Follow the Money

Multiple crises over the past year reminded us that our global economy and our democracies are unjust and fragile. With decades of lobbying and political spending, companies have contributed to the breakdown of trust in the system by distorting elections, policymaking, law enforcement, and citizens’ ability to hold power to account.

Why do industries like meatpacking enjoy little oversight under both Democrat and Republican administrations? A recent report from the nonprofit advocacy group Feed the Truth suggests a disquieting answer. The report documents how the largest companies in the U.S. food system invest a significant sum in lobbying and campaign donations, all but guaranteeing a friendlier regulatory environment.

Corporate political spending and lobbying are possibly the major factors obstructing progress on critical policy issues including the climate crisis, corporate tax loopholes, fossil fuel subsidies, pharmaceutical pricing, minimum wage, worker rights, and youth tobacco use. Companies impede legislators and regulators from acting on evidence and for the common good. The 2010 Citizens United court ruling only exasperated corporate political influence.

Investors try to address this. For example, SGI members led or co-filed 10 political spending or lobbying resolutions.

When It comes to political spending on elections, we rely on guidance from the Center for Political Accountability (CPA). CPA, collaborating with the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research and Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, developed a model code of conduct. They apply that code and produce an annual report on political spending disclosure.

Capturing information on corporate lobbying is more difficult. Generally, it comes in three streams:

  1. Corporations directly employ lobbyists for matters of concern on the federal, state, and local level. The laws regarding disclosure vary in each jurisdiction making it difficult to track. For example, e-cigarette maker Juul admitted to Congress that it lobbies in 48 states, but try to gather all that data on your own.
  2. Corporations also make payments to trade associations that lobby on their behalf without specific disclosure or accountability. The US Chamber of Commerce has spent more than $1.6 billion since 1998.
  3. Corporations make payments to 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits and 527 political organizations, often referred to as “dark money,” that can create legal and reputational risk for companies. Ohio utility FirstEnergy is under investigation for funneling $60 million through a dark money 501(c)(4) group called Generation Now that was used for bribery. In another example, the Rule of Law Defense Fund is a social welfare group that helped organize the protest before the January 6th riots and is an arm of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA).

While corporate and traditional PAC direct donations to politicians have strict limits, company payments to trade associations and 501(c)(4) social welfare nonprofits for lobbying have no restrictions. This means companies can give unlimited amounts to third-party groups that spend millions on lobbying and undisclosed grassroots activity. Thus, shareholder proposals for lobbying disclosure capture indirect spending through trade associations or social welfare groups.

The CPA-Zicklin Index found that, among companies listed in S&P 500, only 18% fully disclose their contributions to 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, only 24% fully disclose their contributions to trade associations, and only 30% fully disclose their donations to 527 political organizations. So there is a long way to go.

In the wake of January’s attack on the U.S. Capitol and the pause imposed by some companies on their political donations, prospects for a change in the status quo may be improving. In February, ICCR asked companies to consider ending political spending on elections. This proxy season, shareholders sent a clear message for more disclosure and alignment of corporate political spending and lobbying.

This post is in a series that exams the outcome of the 2021 proxy season. For a complete list of SGI resolutions from 2021, please visit this page.

Supreme Court rules on Nestlé USA, Cargill child labor case

Today, in an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of two corporations accused of links to child slavery in the Ivory Coast. The case, Nestlé v. Doe, was a lawsuit brought by six Mali citizens against the companies Nestlé USA and Cargill. The lawsuit claimed that the chocolate makers aided and abetted child slavery on African cocoa farms, reversing a ruling that allowed the claims to proceed under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the companies’ activities in the United States were not sufficiently related to the alleged abuses to be subject to suit under the ATS. The decision, the latest in a series of rulings, sets increasingly strict limitations on federal lawsuits based on foreign human rights abuses. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the lone dissent.

I wrote about the December 2020 oral arguments here. The decision feels like a setback, especially as we observed World Day Against Child Labor just last week (June 12th), and, yesterday, the U.S. State Department heralded the 10th anniversary of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs):

These principles recognize a three-pronged approach to protecting human rights in the context of business activity: States have the duty to protect human rights; businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights; and victims affected by business-related human rights issues should have access to remedy. We commemorate the achievements made over the last decade in these areas, and take heed of the substantive work that still needs to be done toward realization of these principles.

Antony JBlinken, Secretary of State, Press Statement

While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nestlé USA and Cargill, hope is not lost. The majority of justices rejected a notion of corporate immunity under the statute. The ruling continues to hold that corporations can be sued under international law for actions within their supply chain. The case will be remanded to a lower court where the six trafficked children will seek to amend their case in such a way as to satisfy today’s ruling. I join in the hopes that they have their day in court and that justice is done.

Taking “heed of the substantive work that still needs to be done,” SGI urges Nestlé and Cargill to take action to action to eliminate the grave crime of child slavery from their supply chain, and we will continue to call upon all companies with whom we engage to see and act on their responsibility for protecting and respecting human rights and providing remediation for those instances were human rights have been violated.

Pay and Wealth Disparity: Still our greatest social challenge

By Frank Sherman

Sister Sue Ernster’s (Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration) proposal on racial equity & starting pay at the Walmart AGM earlier this week obtained strong shareholder support for a first-time resolution (12.5% of total shares or 27% of independent shares voted). Congratulations to Sue and the many ICCR co-filers.

I’m reminded of Father Mike Crosby’s 2015 campaign on income disparity. At that time, President Obama called the growing pay & wealth gap in our country “the greatest social challenge of our time“…. and it hasn’t gotten better since then. We didn’t get very far back then after the SEC’s sided with the companies, permitting them to omit our proposal from the proxy based on the “ordinary business” exclusion.

Starting in 2011, the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 required companies to include disclosure of the total compensation of the top 5 paid executives in their annual proxy statements. Shareholders are allowed to cast a non-binding advisory vote for or against these pay packages (“say-on-pay”). Very few companies “failed” their say-on-pay vote in recent years. A failure occurs if the company does not obtain majority support from shareholders for the executive compensation proposal.

The tide may be shifting. Twice as many say-on-pay proposals failed this year as in previous years, including some companies that had never had a failure in these resolutions. As You Sow’s Rosanna Landis Weaver does great work digging through the fine print of the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of each company’s proxy statement with an annual report on the 100 Most Overpaid CEOs. A recent NEI article on CEO compensation (A Promising Start To The Challenge Of Excessive CEO Pay) notes that support for pay packages among S&P 500 firms fell to an average of 87%, down 3 percentage points from 2020 and 2019, and down 4 points from 2016 to 2018. It references a report from the Institute for Policy Studies (Pandemic Pay Plunder: Low-Wage Workers Lost Hours, Jobs, and Lives. Their Employers Bent the Rules – to Pump up CEO Paychecks) which found that 51 of the S&P 500 firms with the lowest median worker wage revised their pay rules in 2020, so that median worker pay fell 2%, while CEO pay rose—by 29%.

Investors pushed corporations to tie their pay packages to stock performance (…to better align management pay with investor returns) in the early ’90s. Little did they know that this would be used by companies to successively ratchet up CEO, and as a result, the rest of management’s, comp packages every year to a level that makes U.S. CEOs stand out on the global stage.

The Dodd–Frank Act also required companies to disclose the ratio of CEO compensation to the median compensation of their employees. The rule has only been in effect since 2017, but the SEC allows companies “substantial flexibility” in the calculation of the ratio, making it difficult for investors and society to make meaningful comparisons.

Of course, CEO’s know that their pay relative to the median pay of their workers is out of control. But even if they wanted to change this (and I’m not sure many “want” to do so), they are reluctant to be a first mover on restructuring pay because it would “negatively impact retention and make them less competitive”.

As we complete the next draft of SGI’s strategic plan and think about our engagement focus for the 2022 season (which starts this summer), I believe pay disparity has to be high on our list. I hope you concur.

Supreme Court to weigh in on Child Slavery

Today (December 2nd) is International Day for the Abolition of Slavery.

Yesterday, in a cruel irony, the U.S. Supreme Court heard consolidated oral arguments in Nestlé USA, Inc v. Doe I, Docket number 19-416 and Cargill, Inc v. Doe I, a consolidated case on U.S. corporations and liabilities for alleged child slave labor violations abroad.

The basic facts of what happened are beyond dispute: six Africans were trafficked out of Mali as children, where they were forced to work long hours on Ivory Coast cocoa farms and locked at night into shacks. Attorneys for the six Africans argued that the companies should have better monitored their cocoa suppliers in West Africa and have liability. The countries of the region grow about two-thirds of the world’s cocoa, and child labor is endemic.

Looking at the docket files for the case, one finds amicus briefs from Coca-Cola, Chevron, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a joint filing for three trade associations (National Confectioners Association, the World Cocoa Foundation, and the European Cocoa Association), all in support of Cargill. As well, the Washington Legal Foundation and the Cato Institute filed amicus briefs in support of the corporations.

Cargill and Nestle selected a lawyer well-known to MSNBC aficionados to represent them: Neal Katyal, a former Acting Solicitor General of the United States, and the creator of an inspiring TED Talk.  Both companies have strongly worded policies against child labor and human trafficking and the like. All of the amicus briefs stated that they abhor child slavery and the corporations actively take steps to eradicate such practices among their suppliers.

The broad outline of the companies’ argument is found in the second page of Katyal and his team’s brief:

Plaintiffs’ brief confirms that all they have alleged (and can allege) is that Nestlé USA lawfully purchased some cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire and exercised some generalized supervision. The true wrongdoers are the Malian and Ivorian traffickers, farmers, and overseers who injured Plaintiffs in West Africa.

In other words, the practices of Nestlé, Cargill and, by extension, Chevron, Coca-Cola, and all multi-national corporations with dispersed supply chains are sufficient. The terms of their contracts are clear and exclude child labor, human trafficking, and all forms of modern slavery. Occasionally, they do audits of their suppliers. Isn’t that enough? How can a company be responsible for all the actions of their suppliers?

At issue, according to the briefs, is liability under the Alien Tort Statute, a part of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  It has been enshrined in U.S. law for more than 230 years. To me, the most interesting exchange during the hearing was between Justice Elena Kagan and Katyal (pages 19-21 of the transcript):

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Katyal, is child slavery, not aiding and abetting it but the offense itself, is that a violation of a specific universal and obligatory norm?

KATYAL: We’re — we’re not – yes, I think we’re not challenging that here. It’s just the aiding and abetting.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So, if that’s right, could a former child slave bring a suit against an individual slaveholder under the ATS?

KATYAL: So they — if it were – if it weren’t extraterritorial and it wasn’t a corporate action, yes.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Yeah, no problem extraterritorial, no problem aiding and abetting, just a straight suit.

KATYAL: Correct.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. And could the same child — former child slave in the same circumstances bring a suit against 10 slaveholders?

KATYAL: You know, if they – if they met the — you know, the requirements under the — the law, yeah, sure. I mean, if they —

JUSTICE KAGAN: Okay. So if —

KATYAL: — if it was a plausible allegation.

JUSTICE KAGAN: — if you could bring a suit against 10 slaveholders when those 10 slaveholders form a corporation, why can’t you bring a suit against the corporation?

KATYAL: Because the corporation requires an individual form of liability under a norm, a specific norm, of — of – under international law, which doesn’t exist here. I think Sosa in Footnote —

JUSTICE KAGAN: I — I — I guess what I’m asking is, like, what sense does this make? This goes back to Justice Breyer’s question. What sense does this make? You have a suit against 10 slaveholders, 10 slaveholders decide to form a corporation specifically to remove liability from themselves, and now you’re saying you can’t sue the corporation?

Justice Kagan was pointing toward an amicus brief from the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges filed in support of the six Africans. In the brief, Oona Hathaway sets forth a compelling argument that:

Slavery, forced labor, and human trafficking constitute the worst forms of human exploitation. The law of nations has long prohibited these practices in specific, universal, and obligatory terms. Indeed, these prohibitions are among the most longstanding, deeply rooted prohibitions in international human rights law. Each of these prohibitory norms of international law extends, moreover, to natural and juridical [corporations] persons alike. (p. 33)

Citizens United v FEC decided that corporations are people, when it comes to political spending, but corporations are now arguing that they are not people when it comes to child labor, human trafficking, and modern slavery.

I won’t pretend to know how this court will decide the case, but it should go without saying that aiding and abetting slavery is wrong, whether it is done by an individual or a corporation.

Chevron Investors Call for Climate Disclosure

This is the first of a series on the 2020 shareholder meetings

Chevron Corp.’s busy annual shareholder meeting this year featured seven shareholder proposals, on topics ranging from lobbying, climate, and human rights. Cindy Bohlen of Riverwater Investments and Mary Minette of Mercy Investment Services co-filed the human rights proposal led by Sister Nora Nash, OSF, asking the company to provide a report on Chevron’s effectiveness to prevent, mitigate, and remedy human rights impacts of its operations. We were pleased to have received a vote of 17% for a first-year proposal. Other proposals were presented to the company during the AGM by notable figures: Alec Baldwin, Roger Waters, and Jody Williams, which focused on governance issues, and pointed to Chevron’s 50-year involvement (through its acquisition of Texaco) in toxic pollution in Ecuador. 

Another resolution focusing on climate lobbying garnered a 53%, majority vote. The proposal asked the Company for a report explaining how it ensures its lobbying activities are aligned with the Paris climate accord and the goal of limiting global warming. This majority vote agrees with the investor push for companies to be more transparent about their lobbying activities, especially through their membership in trade associations. 

Recent news highlights why this resolution, and this vote, are critical for the Company. Amid the Black Lives Matter protests, news reports tie Chevron to a public affairs firm urging journalists to examine how green groups were claiming solidarity with black protesters while backing policies which would “hurt” minority communities. Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University history professor and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt” said that it is “remarkable that the Company tried to leverage national unrest about systemic racism and police violence to promote an expansion of oil and gas drilling.” While Chevron has denied the claims of being a part of this campaign, it raises the question of Chevron’s public statements supporting the Paris Agreement, while its lobbying activities send the opposite message. 

Additionally, the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against Chevron and other oil and gas companies  for “systematically and intentionally misleading” consumers about the role their products play in causing climate change.” This lawsuit is of another way, of many, of which stakeholders are trying to hold the company accountable for its actions. 
SGI members are calling on Chevron and other corporations to respect human rights. As a member of the Business Roundtable, Chevron signed on to the new statement of purpose for corporations to serve all stakeholders. It’s time for Chevron to live up to their rhetoric!

How did you respond to the Coronavirus pandemic?

By Frank Sherman

As some hard hit cities start to report a slowing of COVID-19 cases and express hope that we’ve indeed reached the much anticipated peak, our federal and state government leaders are struggling with the challenge of reopening the economy. The same debates on balancing public health and economic pain are playing out in corporate boardrooms and at small business owners’ kitchen tables. The slow response and lack of leadership at the federal level has not only shifted decision-making to states and local levels, they force the private sector to face the dilemma of when and how to bring back their employees, supply chains, and customers.

As faith communities, we recognize that the pandemic has put a spotlight on economic inequalities and a fragile social safety net leaving vulnerable communities to bear the economic brunt of the crisis (Human Rights Watch, March 19, 2020). In the U.S., four decades of income and wealth disparity was partly hidden by record low unemployment but is now exposed in unemployment insurance and food pantry lines. While many Americans were already knee-deep in debt pre-pandemic, half of households have no emergency savings at all (WSJ, April 15, 2020). Nearly 30 million children who count on schools for free or low-cost breakfast, lunch, snacks and sometimes dinner are now at home (NPR, March 20, 2020). Thankfully Congress has shifted most of the disaster relief to the workers and individuals this time rather than solely to companies as done in 2009.

As companies start to report their first-quarter financials, the message is clear: this recession is going to be bad! What will be the corporate response to these unprecedented times? The pandemic and impending recession have created an urgent opportunity for CEOs and corporate leaders to put the promise of purpose-driven leadership and stakeholder capitalism into practice (Just Capital).

I certainly noticed a change in the tone and focus of corporate communications, both internal and external. Instead of productivity and new product launches, companies are talking about employee and customer safety, corporate values, and community support. Examples such as Walmart’s enhanced paid sick leave, McDonald’s free meals for students and seniors, GM and Ford retooling auto assembly lines for ventilators (WAPO, April 4, 2020), Amazon prioritizing shipments of medical supplies and household staples (WSJ, March 17, 2020), and Thank You For Not Riding Uber (YouTube, April 8, 2020) appear to be empathetic. The public perception of whether these corporate responses are authentic or ‘COVID washing’ may depend on whether the company was purpose-driven before the crisis.

At the end of the day (…and there will be an end to this crisis), employees, consumers and society in general will ask these companies and their leaders one simple question: How did you respond to the Coronavirus pandemic? And when the corporate marketing machine restarts, let’s hope we have long memories.

A Step Towards Tax Transparency

News reports occasionally detail how large corporations, like Amazon and FedEx, manage to avoid paying any federal taxes. Adding to my personal dismay, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) report that, in fact, 60 Fortune 500 companies avoided all federal income tax in 2018, including: Chevron, Delta Airlines, Eli Lilly, General Motors, Gannett, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Halliburton, IBM, Jetblue Airways, Netflix, Principal Financial, Salesforce.com, US Steel, and Whirlpool. The full list of those that did not pay a dime is available here. We also know of companies that relocate to tax havens or companies that undergo a “corporate inversion” so that the foreign subsidiary becomes the parent company. At the end of the day, one asks: how do we better understand and compare the tax practices of different companies?

At the conclusion of the ICCR Fall conference (November 1), I went to Bloomberg for an event on Tax Transparency organized by AFSCME, the Fact Coalition, Global Financial Integrity, Oxfam America, and the Patriotic Millionaires. Yesterday (December 5), these same organizations announced the launch of a new global standard for tax transparency. The new global standard includes:

  • Reporting within the context of corporate sustainability;
  • Disclosures on tax strategy, governance, and risk management;
  • Public country-by-country reporting of business activities, revenues, profit, and tax;
  • And disclosure of the reasons for difference between corporate income tax accrued and the tax due.

A few of the remarks from the launch event have been shared with me, and I pass them on to you:

Why is tax transparency important?

Like most voluntary disclosures, companies that are doing the right thing disclose because the market rewards this behavior. Companies that are not doing the right thing are less likely to disclose, reflecting the potential for a financial risk and/or reputational risk.  Efforts like the new standard issued by the Global Reporting Initiative aim to allow for apples to apples comparisons.

A well-grounded tax strategy must be sustainable. These tax disclosures are valuable for investors because, for instance, a company with a very low tax rate raises questions about the sustainability of the rate and, consequently, a risk to earnings down the road. For investors, knowing the tax rate paid by a company discloses something about the risk tolerance of management and board. Bad practices have a habit of catching up with companies. A company may be exposed to penalties, fines, and clawbacks. The leaking of the Panama Papers resulted in recovery of $1.2 billion in taxes and penalties to date.

More importantly, taxes finance important undertakings like roads, schools, and government, things that companies and investors rely upon. A bedrock principle is that one should pay taxes where value is created. The Tax Standard clarifies how much companies contribute in taxes to the countries where they operate and, thereby, allows us to better see the impact of tax avoidance on the ability of a government to fund critical services and to encourage sustainable development. As the late Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice, put it: “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

We at SGI believe that this new standard is an important step forward and encourage companies to disclose according to this standard.

For more information:

Corporate America Develops a Conscience?

By Frank Sherman

There has been a lot of media coverage this week of the Business Roundtable CEOs new commitment and statement on the purpose of corporations. Leaders of companies including JPMorgan Chase, Apple, Amazon and Walmart have abandon their 40+ year sole focus on shareholders to embrace a “fundamental commitment” to all their stakeholders: putting employees, suppliers and communities on a pedestal that once belonged only to shareholders.

Anand Giridharadas, author of Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World, has been an effective critic of the statement.  “I absolutely see the change. It has become socially unacceptable as a company or a rich person not to be doing good. But what many are failing to do is ask: ‘What have I done that may be drowning out any of the do-gooding I’m doing?’ ” (Fortune, Aug 19, 2019). He cites the 2017 tax bill, supported by the Business Roundtable, in which the lion’s share of the benefits ended up in the hands of the top 1%, increasing the income inequality underlying many social problems.

The ‘enlightened’ CEOs are also taking heat from the right. The Wall Street Journal editorial page was quick to criticize (WSJ, Aug 19, 2019)… “A close reading shows there’s less substance here than meets the media spin, but it’s still notable that the CEOs for America’s biggest companies feel the need to distance themselves from their owners. Yet these CEOs are fooling themselves if they think this new rhetoric will buy off Ms. Warren and the socialist left. It may even embolden them by implying that corporate rules that require a focus on achieving value for shareholders are somehow morally insufficient.”

But Steven Pearlstein, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Washington Post, professor of public affairs at George Mason University, and author of the book Can American Capitalism Survive? has a different take from the BRT statement. His article in the American Prospect five years ago (When Shareholder Capitalism Came to Town, Apr 19, 2014) partly blamed the BRT for corporate America’s sole focus on shareholder value leading to the corruption of capitalism. However, Pealstein was optimistic about the BRT statement. “It’s important because it signals a shift in attitude in norms. That’s already occurring. It’s sort of confirming something that’s happening that’s, I think, the pendulum swinging back in the right direction, after having swung too far in favor of shareholders.” Pealstein met J.P. Morgan Chase’s CEO and chair of the BRT, Jamie Dimon, in his office last year to discuss the growing public distrust of corporations and CEOs.

When asked by PBS host John Yang if this may just be a P.R. gimmick, Pearlstein gave some practical advice that all stakeholders can benefit.  “Yes, it is good for P.R., but if they don’t follow through, if we continue to see companies that say, I’m giving up my American citizenship so that we don’t have to pay U.S. taxes anymore because our shareholders are making us do it; if companies say, we’re going to crush our unions because our shareholders are making us do it; they won’t be able to get away with that anymore.”

It’s up to us to remind these CEOs of their new found conscience!

SGI, Institutional Investors Continue to Press Companies for Disclosure of Lobbying

Among issues of corporate governance, lobbying disclosure remains an urgent topic for shareholder proposals in 2019. Five SGI members are a part of a coalition of at least 70 investors who have filed proposals at 33 companies asking for disclosure reports that include federal and state lobbying payments, payments to trade associations and social welfare groups used for lobbying and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation. That last sentence was detailed precisely because “following the money” is so complicated when it comes to lobbying expenditures. This year’s campaign highlights the theme of corporate political responsibility, with a focus on climate change lobbying.

Corporate lobbying impacts all aspects of the economy. Companies fund lobbying efforts on issues ranging from climate change and drug prices to financial regulation, immigration and workers’ rights. While lobbying can provide decision-makers with valuable insights and data, it can also lead to undue influence, unfair competition, and regulatory capture. In addition, lobbying may channel companies’ funds and influence into highly controversial topics with the potential to cause reputational harm.

In 2018, more than $3.4 billion in total was spent on federal lobbying. Additionally, companies spend more than $1 billion yearly on lobbying at the state level, where disclosure is far less transparent than federal lobbying. Beyond that, trade associations spend in excess of $100 million each year, lobbying indirectly on behalf of companies. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $95 million on federal lobbying in 2018 and has spent over $1.5 billion on lobbying since 1998.

To address potential reputational and financial risk associated with lobbying, investors are encouraging companies to disclose all their lobbying payments as well as board oversight processes. We believe that this risk is particularly acute when a company’s lobbying, done directly or through a third party, contradicts its publicly stated positions and core values. Disclosure allows shareholders to verify whether a company’s lobbying aligns with its expressed values and corporate goals.

“The faith community has been an active investor voice for around a decade pressing companies to expand disclosure on political spending (related to elections) and also lobbying disclosure. This is more important than ever as we look at issues of concern to ICCR members. For example it is a crucial time to hold companies accountable on their lobbying related to climate change and to urge them to lobby only for legislation consistent with the Paris Accord. Or monitor how drug companies lobby on opioids or drug pricing. Lobbying is not a remote governance issue but it intimately linked to a whole range of corporate responsibility issues we are all working on.”


Tim Smith of Walden Asset Management

Companies Receiving Lobbying Disclosure Resolutions for 2019 are:

  • AbbVie (ABBV)
  • Altria Group (MO)
  • American Water Works (AWK)
  • AT&T (T)
  • Bank of America (BAC)
  • BlackRock (BLK)
  • Boeing (BA)
  • CenturyLink (CTL)
  • Chevron (CVX)
  • Comcast (CMCSA)
  • Duke Energy (DUK)
  • Emerson Electric (EMR)
  • Equifax (EFX)
  • Exxon Mobil (XOM)
  • FedEx (FDX)
  • Ford Motor (F)
  • General Motors (GM)
  • Honeywell (HON)
  • IBM (IBM)
  • JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
  • Mallinckrodt (MNK)
  • MasterCard (MA)
  • McKesson (MCK)
  • Morgan Stanley (MS)
  • Motorola Solutions (MSI)
  • Nucor Corporation (NUE)
  • Pfizer (PFE)
  • Tyson Foods (TSN)
  • United Continental Holdings (UAL)
  • United Parcel Service (UPS)
  • Verizon (VZ)
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals (VRTX)
  • Walt Disney Company (DIS)

Overpaid CEOs

On Thursday, our friends at As You Sow released their fifth annual report on the 100 Most Overpaid CEOs. The launch included a webinar with Rosanna Landis Weaver (the report’s author), Paul Herman (founder and CEO of HIP Investor), and ex-Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.

Not only are these 100 CEOs overpaid concerning the poor performance of their companies, many fund managers, like BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet, routinely endorse the executive compensation package of these CEOs at the annual shareholder meeting. The report points to necessary actions by shareholders concerning executive compensation. It really is worth your time to dive in.

Axios.com offered succinct coverage of the webinar and report here.

The report can be found here. The webinar can be found here.