requiring Net Zero emissions by 2050.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Proponents suggest, at Board and Company discretion, that the report include:

Disclosure of all relevant Scope 3 emissions;
A timeline for setting 1.5°C aligned Scope 3 reduction goals;
A climate transition plan to achieve emissions reductions goals across all relevant emissions scopes;
Annual reports demonstrating progress towards meeting emissions reduction goals.

[1] https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Report%20of%20the%20Subcommittee%20on%20Climate-Related%20Market%20Risk%20-%20Managing%20Climate%20Risk%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Financial%20System%20for%20posting.pdf

[2] https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

[3] https://www.climateaction100.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Climate-Action-100-Benchmark-Indicators-FINAL-3.12.pdf

[4] https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/003/101/original/CDP_technical_note_-_Climate_transition_plans.pdf?1643994309

[5] https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition

[6] https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/aerospace-and-defense/our-insights/decarbonizing-defense-imperative-and-opportunity

[7] https://sustainability.lockheedmartin.com/sustainability/content/Lockheed_Martin_2021_Sustainability_Report.pdf p.16

Resolution Details

Company:

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Human Rights

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

14.00%

Resolution Text

Whereas: Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest defense contractor and is exposed to significant actual and potential adverse human rights impacts resulting from the use of its weapons and defense technologies. Potential human rights impacts of Lockheed’s business include the rights to life, liberty and personal security, privacy, a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, non- discrimination, and peaceful assembly and association. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) outline the roles and responsibilities of states and companies with respect to human rights. While international arms trade falls under national legal jurisdiction, the UNGPs define clear expectations for defense companies to respect human rights in their operations and supply chains, and address risks linked to use of products. A 2019 Amnesty International report found that Lockheed Martin is not meeting its human rights responsibilities despite severe, often irremediable impacts.1

Prominent human rights organizations have recorded indiscriminate use of Lockheed Martin products against civilians consistently over time.2 Lockheed Martin has exported military goods to at least 12 states which are engaged in armed conflict, have a record of human rights violations, or are at risk of corruption and fragility, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. Reports have linked Lockheed Martin weaponry to war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen, including the widely condemned attack on a school bus in 2018 that resulted in the deaths of dozens of children.3 Lockheed also played a critical role in the May 2021 attacks on Gaza, where apparent war crimes were committed, including the deaths of at least 129 civilians, of whom 66 were children.4

Failure to respect human rights in high-risk business areas exposes the company and its investors to financial, legal, regulatory, reputational, and human capital management risks. In 2021, Lockheed moved forward with a nearly $2.43 billion sale of F-16s to the Philippines, despite congressional opposition due to widespread human rights violations carried out by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including extrajudicial killing of political activists, organizers, and Indigenous leaders.5

The company also has $40 billion in nuclear weapons contracts, including $2.1 billion awarded in 2020.6 The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 2021 , may require Lockheed Martin to demonstrate that the company is not conducting prohibited activities in jurisdictions that ratified the Treaty.7 Furthermore, the company faced multiple lawsuits in 2020 for toxic pollutant contamination from a Florida facility, where workers were later diagnosed with brain lesions, multiple sclerosis, cancer, and birth defects.8

Resolved: Shareholders request that Lockheed Martin publish a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, with the results of human rights impact assessments examining the actual and potential human rights impacts associated with high-risk products and services, including those in conflict-affected areas or violating international law.

1 https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/0893/2019/en/
2 https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/lebanon0907/lebanon0907web.pdf ; https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
3 https://www.paxforpeace.nl/media/files/mwatana-day-of-judgement.pdf
4 https://www.hrw.org/news/2021 /07/27/gaza-apparent-war-crimes-during-may-fighting
5 https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/21/its-time-us-stop-selling-weapons-human-rights-abusers
6 https://www.icanw.org/2020_global_nuclear_weapons_spending_complicit
7 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf
8 https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/environment/os-ne-lockheed-martin-orlando-lawsuit-20200928-7x242mvddzfidig47zx276ivvm-story.html

Separate Chair & CEO

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Resolution Details

Resolution Text

Resolution Details

Resolution Text