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

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Dollarama, Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

GHG Reduction and Targets

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

25.90%


Dollarama, Inc. Adoption of Next Zero Targets – Proxy Memo
23-05-11 Dollarama Inc Net Zero Targets – Proxy Alert – SHARE_0.pdf


Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request Dollarama Inc. adopt interim- and long-term science-based greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s ambition of maintaining global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

 

Targets should: 

Be publicly disclosed by the 2025 annual shareholders meeting;
Cover the company’s full range of operational and supply chain emissions (including Scopes 1, 2 and 3); 
Consider the guidance of advisory groups such as the Science-Based Targets Initiative;  
Be supported by an enterprise-wide climate transition plan that includes a detailed GHG emissions inventory (including all material scope 1, 2 and 3 emission categories) and the steps the company will take to achieve the targets, taking into considerations criteria used by advisory groups like CA100+ and CDP.  

 

The company should report to investors on the same, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information.

 

Supporting Statement

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change advised that greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5°C to prevent the worst consequences of climate change and meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.  The world is “way off track” and on “track to disaster”. The risks climate change to long-term investors are systemic, un-hedgeable and undiversifiable. Companies that fail to align with 1.5°C actions pose material risks to themselves and the financial system as a whole.

 

Dollarama is exposed to significant operational, financial, and regulatory risks associated with climate change. The Company has articulated these risks, citing weather as potential logistics disruption and rising price of fuel and carbon as risk for operational cost increases. Despite this acknowledgement, the Company’s 2022 ESG Update notes it “has not undertaken a formal climate-related risks, opportunities and scenarios analysis”. It does not appear that aforementioned risks are being adequately addressed and managed.   

 

While Dollarama has a goal to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 25% by 2030, this goal is not aligned with climate-science and the 1.5-degree Paris goal. Furthermore, the Company has no 2050 target or timebound commitment to disclose and reduce scope 3 emissions, which likely constitute the majority of total company emissions. 

 

Ambition of short- and long-term targets must increase, matching peers such as Loblaw Companies Ltd. and Empire Company Ltd. who announced commitments to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040 and net-zero Scope 3 emissions by 2050. 

 

The company should also make a time bound commitment to scope 3 emissions disclosure and reduction. Peer company Dollar Tree recently reported a staggering 83% of the company’s emissions are scope 3, likely mirrored in Dollarama’s own emissions profile. The following peers have either set or committed to set scope 3 emissions reductions targets: Loblaw, Empire, Walmart, Costco, and Kroger Co.  

 

By reporting emissions and 1.5 degree-aligned reduction targets across all relevant emissions scopes, Dollarama can provide investors with assurance that leadership is appropriately reducing company climate contributions and addressing the growing risks associated with climate change. 

 

We urge shareholders to vote FOR this Proposal. 

 

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Marathon Petroleum

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change, Lobbying & Political Contributions

Focus Area:

Climate Lobbying, GHG Reduction and Targets, Just Transition

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

16.40%


Marathon Petroleum Just Transition Report – Proxy Exempt Solicitation
mpcletter.htm – Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing.pdf


Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report disclosing how Marathon Petroleum Corp. (“Marathon”), is addressing the impact of its climate change strategy on key stakeholders, including but not limited to the communities it serves and workers, consistent with the “Just Transition” guidelines of the International Labor Organization (“ILO”). The report should be prepared at reasonable cost, omit proprietary information, and be made available to investors.

Supporting Statement: At the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference, the United States and other governments agreed to the Just Transition Declaration. (https://ukcop26.org/supporting-the-conditions-for-a-just-transition-internationally/)

That Declaration notes the 2015 Paris Agreement underscored the “close links between climate action, sustainable development, and a just transition,” including “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs.” The Declaration cites the ILO’s 2015 Guidelines For a Just Transition as “establish[ing] a global understanding” of a “just transition” as a process towards “an environmentally sustainable economy,” which “needs to be well managed and contribute to the goals of decent work for all, social inclusion and the eradication of poverty.” (https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/—emp_ent/_documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf)

Guiding Principle E specifies a just transition involves “anticipating impacts on employment, adequate and sustainable social protection for job losses and displacement, skills development and social dialogue, including the effective exercise of the right to organize and bargain collectively.” (https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/—emp_ent/_documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf)  Critically, the success of this Declaration and the Paris Agreement depend not just on government policies, but also, as the ILO states, on the “pivotal role of employers,” particularly in carbon intensive sectors.

Investors increasingly acknowledge the value of a just transition for mitigating material financial risk and providing greater market certainty in the transition to a low-carbon economy. 161 investors representing $10 trillion in assets signed the UN PRI’s “Statement of Investor Commitment to Support a Just Transition on Climate Change,” contending “the responsible management of workforce and community dimensions of climate change are increasingly material drivers for value creation.” (https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=10382) 

Following receipt of this proposal ahead of last year’s shareholder meeting, Marathon published Creating Shared Value Through a Just and Responsible Transition. (https://www.marathonpetroleum.com/content/documents/Responsibility/JustTransitionReport.pdf) Unfortunately, this report offers no meaningful metrics for investors to measure the success of Marathon’s strategy or map against the Company’s climate scenario analysis and goals.

Rather, we recommend the report include:

A set of measurable, time-bound indicators, such as those recommended by the World Benchmarking Alliance Just Transition methodology and progress against such indicators (e.g., https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/assessing-a-just-transition-measuring-the-decarbonisation-and-energy-transformation-that-leaves-no-one-behind/);
Progress to date for achieving those goals for a Just Transition;
Consistency of the Company’s Just Transition plan with best practices; and,
Disclosure of the Company’s stakeholder engagement process and participants.

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Dollar Tree Stores

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Living Wage

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

6.90%


Dollar Tree Stores Income Inequality and Impact on Diversified Shareholders – Proxy Exempt Solicitation
e525230px14a6g.pdf


Resolution Text

RESOLVED, shareholders ask that the board commission and publish a report on (1) whether Dollar Tree participates in compensation and workforce practices that prioritize Company financial performance over the economic and social costs and risks created by income inequality and racial and gender disparities and (2) the manner in which any such costs and risks threaten returns of diversified shareholders who rely on a stable and productive economy.

WHEREAS: Dollar Tree Inc. employs more than 210,500 associates[1] and reports median pay as $13,490, which is below the 2022 $13,590 Federal Poverty level for a single person.[2] While the Company’s workforce is 67.8% female and 55.2% minority, these groups make up only 24.8% and 18.4% of officer and director level management positions.[3]

Many retailers have raised their minimum wage well above legal minimums, but Dollar Tree has not.[4], [5]

In a recent JUST Capital poll, 87% of Americans say large U.S. companies have a responsibility to regularly increase wages to keep up with the rapidly rising cost of living.[6]

Increasing wages for those earning the least is fundamental to ensuring an equitable economy that leaves no one behind while promoting shared prosperity, and helps to close gender and racial pay gaps.[7]

More than half the U.S. population is not earning a living wage.[8] According to MIT, the national average living wage is $17.46 per hour – or $36,311 annually.[9] The current federal minimum wage is just $7.25 and applies in 20 states.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that income inequality has risen between 1979 and 2019, even after accounting for transfers and taxes.[10]

Income inequality harms the entire economy:

Income inequality slows U.S. economic growth by reducing demand by 2 to 4 percent.[11]
A 1% increase in inequality leads to a 1.1% per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) loss.[12]
Gender and racial pay gaps created $2.6 trillion in U.S. GDP losses in 2019.[13]
Eliminating racial pay disparity would add $5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next five years.[14]

GDP drag reduces returns on diversified portfolios[15] and creates social costs that threaten financial markets. For example, inequality increases health costs and decreases the value of human capital.[16] By paying less than a living wage, Dollar Tree increases its margins and improves financial performance. But gains in Company profit that come at the expense of society and the economy is a bad trade for most Company shareholders, who are diversified and rely on broad economic growth to achieve their financial objectives. The costs and risks created by inequality will reduce long-term diversified portfolio returns.

Dollar Tree lists increasing minimum wage laws as a risk to its business strategy[17] but fails to disclose the cost its compensation practices impose on the broader economy and diversified portfolios.

 

[1] https://corporate.dollartree.com/investors#:~:text=Operating%20under%20the%20brands%20Dollar,and%20more%20than%20200%2C000%20associates.

[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines

[3] https://corporate.dollartree.com/_assets/_de7ff776b61ad115dac9516774914e92/dollartreeinfo/db/1177/9112/pdf/Corporate_Sustainability_Report.pdf

[4] https://www.yahoo.com/news/retail-chains-increased-minimum-wage-105832606.html

[5] https://www.fool.com/slideshow/15-companies-that-raised-their-minimum-wage-in-2022/?slide=16

[6] https://justcapital.com/reports/2022-survey-workers-and-wages-are-more-important-than-ever-to-the-american-public/

[7] https://www.nelp.org/publication/what-a-15-minimum-wage-means-for-women-and-workers-of-color/

[8] https://livingwageforus.org/living-wage-for-us-data-shows-over-half-of-americans-earning-less-than-a-living-wage/

[9] https://justcapital.com/reports/living-wage-guide-for-business-just-jobs-explained/#:~:text=The%20national%20average%20living%20wage,per%20hour%20%E2%80%93%20or%20%2436%2C311%20annually; https://livingwage.mit.edu/articles/99-a-calculation-of-the-living-wage

[10] https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-11/58353-HouseholdIncome.pdf

[11] https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/

[12] https://www.pionline.com/sponsored-content/facing-hard-truths-material-risk-rising-inequality

[13] https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/wp2021-11.pdf

[14]https://ir.citi.com/%2FPRxPvgNWu319AU1ajGf%2BsKbjJjBJSaTOSdw2DF4xynPwFB8a2jV1FaA3Idy7vY59bOtN2lxVQM=

[15] https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/

[16] https://www.pionline.com/sponsored-content/facing-hard-truths-material-risk-rising-inequality

[17] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/935703/000093570322000020/dltr-20220129.htm

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Constellation Brands, Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Environment

Focus Area:

Plastics Pollution

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

25.30%


Constellation Brands, Inc. Circular Economy for Packaging – Proxy Memo
23.STZ_.2+Packaging+Proxy+Memo_WEB.pdf


Resolution Text

WHEREAS:  The growing plastic pollution and packaging waste crises pose increasing risks to Constellation Brands (“Constellation”). Corporations could face an annual financial risk of approximately $100 billion should governments require them to cover the waste management costs of the packaging they produce.[1] New laws to this effect were recently passed in Maine, Oregon, Colorado, and California,[2] while the European Union has enacted a $1 per kilogram tax on all non-recycled plastic packaging waste.[3]

A circular economy for packaging, whereby packaging is designed for reuse or recycling and kept in the economy and out of the environment, plays an important role in a net-zero emissions world. Constellation states it is committed to emissions reductions, yet has taken virtually no action to ensure the circularity of its product packaging,[4] despite the fact that its sold products and packaging contribute significantly to Scope 3 emissions at their end-of-life (“EOL”).[5]

More than 100 leading companies have committed to promoting a circular economy for packaging by taking financial responsibility for the collection, sorting, and recycling of packaging at EOL, a policy known as Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”).[6] In areas lacking EPR, companies should make voluntary financial contributions to improve recycling rates.

The Recycling Partnership (TRP), the leading NGO working to improve recycling, finds that $17 billion is needed to modernize and expand recycling infrastructure, and that doing so will save the equivalent of 710 million metric tons of CO2 over ten years.[7] To improve plastic recycling infrastructure alone, TRP recommends that companies contribute at least $88 for every metric ton of plastic used.[8]

Competitors Molson Coors, Heineken, Diageo, and at least 26 other major companies make voluntary contributions to expand recycling infrastructure.[9] Constellation is not known to voluntarily contribute financial resources to help ensure its packaging never becomes waste.[10] 

Competitor Diageo is exploring reuse opportunities, has endorsed EPR, and set goals to use 100% recyclable packaging, incorporate recycled materials, and reduce unnecessary packaging. Constellation lacks each of these goals and earned an “F” grade on a recent report evaluating corporate packaging sustainability.[11]

Our Company could avoid regulatory, environmental, and competitive risks by adopting a circular economy approach to packaging and by contributing to necessary recycling infrastructure. 

RESOLVED:  Shareholders request that the Constellation Brands Board issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, describing opportunities for the Company to support a circular economy for packaging.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:  The report should assess, at Board discretion:

The reputational, financial, and operational risks associated with failing to promote a circular economy for packaging; 
Opportunities to develop policies or goals to determine an appropriate level and frequency of voluntary financial contributions to recycling infrastructure, increase use of recycled content, and design for recyclability; and
The potential to more rapidly reduce dependence on single-use packaging by developing and supporting refillable bottle systems and infrastructure.

 

 

[1] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/07/breakingtheplasticwave_report.pdf, p. 9

[2] https://www.packworld.com/news/sustainability/article/22419036/four-states-enact-packaging-epr-laws     

[3] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/revenue/own-resources/plastics-own-resource_en    

[4] https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastic-pollution-scorecard-2021/data-visualization  

[5] https://ghgprotocol.org/scope-3-technical-calculation-guidance

[6] https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/extended-producer-responsibility/overview?_ga=2.194255722.613184023.1673367048-710010554.1662564816&_gl=1*18c5mjb*_ga*NzEwMDEwNTU0LjE2NjI1NjQ4MTY.*_ga_V32N675KJX*MTY3MzM2NzA0OC4xNC4wLjE2NzMzNjcwNDguNjAuMC4w  

[7] https://recyclingpartnership.org/paying-it-forward/   

[8] https://plasticiq.org/   

[9] https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastic-pollution-scorecard-2021/, p. 17

[10]https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastic-pollution-scorecard-2021/data-visualization

[11] https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastic-pollution-scorecard-2021/, p. 5

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Constellation Brands, Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

GHG Reduction and Targets

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

31.20%


Constellation Brands, Inc. Climate Transition Plan and GHG Reduction Goals – Proxy Memo
23.STZ_.1+Constellation+Brands+Climate+Proxy+Memo_WEB.pdf


Resolution Text

WHEREAS: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the window for limiting global warming to 1.5 degree Celsius (“1.5oC”) is quickly narrowing. Therefore, immediate and significant emissions reduction is required of all market sectors.[1]

Investor demand for science-aligned greenhouse gas emission reductions reflects the reality that climate change poses a systemic risk to investor portfolios. Failure to reach Net Zero by 2050 is projected to have disastrous economic consequences.[2]

Constellation Brands identifies numerous climate-related risks in its 10-K, including climate change’s negative effects on agricultural productivity and contribution to the degradation of product quality.[3] Some of these risks have already manifested: the Company notes that fiscal year 2021 inventory levels for its beer and wine and spirits segments were “negatively impacted by climate-related events.”[4] Constellation Brands also identifies regulatory compliance costs associated with climate change as a risk factor.[5] By reducing the emissions from its full value chain, Constellation Brands can do its part to mitigate operational risks posed by climate change, while also preparing itself to comply with anticipated heightened climate laws and regulations.

While Constellation Brands has committed to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 15% by 2025,[6] these targets are not aligned with the global 1.5oC Paris goal. Furthermore, according to the Company’s disclosures, over 99% of its emissions fall under Scope 3, meaning that its current climate targets cover less than one percent of its total climate footprint.[7] Constellation Brands can make effective progress in mitigating its climate impact by expeditiously setting 1.5 oC-aligned emissions reduction targets for its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

Constellation Brands lags other major alcoholic beverage companies in addressing climate risk. Molson Coors, Heineken, Carlsberg, Diageo, AB InBev, and Rémy Cointreau have all set 1.5oC-aligned reduction targets for their Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and validated these targets through the Science Based Targets initiative.[8]

By setting science-based reduction targets covering its full value chain and disclosing a decarbonization plan, Constellation Brands can align with peers and provide investors with assurance that it is addressing the operational and regulatory risks associated with climate change.

BE IT RESOLVED:  Shareholders request that Constellation Brands issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding confidential information, disclosing how our Company intends to reduce the full range of its Scope 1 through 3 greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degree Celsius goal requiring Net Zero emissions by 2050. 

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

A timeline for setting a 1.5oC-aligned Net Zero by 2050 GHG reduction target for the Company’s Scope 1-3 greenhouse gas emissions, and 1.5oC -aligned interim goals;
A climate transition plan to achieve emissions reduction goals across all relevant emissions scopes.

 

 

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

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/22/climate/climate-change-economy.html

[3] https://ir.cbrands.com/sec-filings/annual-reports/content/0000016918-22-000069/0000016918-22-000069.pdf

[4] https://ir.cbrands.com/sec-filings/annual-reports/content/0000016918-22-000069/0000016918-22-000069.pdf, p. 46

[5] https://ir.cbrands.com/sec-filings/annual-reports/content/0000016918-22-000069/0000016918-22-000069.pdf

[6] https://dlus3r1ggbdsn.cloudfront.net/uploads/downloads/2022-ESG-Impact-Report-2.pdf?mtime=20221221140814&focal=none, p. 10

[7] https://dlus3r1ggbdsn.cloudfront.net/uploads/downloads/2022-ESG-Impact-Report-2.pdf?mtime=20221221140814&focal=none, p. 29-30

[8] https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Toronto-Dominion Bank

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

Climate Financing

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

24.80%

Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that TD disclose a transition plan that describes how it intends to align its financing activities with its 2030 sectoral emissions reduction targets, including the specific measures and policies to be implemented, reductions to be achieved by such planned measures and policies, and timelines for implementation and associated emission reductions.

 

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

In 2022 TD released an updated Climate Action Plan in response to its commitment to achieve net zero financed emissions by 2050.

While TD’s updated Plan provides more clarity on the measurement of financed emissions, its intensity-based 2030 targets don’t align with the absolute 2050 target TD has committed to and the Plan lacks clarity as to the specific measures and policies that TD will implement to achieve progress.

For example, TD discusses the existence of its “Climate Target Operating Model” with “sequences and actions,” but does not disclose what those are. Similarly, TD says that it continues to embed climate risk into its enterprise risk framework, but does not disclose whether and how this is related to meeting its targets.

TD says that it is making good progress towards its $100 billion “low carbon” lending, financing, and asset management target, but it‘s unclear whether and how this relates to its emission reduction targets as TD does not systematically quantify and disclose the impact of this activity on emissions.

TD’s need for a credible transition plan is acute considering the bank is particularly exposed to transition risk. A recent study concluded that TD has the highest financed emissions – at 447 million tonnes CO2 equivalent – of any Canadian bank.[1]

TD is yet to adopt any policy to phase down its exposure to fossil fuels, including in its updated 2022 coal policy. On the contrary, it is still involved with financing fossil fuel expansion projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline and Coastal GasLink project.

This uncertainty about whether and how TD will meet its climate targets represents a material business risk given the shifting regulatory environment. The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is developing climate risk management guidance that will require TD to have a Climate Transition Plan to manage “increasing physical risks from climate change, and the transition towards a low-GHG economy.”[2]

Similarly, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, of which TD is a member, recommends that financial institutions have a transition plan that contains “a set of goals, actions, and accountability mechanisms to align an organization’s business activities with a pathway to net-zero.”[3] TD is yet to meet this bar.

TD’s peers disclose greater specificity regarding how they will reach net zero, including absolute 2030 targets (BMO, Citi, Wells Fargo), fossil fuel financing reductions (Lloyds, BNP Paribas, ING, Societe General), and public disclosure regarding client net zero evaluation and progress (Credit Suisse, ANZ Group). This proposal is consistent with one filed and withdrawn by MÉDAC last year.[4]

To address uncertainty and increase transparency, we urge shareholders to vote FOR this proposal.

[1] https://oxfam.qc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022-canada-banks-carbon-footprint-report.pdf

[2] https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/fi-if/rg-ro/gdn-ort/gl-ld/Pages/b15-dft.aspx#toc1

[3] https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/63/2022/09/Recommendations-and-Guidance-on-Financial-Institution-Net-zero-Transition-Plans-November-2022.pdf

[4] https://www.td.com/document/PDF/investor/2022/E-2022-Proxy-Circular.pdf

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Enbridge Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

Paris-Aligned Climate Lobbying

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

18.80%


Enbridge Inc. Paris-Aligned Climate Lobbying – Proxy Memo
InfluenceMap Enbridge-Resolution-Briefing-March23.pdf
I4PC Investor memo on ENB Lobbying shareholder proposal Final.pdf


Resolution Text

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board produce a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, examining whether Enbridge’s pattern of lobbying and political donations in the U.S. is creating unnecessary business risk and is consistent with its net zero goal. The report should disclose evaluation criteria and external stakeholders consulted, if any.

Supporting Statement:

In November 2021, Politico ran a story with the headline: “The Canadian energy company in the way of Whitmer’s campaign,”1 accusing Enbridge of “trying to scuttle Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s re- election bid.” She went on to win.

The story details “six-figure ad buys” by Enbridge advocating for the continued use of Line 5 directly and indirectly via front groups like ‘Great Lakes. Michigan Jobs.’2 Enbridge has spent over US$100,000 on lobbying in Michigan in each of the past four years.3

In Minnesota, Enbridge also used a front group during the Line 3 controversy – ‘Minnesotans for Line 3’4 which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising and tries to position itself as a grassroots organization but which the media discovered had Enbridge executives listed as responsible for TV ads.5

Enbridge caused international headlines6 for partially funding Minnesota police during enforcement actions against Line 3 protestors – nearly 900 people were arrested. The payments totalled US$8.6 million and are now the subject of legal action alleging violation of due process and equal protection of protestors since the payments amount to third-party influence over law enforcement.7

In New York, Enbridge serves on the steering committee of ‘New Yorkers for Affordable Energy,’8 a front group that has been accused9 of lobbying against the implementation of New York State’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act.

Despite their prominence and controversial nature, none of Enbridge’s activities with these front groups in Michigan, Minnesota, and New York have been disclosed by the company in investor materials.

Federally in the U.S., Enbridge has a pattern of donating to pro-fossil fuel politicians. In 2022 Enbridge’s biggest donations were to Senator Joe Manchin10 who achieved notoriety for single-handedly blocking national climate action,11 and Rep. Jack Bergman12 who has a 10% pro-environment lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters.13

InfluenceMap scores Enbridge with a D on lobbying, saying the company remains “actively engaged with both local and regional energy policies in North America to promote fossil fuels in the energy mix.”14

Enbridge’s pattern of lobbying and political expenditures in the U.S. is causing significant controversy and creating business risk associated with alienation of decision makers and key constituencies while appearing to be unaligned with its goal to achieve net zero. This pattern and lack of disclosure merits due consideration and oversight by the Enbridge Board.

This proposal is consistent with the investor-created Global Standard on Corporate Climate Lobbying.15 We respectfully request that shareholders vote FOR this proposal.

1 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/18/canadian-energy-company-gretchen-whitmer-campaign-522937
2 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=all&country=US&view_all_page_id=103481651030324&s earch_type=page&media_type=all
3 https://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi- bin/cfr/lobby_detail.cgi?caller%3DSRCHRES%26last_match%3D50%26lobby_type%3D%2A%26lobby_name%3DEN BRIDGE+ENERGY%26include%3Dactive%261%3D1%26lobby_id%3D11412%26last_match%3D0
4 https://www.minnesotansforline3.com/
5 https://www.desmog.com/2019/06/06/enbridge-minnesotans-line-3-front-group-oil-pipeline/
6 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/05/line-3-pipeline-enbridge-paid-police-arrest-protesters 7 https://truthout.org/articles/sheriff-retaliates-against-lawyers-scrutinizing-arrests-of-water-protectors/
8 https://www.ny4affordableenergy.com/ourcoalition/
9 https://news.littlesis.org/2022/04/19/fossil-fuel-industry-mobilizes-front-group-to-weaken-ny-climate-law/
10 https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/lc/lcxmlrelease/2022/MM/701046355.xml
11 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/16/joe-manchin-biden-climate-democrats-climate-plans 12 https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/lc/lcxmlrelease/2022/YY/701075331.xml
13 https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/jack-bergman
14 https://lobbymap.org/company/Enbridge-fa83bd6f5cc0d0fbd7aa37c2cbd4c527/projectlink/Enbridge-In- Climate-Change
15 https://climate-lobbying.com/

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Enbridge Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

GHG Reduction and Targets

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

25.50%


Enbridge Inc. Disclose Scope 3 Emissions – Proxy Memo
I4PC Investor memo on ENB Scope 3 emission shareholder proposal Final.pdf


Resolution Text

Resolved: Shareholders request that Enbridge annually disclose all of its scope 3 emissions using accepted definitions and in absolute terms.

Supporting Statement:

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol defines scope 3 emissions as:

“All indirect emissions (not included in scope 2) that occur in the value chain of the reporting company, including both upstream and downstream emissions.”1

If a company’s financial viability is dependent on scope 3 emissions being released – as is the case with Enbridge – then it is critical that investors have a full and complete picture of these emissions.

CDP is clear that midstream companies like Enbridge take responsibility for all scope 3 emissions:

“While O&G products are not directly sold by these companies, the emissions from their end use still generates Scope 3 emissions that arise as “a consequence of an organization’s operations and activities.”2

Yet, in its latest Sustainability Report3, Enbridge states that:

“Scope 3 GHG emissions result from our utility customers’ natural gas use, our employee business air travel, and electricity grid transmission and distribution loss (grid loss).”

This does not align with the internationally accepted Greenhouse Gas Protocol scope 3 definition because Enbridge misses both the upstream and downstream emissions from most of the products that it derives revenue from.

Enbridge does report a metric for the upstream emissions intensity “of the energy we deliver.” But, Enbridge does not take responsibility for these emissions as its scope 3 emissions. It also does not account for the downstream emissions of the energy and does not report the numbers in absolute terms so that investors can see their scale.

Enbridge claims a “contribution to avoidance of third-party emissions” via various green projects without also disclosing the other side of the ledger – the projects it is building that expand fossil fuel delivery that thereby expand scope 3 emissions.

Enbridge takes the same approach to scope 3 emissions in its Sustainability-Linked Bond Framework4 that it published as part of bond issuances, saying “we are doing our part to reduce scope 3 emissions,” while again using an incomplete definition of scope 3 emissions and not disclosing increased scope 3 emissions from expansion of fossil fuel delivery.

1https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/Corporate-Value-Chain-Accounting-Reporing- Standard_041613_2.pdf
2https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/guidance_docs/pdfs/000/000/469/original/CDP-Scope-3-Category11- Guidance-Oil-Gas.pdf?1643046888 at pg14. 3https://www.enbridge.com/-/media/Enb/Documents/Reports/Sustainability-Report-2021/Enbridge-SR-2021.pdf 4https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Reports/Sustainability%20Report%202020/SLB- Framework_2021_FINAL.pdf
 

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Suncor

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Climate Change

Focus Area:

Climate Financing

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

17.70%


Suncor Align Capital Expenditure Plans with 2030 Target – Proxy Memo
Suncor-investor-memo-final.pdf


Resolution Text

Resolved:

Shareholders request that Suncor produce a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, outlining how its capital expenditure plans align with its 2030 emissions reductions target and its 2050 net zero pledge.

Supporting Statement:

Suncor has a 2030 emissions reduction target of 10 Mt CO2e and a 2050 net zero target.

Suncor indicates it is committing 10% of its annual capital budget over the medium term to “investments that advance our low-carbon energy offerings.”[1] Suncor does not provide a rationale for this level of investment and how it aligns with its targets nor disclose specific planned investments and associated emissions reductions.

Similarly, Suncor does not disclose emissions expectations associated with the other 90% of its planned capital budget and whether these investments take the company further from its climate targets. Note that there is no baseline established for Suncor’s 2030 target, nor are Scope 3 emissions included in it, meaning that the vast majority of Suncor’s capital expenditures may contribute towards emissions expansion.

The International Energy Agency projects a three-quarters decline in oil demand in its net zero scenario[2] and Canada’s Energy Regulator predicts oil production in Canada will peak shortly after 2030[3]. These reductions are part of the net zero transition that is an existential threat to unprepared oil companies and is particularly acute for Suncor and other oil sands producers producing a higher cost[4] and higher emitting[5] source of oil than most competitors.

Considering this threat, it is critical that investors are given more clarity on how Suncor’s capital expenditure plans align with its 2030 emissions reductions target and its 2050 net zero pledge

Suncor’s climate plans rely heavily on carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) for meeting its climate goals. Yet the company does not disclose spending plans for CCUS, including overall cost and projections of cost-per-barrel over the medium and long term.

Climate Action 100+, a global investor initiative representing US$68 trillion in assets under management, found in its October 2022 Assessment that Suncor “does not meet any criteria” for capital alignment, medium term targets or decarbonization strategy.”[6]

To address investor uncertainty and to manage business risk, we urge shareholders to vote FOR this proposal.

[1] Need footnote for this

[2] https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022

[3] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2021/

[4] https://www.rogtecmagazine.com/rystad-energy-as-falling-costs-make-new-oil-cheaper-to-produce-climate-policies-may-fail-unless-they-target-demand/

[5] http://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#total-emissions

[6] https://www.climateaction100.org/company/suncor-energy-inc/

  

​ 

​

Resolution Details

Company:

Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Year:

2023

Issue Area:

Human Rights & Worker Rights

Focus Area:

Collective Bargaining/Unionization

Status:

Vote

Vote Percentage:

35.40%


Activision Blizzard, Inc. Respect for Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining – Proxy Exempt Solicitation
afletter3.htm – Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing.pdf


Resolution Text

RESOLVED: Shareholders urge the Board of Directors of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) to adopt and publicly disclose a policy on its commitment to respect the international human rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The policy should:

Be applicable to Activision’s direct operations and subsidiaries globally;

Include a commitment to non-interference when employees exercise their right to form or join trade unions;

Prohibit any member of management or agent of Activision from undermining the right to form or join trade unions or pressuring any employee from exercising this right;

Describe the ongoing due diligence process Activision will use to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for any violations of these rights, including how it will remedy any misaligned practices.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Freedom of association and collective bargaining are internationally recognized human rights according to the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work1 and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2 The United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights urge companies to “know and show” that they respect human rights by adopting “a human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.”3

According to Activision’s 2021 annual report, none of its U.S. employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and that while “[w]e deeply respect the rights of all employees to make their own decisions about whether or not to join a union,” Activision also prefers “a direct relationship between managers and team members.”4 In contrast to Activision’s preference for maintaining a direct (i.e., union free) relationship with its employees, Microsoft announced that it would remain neutral if its employees express interest in joining a union.5

In October 2022, Region 18 of National Labor Relations Board found merit in allegations that Activision had withheld raises from workers because of their union activity after quality assurance testers working for Activision subsidiary Raven Software voted to unionize.6 In May 2022, Region 31 of the National Labor Relations Board found merit in allegations that Activision illegally threatened workers and enforced a social media policy that conflicts with workers’ rights.7 Activision has denied these allegations and they have not been adjudicated.

We believe this proposal will also help address human rights risks at Activision’s operations in other countries where freedom of association and collective bargaining may not be adequately protected by local law. We note that as of December 31, 2021, Activision had approximately 25 percent of its employees in the Europe, Middle East, and Africa, and approximately 7 percent in the Asia Pacific region.8

For these reasons, we urge shareholders to vote FOR this resolution.

1 https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang‐‐en/index.htm
2 https://www.un.org/en/about‐us/universal‐declaration‐of‐human‐rights
3 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf 4 https://investor.activision.com/static‐files/d7b4f08d‐213b‐4bd5‐a41b‐7497baa9c106
5 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/business/microsoft‐activision‐game‐union.html
6 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/technology/activision‐nlrb‐ruling.html
7 https://fortune.com/2022/05/23/activision‐blizzard‐illegally‐threatened‐staff‐us‐labor‐officials‐find/
8 https://investor.activision.com/static‐files/d7b4f08d‐213b‐4bd5‐a41b‐7497baa9c106

  

​