Back Policy/Litigation
Back Resolutions
Back Current Initiatives
Back Donate
Default image for pages

Resolution Details

Company:

Royal Bank of Canada

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Finance, Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Affordable Housing

Status:

Withdrawn for Agreement

Resolution Text

As part of the Canadian federal government’s National Housing Strategy and its recognition of housing as a fundamental human right, in February 2022 the federal government appointed a Federal Housing Advocate (FHA), whose role is to promote and protect housing rights in Canada by independently conducting research on systemic housing issues.[1]

The FHA commissioned a series of reports on the financialization of housing, which is described as the growing dominance of financial actors in the housing sector, transforming the primary function of housing into a for-profit financial asset.

According to the summary report to the FHA, 20-30% of Canada’s purpose-built rental housing stock is owned by real estate investment trusts (REITs). The report outlines certain controversies[2]:

Financial firms strategically pursue unit “turnovers” to capitalize on allowable rent increases between tenancies. Researchers in the US have found that financial operators use eviction as a revenue-generating tool, and that they evict tenants at higher rates than other types of owners.

This concentration is higher in Canada’s north. A series of CBC News reports from 2021 highlighted tenant complaints against a publicly traded REIT that owns approximately 80% of the multi-unit private residential housing stock in Yellowknife and Iqaluit.[3]

A recent CTV News article highlighted the results of a survey indicating that “large, publicly-traded corporations, were more likely to face poor living conditions compared to those in housing owned by families or private companies.”[4]

The report for the FHA on the financialization of multi-family rental housing in Canadas describes the negative effects of cost-cutting and under-maintenance strategies of financialized landlords, which result in worsened living conditions, as well as the displacement of lower income and racialized renters.[5]

Human Rights Due Diligence in Commercial Real Estate

In October 2022, BOMA Canada released its 2022 Human Rights Guide for Commercial Real Estate, which draws upon the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines). The guide outlines how commercial property owners can incorporate business and human rights due diligence concepts into their operations.[6]

Human Rights Due Diligence in Multi-Family Rental Real Estate

Without an equivalent set of human rights due diligence practices for REITs operating in the multi-family residential space, banks must ensure that they are complying with their own obligations under the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. Specifically, banks must ensure they are seeking to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts linked to their business relationships with these REITS, even if the banks themselves have not contributed to those impacts.

RBC Involvement with Canadian Multi-Family Rental REITs

RBC has provided Canadian REITs with capital markets services through RBC Dominion Securities Inc., and each of the leading Canadian REITs discloses having a significant credit facility with a syndicate of Canadian banks.

RESOLVED THAT RBC disclose how it assesses and mitigates human rights risk in connection with its business relationships with clients which own multi-family residential rental properties in Canada.

[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/02/statement-by-the-minister-of-housing-and-diversity-and-inclusion-on-the-appointment-of-canadas-federal-housing-advocate.html

[2] https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/financialization-housing-canada-project-summary-report

[3] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/the-landlords-game

[4] https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/tenants-with-large-corporate-landlords-more-likely-to-face-poor-living-conditions-survey-suggests-1.5992030

[5] https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/financialization-multi-family-rental-housing-canada

[6] https://bomacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BOMACANADA_HumanRightsGuide_2022_EN.pdf

  

​ 

Resolution Details

Company:

Toronto-Dominion Bank

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Finance, Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Affordable Housing

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

16.90%

Resolution Text

As part of the Canadian federal government’s National Housing Strategy and its recognition of housing as a fundamental human right, in February 2022 the federal government appointed a Federal Housing Advocate (FHA), whose role is to promote and protect housing rights in Canada by independently conducting research on systemic housing issues.[1]

The FHA commissioned a series of reports on the financialization of housing, which is described as the growing dominance of financial actors in the housing sector, transforming the primary function of housing into a for-profit financial asset.

According to the summary report to the FHA, 20-30% of Canada’s purpose-built rental housing stock is owned by real estate investment trusts (REITs). The report outlines certain controversies[2]:

Financial firms strategically pursue unit “turnovers” to capitalize on allowable rent increases between tenancies. Researchers in the US have found that financial operators use eviction as a revenue-generating tool, and that they evict tenants at higher rates than other types of owners.

This concentration is higher in Canada’s north. A series of CBC News reports from 2021 highlighted tenant complaints against a publicly traded REIT that owns approximately 80% of the multi-unit private residential housing stock in Yellowknife and Iqaluit.[3]

A recent CTV News article highlighted the results of a survey indicating that “large, publicly-traded corporations, were more likely to face poor living conditions compared to those in housing owned by families or private companies.”[4]

The report for the FHA on the financialization of multi-family rental housing in Canadas describes the negative effects of cost-cutting and under-maintenance strategies of financialized landlords, which result in worsened living conditions, as well as the displacement of lower income and racialized renters.[5]

Human Rights Due Diligence in Commercial Real Estate

In October 2022, BOMA Canada released its 2022 Human Rights Guide for Commercial Real Estate, which draws upon the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD Guidelines). The guide outlines how commercial property owners can incorporate business and human rights due diligence concepts into their operations.[6]

Human Rights Due Diligence in Multi-Family Rental Real Estate

Without an equivalent set of human rights due diligence practices for REITs operating in the in the multi-family residential space, banks must ensure that they are complying with their own obligations under the UNGPs and OECD Guidelines. Specifically, banks must ensure they are seeking to prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts linked to their business relationships with these REITS, even if the banks themselves have not contributed to those impacts.

TD Involvement with Canadian Multi-Family Rental REITs

TD is the lead or administrative agent and lender for significant credit facilities for two leading Canadian REITs, and TD Securities Inc. has provided capital markets services to at least one leading Canadian REIT.

RESOLVED THAT TD disclose how it assesses and mitigates human rights risk in connection with its business relationships with clients which own multi-family residential rental properties in Canada.

[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2022/02/statement-by-the-minister-of-housing-and-diversity-and-inclusion-on-the-appointment-of-canadas-federal-housing-advocate.html

[2] https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/financialization-housing-canada-project-summary-report

[3] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/longform/the-landlords-game

[4] https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/tenants-with-large-corporate-landlords-more-likely-to-face-poor-living-conditions-survey-suggests-1.5992030

[5] https://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/financialization-multi-family-rental-housing-canada

[6] https://bomacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BOMACANADA_HumanRightsGuide_2022_EN.pdf

  

​ 

Resolution Details

Company:

PayPal

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Finance, Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Business Standards, Freedom of Expression / Internet

Status:

Omitted

Resolution Text

In June 2021, the American Civil Liberties Union launched a campaign1 calling on PayPal to provide nondiscriminatory financial services to all users. ACLU argued that accountability on human rights, civil liberties, and sound technology policy necessitates that PayPal provide transparency to users. If PayPal decides to close an individual or business account, PayPal must provide meaningful notice about the particular Terms of Services provision that was violated, and users should have the opportunity to appeal in a timely and efficient manner.

In addition to blocking the accounts of sex workers,2 PayPal routinely targets users for speech protected by the First Amendment3 including:

Freezing the account4 of News Media Canada for a payment to submit an article about Syrian refugees for an award;
Terminating service5 to a user for using open-source software enabling anonymous communication; • Stalling6 efforts to provide bail support to protestors;
Banning legal sex workers access to services, which disproportionately harms Black, Brown and trans communities.7

As Electronic Frontier Foundation notes,8 because a few companies dominate online payment processing, PayPal wields tremendous power to control the speech environment by turning off the financial faucet for users who express disfavored views or discuss controversial subject matter. Merchants and individuals on PayPal’s blacklist may find themselves in a financially precarious situation since payment platforms are extremely centralized, creating what in practice is a duopoly. Any argument that those dissatisfied with PayPal’s terms and conditions should simply seek other payment methods is not particularly realistic.

PayPal’s 2021 Global Impact Report touts its commitment to “[b]uilding a digital economy that powers a more inclusive and resilient world,” and yet that report fails to include any information relevant to account suspensions or actions that may chill free speech.9

PayPal’s poor transparency reporting veils the contradiction between PayPal’s human rights policy and account suspensions and other potential violations of freedom of speech. This poses significant legal, reputational, and financial risk to PayPal and its shareholders.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board revise PayPal’s Transparency Reports to provide clear explanations of the number and categories of account suspensions and closures that may reasonably be expected to limit freedom of expression or access to information or financial services. Such revision may exclude proprietary or legally privileged information.

Supporting Statement

Proponents suggest the company include in its Transparency Reports, or explain why it cannot disclose:

The substantive content of account suspension decisions, by country, including which individuals or businesses made requests; number of accounts removed by category such as “encrypted communications,” VPN, etc.; and external legal or policy basis and internal company criteria for removals;
Any indicia of impact, such as the number of prior account suspension warnings and whether existing usage of the account was eliminated;
Any efforts by the company to mitigate the harmful effects.

 

1 https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/paypal-and-venmo-are-shutting-out-sex-workers-putting-lives-and- livelihoods-at-risk
2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-14/porn-site-says-paypal-ban-will-hurt-more-than-100-000- performers
3 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-free-speech-and-online-payment-processors
4 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/paypal-freezes-flin-flon-newspaper-syrian-refugees-1.3977292
5 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/06/paypal-shuts-down-long-time-tor-supporter-no-recourse
6 https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7qbnz/venmo-paypal-freeze-transfer-limits-bail-funds
7 https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/sex-work-is-real-work-and-its-time-to-treat-it-that-way/
8 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/kafkaesque-battle-soulseek-and-paypal-and-why-free-speech-defenders- should-be
9 https://s201.q4cdn.com/346340278/files/doc_downloads/PayPal-2021-Global-Impact-Report.pdf

  

​ 

Resolution Details

Company:

Microsoft Corporation

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Finance

Focus Area:

Corporate Taxation

Status:

Filed

Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a tax transparency report to shareholders, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, prepared in consideration of the indicators and guidelines set forth in the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Tax Standard.

Supporting Statement

Profit shifting by corporations is estimated to cost the US government $70 – 100 billion annually.[1] Globally, the OECD estimates revenue losses of $100 – 240 billion.[2] The PRI, representing investors with $89 trillion assets under management, states that tax avoidance is key driver of global inequality.[3]

With the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in large deficits for many governments, there has been increased government and community focus on whether corporations are paying a “fair share” of tax and contributing to societies where profits are earned. 90% of companies believe that the financial impacts of the pandemic may lead to more tax disputes, while 38% expect authorities to become more rigorous in tax examinations.[4]

In October 2021, 136 countries agreed to a framework for global tax reform.[5] In the US, increases in infrastructure and social spending are linked to tax reforms.[6] The proposed Disclosure of Tax Havens and Offshoring Act will require public country-by-country reporting (CbCR) of financial (including tax) data by SEC-registered companies. In November 2021, the European Union approved a directive to implement a form of public CbCR for multinationals operating in the European Union with group revenue of over $860 million.[7]

Currently, Microsoft does not disclose revenues or profits in non-US markets, and foreign tax payments are not disaggregated, challenging investors’ ability to evaluate the risks to our company of taxation reforms, or whether Microsoft is engaged in responsible tax practices that ensure long term value creation for the company and the communities in which it operates. Microsoft’s approach to taxation has been repeatedly challenged by tax authorities globally.[8] In 2020, an Irish subsidiary recorded profits of $315 billion, despite having no employees.[9]

The GRI Standards are the world’s most utilized reporting standard.[10] The GRI Tax Standard was developed in response to investor concerns regarding the lack of corporate tax transparency and the impact of tax avoidance on governments’ ability to fund services and support sustainable development.[11] It is the first comprehensive, global standard for public tax disclosure and requires public reporting of a company’s business activities, including revenues, profits and losses, and tax payments within each jurisdiction.[12]

This proposal would bring our company’s disclosures in line with leading companies who already report using the Tax Standard.[13] Our company already reports CbCR information to OECD tax authorities privately, so any increased reporting burden is negligible.

 

[1] https://thefactcoalition.org/trillions-at-stake-behind-the-numbers-at-play-in-u-s-international-corporate-tax-reform/.

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/11/19/global-tax-evasion-data/

[3] https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/backing-for-gri-s-tax-standard/

[4] https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/dttl-tax-beps-survey-2021-report.pdf

[5] https://www.oecd.org/tax/international-community-strikes-a-ground-breaking-tax-deal-for-the-digital-age.htm.

[6] https://thefactcoalition.org/international-tax-reform-in-build-back-better-act-a-promising-start/

[7] https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/b1vf7yc65qpzcd/this-week-in-tax-eu-on-track-for-public-cbcr-by-2023

[8] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-irs-decided-to-get-tough-against-microsoft-microsoft-got-tougher; https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/08/google-apple-and-microsoft-defend-tax-set-up-that-shifts-revenue-offshore

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/03/microsoft-irish-subsidiary-paid-zero-corporate-tax-on-220bn-profit-last-year

[10] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf

[11] https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/backing-for-gri-s-tax-standard/

[12] https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/2482/gri-207-tax-2019.pdf

[13] https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/momentum-gathering-behind-public-country-by-country-tax-reporting/

  

​ 

Resolution Details

Company:

Amazon.com, Inc

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Corporate Governance, Finance

Focus Area:

Corporate Taxation, Corporate Taxation/Policies

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

17.70%


Amazon.com, Inc Tax Transparency Report – Proxy Memo


Resolution Text

RESOLVED:  Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a tax transparency report to shareholders, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, prepared in consideration of the indicators and guidelines set forth in the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) Tax Standard.

Supporting Statement:  The GRI Standards are the world’s most utilized corporate reporting standard.[1]  The GRI Tax Standard – GRI 207 – is the first comprehensive, global standard for public tax disclosure. It includes four components. GRI 207-1, 207-2, and 207-3 require companies to disclose their approach to tax; their tax governance, control, and risk management; and their stakeholder engagement and management of concerns related to tax, respectively. 207-4 requires public country-by-country reporting (CbCR) of certain company financial information, including revenues, profits and losses, and tax payments within each jurisdiction.[2]  GRI 207 also recommends disclosing “industry-related and other taxes or payments to governments.” Given the significance of other project-specific payments to governments in the oil and gas sector, GRI identifies disclosures of all significant project-level payments to governments as relevant for that sector in reporting under the Tax Standard.[3]

Tax transparency is increasingly important to investors. The PRI, representing investors with $89 trillion assets under management, states that tax avoidance is a key driver of inequality.[4]  Economic challenges have increased government concern about corporate tax avoidance, and 96% of US companies expect more tax disputes as governments become more rigorous in tax examinations.[5]

In October 2021, 136 countries agreed to a global tax reform framework.[6]  Further, in November 2021, the  European Union approved a directive to implement public CbCR for large multinationals operating there.[7] In October 2022, the Australian government proposed inclusion of CbCR for multinational companies contracted by the government in the 2022-2023 federal budget.[8]

Currently, Amazon does not disclose revenues, profits or tax payments in non-US markets, challenging investors’ ability to evaluate the risks to our company of taxation reforms, or whether Amazon is engaged in responsible tax practices that ensure long term value creation for the company and the communities in which it operates.

Amazon’s approach to taxation has been repeatedly challenged by tax authorities globally.[9] In 2020, Amazon was singled out by President Biden as having paid no federal corporate income tax in the U.S.[10]

A GRI-compliant tax transparency report would bring Amazon.com in line with leading companies who report using the Tax Standard,[11]  Our company already reports CbCR information to OECD tax authorities privately, so any increased burden is negligible.

We urge shareholders to vote FOR this proposal.

[1] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf

[2] https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/2482/gri-207-tax-2019.pdf

[3] https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/sector-standard-for-oil-and-gas/

[4] https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/news-center/backing-for-gri-s-tax-standard/

[5]https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Tax/gx-beps-global-survey-summary-results-2022.pdf

[6] https://www.oecd.org/tax/internaitonal-community-strikes-a-ground-breaking-tax-deal-for-the-digital-age.htm

[7]https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/b1vf7yc65qpzcd/this-week-in-tax-eu-on-track-for-public-cbr-by-2023

[8]https://home.kpmg/us/en/home/insights/2022/10/tnf-australia-public-cbc-reporting-proposed-federal-budget.html

[9] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-amazon-tax-idUSKBNiFP1FU; https://theguardian.com/technology/2017/pct/04/amazon-eu-tax-irish-government-apple

[10] https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-amazon-taxes-idUSKBN2BN3LL

[11]https://www.globalreporting.org/news/news-center/momentum-gathering-behind-public-country-by-country-tax-reporting/

  

​ 

Resolution Details

Company:

Citigroup

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change, Environment, Finance

Focus Area:

Indigenous Peoples/FPIC

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

31.00%

Resolution Text

Resolved: Shareholders request the Board of Directors provide a report to shareholders, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary and confidential information, outlining the effectiveness of Citigroup’s policies, practices, and performance indicators in respecting internationally-recognized human rights standards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in its existing and proposed general corporate and project financing.

Whereas: The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and International Labour Organization Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries are internationally-recognized standards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.[1] Violation of these rights presents risks for Citigroup that can adversely affect shareholder value, including reputational damage, project disruptions, and civil and criminal liability.[2] Citigroup has a history of financing projects and companies that violate Indigenous rights, most notably as a lead financier of the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016.[3] Recently, Citigroup provided over $5 billion to Enbridge, enabling the widely opposed Enbridge Line 3 and Line 5 tar sands pipeline reroutes.[4]

Indigenous leaders from the Great Lakes tribes have called Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline reroute “an act of cultural genocide.”[5] A 2022 ruling found that Line 5 was operating illegally on Bad River Band territory since 2013.[6] Michigan Governor Whitmer canceled Enbridge’s certification in 2020, citing “Enbridge’s historic failures and current non-compliance” as jeopardizing the safety of Michigan residents and the environment.[7] Michigan’s twelve federally recognized Tribal Nations requested President Biden to decommission Line 5 in 2021,[8] and the pipeline faces ongoing litigation from numerous plaintiffs.[9] The severity of Indigenous opposition is reflected by the Bay Mills Indian Community formally banishing the pipeline from its reservation, noting Enbridge’s deceptive tactics, poor environmental track record, and risk of “catastrophic damage” to Indigenous rights.[10] Companies like Enbridge, financed by Citigroup, consistently fail to meet the international standard of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) with affected tribes.[11]

Citigroup simultaneously faces calls from Indigenous leaders to stop financing oil and gas operations in the Amazon that pose “an existential threat” to Indigenous Peoples.[12] A 2022 Investor Risk Alert reported that Citigroup has the largest financial involvement of all foreign banks, an estimated $43.8 billion, in oil and gas operations in the Amazon basin.[13]

Citigroup faces reputational risk if its “climate forward” commitments are discredited by its own financing activities.[14] Citigroup’s human rights and risk management policies do not clearly define FPIC, nor include guidance on how Citigroup addresses companies with track records of violating Indigenous rights. Though Citigroup adheres to the Equator Principles to manage environmental and social risk, Indigenous experts have described them as “critically weak” and not aligned with international human rights standards.[15] Effective policies that protect Indigenous rights are critical to managing material risk. 

[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html ; https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314

[2] https://www.colorado.edu/program/fpw/sites/default/files/attached-files/social_cost_and_material_loss_0.pdf ; https://amazonwatch.org/news/2022/0622-the-business-case-for-indigenous-rights

[3] https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-citi-ceo-says-bank-approved-dakota-access-pipeline-loan-without-sufficient-regard-for-indigenous-peoples-concerns/

[4]  https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/RAN-Briefing_Line3_KXL.pdf ; https://sightline-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Enbridge-Line-3-Financing-Sightline-09-2018.pdf  

[5] https://www.stopline3.org/news/women-leaders-line5      

[6] https://michiganadvance.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20515906551-1.pdf   

[7] https://www.michigan.gov/whitmer/news/press-releases/2020/11/13/governor-whitmer-takes-action-to-shut-down-the-line-5-dual-pipelines-through-the-straits-of-mackina  

[8] https://www.baymills.org/_files/ugd/869f65_f8e5288d82084540a9f0e7d5d6c0921f.pdf  

[9] https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/enbridge-takes-the-gloves-off-in-line-5-battle

[10] https://narf.org/nill/documents/20210510BayMills_banish_Enbridge.pdf?_ga=2.239143744.2105983367.1624287541-1503385769.1619537483 

[11] https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CERD_ALE_USA_9448_E.pdf

[12] https://www.stand.earth/latest/forest-conservation/amazon-forest-protection/citigroup-%E2%80%9Cclimate-forward%E2%80%9D-reputation-remains

[13] https://www.stand.earth/sites/stand/files/citiriskalert.pdf  

[14] https://www.stand.earth/latest/forest-conservation/amazon-forest-protection/citigroup-%E2%80%9Cclimate-forward%E2%80%9D-reputation-remains

[15] https://www.colorado.edu/program/fpw/2019/11/19/first-peoples-response-ep4-critically-weak-equator-principles-puts-global-development

 

  

​