Category: ESG
Center for Political Accountability introduces Guide to Model Code
In 2020, the Center for Political Accountability introduced the CPA-Zicklin Model Code of Conduct for Corporate Political Spending, designed to provide a “thorough and ethical framework” for corporate political spending. The preamble states that the Code is a “public commitment to employees, shareholders and the public to transparency and accountability. It not only mitigates risk but also demonstrates the company’s understanding that its participation in politics must reflect its core values, its respect for the law and its responsibilities as a member of the body politic.” The goal is to help companies adopting this code to avoid the reputational and financial harm that might result from a failure to align corporate values and political spending. Ultimately, the CPA observes, “directors and officers are responsible and accountable for the political choices and broader impact that may result from their company’s election-related spending, no matter how financially immaterial it may seem.” Now, the CPA has developed a Guide to Becoming a Model Code Company, designed to help companies and their boards understand the Model Code and how it can help them manage election-related political spending in high-risk environments—think the 2024 election cycle now upon us. According to the President of the CPA, the Guide was developed based in part on questions raised by companies at a recent roundtable on corporate political spending at NYU’s Stern School.
Gensler won’t rush SEC’s agenda
As reported by Bloomberglaw.com, during an interview on “Balance of Power” on Bloomberg Television, SEC Chair Gary Gensler said that he does not intend to “rush” the SEC’s agenda “to get ahead of possible political changes in Washington,” that is, in anticipation of the November elections. According to Bloomberg, he insisted that he’s “‘not doing this against the clock….It’s about getting it right and allowing staff to work their part.’” As the article reminds us, if Republicans win all three branches in November, they could repeal regulations adopted shortly before the turnover in party control. In addition, a number of the SEC’s rules are being challenged in court and “those court battles could bleed into next year.”
Gensler talks about AI (and a bit about climate)
Yesterday, in remarks at Yale Law School, SEC Chair Gary Gensler talked about the opportunities and challenges of AI. According to Gensler, while AI “opens up tremendous opportunities for humanity,” it “also raises a host of issues that aren’t new but are accentuated by it. First, AI models’ decisions and outcomes are often unexplainable. Second, AI also may make biased decisions because the outcomes of its algorithms may be based on data reflecting historical biases. Third, the ability of these predictive models to predict doesn’t mean they are always accurate. If you’ve used it to draft a paper or find citations, beware, because it can hallucinate.” In his remarks, Gensler also addressed the potential for systemic risk and fraud. But, in the end, he struck a more positive note, concluding that the role of the SEC involves both “allowing for issuers and investors to benefit from the great potential of AI while also ensuring that we guard against the inherent risks.”
Does shareholder primacy mean just maximizing profits—and what does Exxon have to do with it?
As you know, the shareholder primacy theory is widely attributed to the Chicago school of economists, beginning in the 1970s, with economist Milton Friedman famously arguing that the only “social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” Subsequently, two other economists published a paper characterizing shareholders as “‘principals’ who hired executives and board members as ‘agents.’ In other words, when you are an executive or corporate director, you work for the shareholders.” The idea, in effect, is that, as owners, shareholders may legitimately require that the company conduct its business in accordance with their desires. Of course, this idea has been subject to criticism by many as improperly ignoring the interests of other stakeholders, such as employees, customers and the community—so-called “stakeholder capitalism.” Under Friedman’s version of shareholder primacy, the desire of shareholders has long been presumed to be to maximize value and increase profits. But is it? The author of this article in Fortune makes the argument that the ongoing Exxon litigation against Arjuna and Follow This, two proponents of a climate-related shareholder proposal, throws into sharp relief a schism that has formed among adherents to the idea of shareholder primacy. The question posed is “what do shareholders really want, and are companies ever allowed to ignore them? Arjuna and Follow This own Exxon stock and are trying to dictate how the energy giant behaves. However, they are demanding more than dividends: They want Exxon to commit to more ambitious emissions reductions, and to some, that’s just as bad as companies admitting an obligation to workers or the community.” Does shareholder primacy necessarily mean just maximizing profits?
Temperature drops on Exxon litigation over shareholder climate proposal—or does it?
You remember that, in January, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit against Arjuna Capital, LLC and Follow This, two proponents of a climate-related shareholder proposal submitted to Exxon, seeking a declaratory judgment that it may exclude their proposal from its 2024 annual meeting proxy statement? On February 1, Exxon filed a notice of withdrawal of its request for an expedited briefing schedule for its summary judgment motion in the case. Why? Because the two proponents had notified Exxon that they had withdrawn their proposal. End of story? Not necessarily. Exxon told Reuters that it would not withdraw the complaint, maintaining that there were still critical issues for the Court. And in a Court filing yesterday, Exxon explained why it believed that there was still a live controversy for the Court to resolve. How the Court responds remains to be seen. But regardless of what the Court decides, the withdrawal of the proposal in response to the litigation may well encourage other companies, similarly faced with unwelcome proposals, to bypass the SEC’s standard shareholder proposal process and follow the go straight-to-court strategy.
What happened with proxy votes in 2023?
Starting off the new year, consultant Semler Brossy’s latest report analyzes proxy results for 2023 among the S&P 500 and the Russell 3000, including votes on say on pay, environmental and social shareholder proposals, director elections and equity plans. According to SB, last year saw improvements in say-on-pay vote results and a decline in approval rates for E&S shareholder proposals. There was little change in the rate of favorable votes for director nominees, while there was an increase in vote failures for equity plan proposals. And SB shows that unfavorable vote recommendations from ISS apparently do make a difference.
Exxon employs “direct-to-court” strategy for shareholder proposal. Will others do the same?
Back in 2014, a few companies, facing shareholder proposals from the prolific shareholder-proposal activist, John Chevedden, and his associates, adopted a “direct-to-court” strategy, bypassing the standard SEC no-action process for exclusion of shareholder proposals. In each of these cases, the court handed a victory of sorts to Mr. Chevedden, refusing to issue declaratory judgments that the companies could exclude his proposals. (At the end of the day, one proposal was defeated, one succeeded and one was ultimately permitted to be excluded by the SEC. See this PubCo post, and these News Briefs of 3/18/14, 3/13/14 and 3/3/14.) Now, ten years later, ExxonMobil has picked up the baton, having just filed a complaint against Arjuna Capital, LLC and Follow This, the two proponents of a climate-related shareholder proposal, seeking a declaratory judgment that it may exclude their proposal from its 2024 annual meeting proxy statement. In summary, the proposal asks Exxon to accelerate the reduction of GHG emissions in the medium term and to disclose new plans, targets and timetables for these reductions. Will Exxon meet the same fate as the companies in 2014? Perhaps more significantly, Exxon took this action in part because it viewed the SEC’s shareholder proposal process as a “flawed” system “that does not serve investors’ interests and has become ripe for abuse by activists with minimal shares and no interest in growing long-term shareholder value.” If Exxon is successful in its litigation, will more companies, likewise faced with environmental or social proposals and perhaps perceiving themselves beset by the same flawed process, follow suit (so to speak) and sidestep the SEC?
House hearing raises specter of serious legal hurdles for climate proposal—will the SEC backtrack?
Last week, a House Financial Services subcommittee held a hearing with the ominous title “Oversight of the SEC’s Proposed Climate Disclosure Rule: A Future of Legal Hurdles.” Billed as oversight, the hearing certainly highlighted the gauntlet that the SEC would have to run if the rules were adopted as is. Not that SEC Chair Gary Gensler wasn’t already well aware that the climate proposal is facing a number of legal challenges. Will this gentle “reminder” by the subcommittee, together with recent court decisions, perhaps lead the SEC to moderate some of the most controversial aspects of the proposal, such as the Scope 3 and accounting requirements? The witnesses were a VP of the National Association of Manufacturers, counsel from BigLaw, a farmer and an academic.
NYSE’s proposed listing standards for Natural Asset Companies bite the dust
Last year, the NYSE proposed to adopt new listing standards for the common equity securities of a “Natural Asset Company,” a new type of public company defined by the NYSE as “a corporation whose primary purpose is to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the value of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services.” Although existing regulatory and listing requirements would continue to apply to NACs, the proposal contemplated, in addition, a fairly elaborate new NAC governance and reporting ecosystem involving specific provisions in corporate charters, new mandatory policies (environmental and social, biodiversity, human rights, equitable benefit sharing), new prescribed responsibilities for audit committees and a new reporting framework, including mandatory “Ecological Performance Reports.” (See this PubCo post.) Why did the NYSE introduce this proposal? Notwithstanding all of the developments in ESG disclosure and investing (such as ESG funds), the NYSE contended that “investors still express an unmet need for efficient, pure-play exposure to nature and climate.” According to the Intrinsic Exchange Group, which pioneered the NAC concept and advises public sector and private landowners on the creation of NACs, “[b]y taking a NAC public through an IPO, the market transaction will succeed in converting the long-understood—but to-date unpriced—value of nature into financial capital. This monetization event will generate the funding needed to manage, restore, and grow healthy ecosystems around the world and bring us closer to achieving a truly sustainable, circular economy.” At the time of the proposal, I asked whether this proposal would be a game changer to rescue our environment or merely a chimera? The answer, at least for now, seems to be chimera. In December, the SEC instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal, asking for comment on a number of questions that were based broadly on concerns raised by commenters, such as issues regarding the licensing arrangements for NACs and the relationship between NYSE and IEG. Then, on January 17, 2024, the NYSE withdrew its proposal. Why?
You must be logged in to post a comment.