Category: ESG
Is there an alternative to Scope 3?
As you know, the SEC has proposed a sweeping set of regulations for disclosure on climate (see this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post), and we anxiously wait to see what the final rules have in store (obviously not happening in October as the SEC had previously targeted). One controversial part of that proposal draws on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, requiring disclosure of a company’s Scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, and, for larger companies, Scope 3 GHG emissions if material (or included in the company’s emissions reduction target), with a phased-in attestation requirement for Scopes 1 and 2 data for large accelerated filers and accelerated filers. There haven’t been many complaints about the Scope 1 and Scope 2 requirements, but Scope 3 is another matter. According to the SEC, some commenters indicated that, for many companies, Scope 3 emissions represent a large proportion of overall GHG emissions, and therefore, could be material. However, those emissions result from the activities of third parties in the company’s “value chain,” making collection of the data much more difficult and much less reliable. In two articles published in the Harvard Business Review—“Accounting for Climate Change” and “We Need Better Carbon Accounting. Here’s How to Get There”—Robert Kaplan and Karthik Ramanna from Harvard Business School and the University of Oxford, respectively, propose another idea—the E-liability accounting system. The GHG protocol is, at this point, deeply embedded. Would the E-liability system work? Should the SEC or other regulators make room for a different concept?
Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce: SCOTUS grants cert. to another case about Atlantic herring—and Chevron deference
On October 13, SCOTUS granted cert. in the case of Relentless, Inc. v. Dept of Commerce, a case about whether the National Marine Fisheries Service has the authority to require herring fishing vessels to pay some of the costs for onboard federal observers who are required to monitor regulatory compliance. Does that ring a bell? Probably, because it’s exactly the same issue on which SCOTUS has already granted cert. in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. (See this PubCo post.) Why grant cert. in this case too? It’s been widely reported that the reason was to allow Justice Kenji Brown Jackson, who had recused herself on Loper Bright, to participate in what will likely be a very important decision: whether the Court should continue the decades-long deference of courts, under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, to the reasonable interpretations of statutes by agencies (such as the National Marine Fisheries Service or, as has happened fairly often, the SEC, see this Cooley News Brief). The question presented is “ [w]hether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.” The decision could narrow, or even completely undo, that deference. The grant of cert provided that the two cases will be argued in tandem in the January 2024 argument session. Mark your calendars.
Fifth Circuit denies petition challenging Nasdaq’s board diversity rule
On Friday, August 6, 2021, the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure, accompanied by a proposal to provide free access to a board recruiting service. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. (See this PubCo post.) As anticipated, a court challenge to these rules didn’t take long to materialize. On Monday, August 9, the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment filed a slim petition under Section 25(a) of the Exchange Act in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—the Alliance has its principal place of business in Texas—for review of the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq rule. (See this PubCo post.) That petition was soon followed by a new petition challenging the rules filed by the National Center for Public Policy Research and subsequently transferred to the Fifth Circuit where the earlier filed petition was pending. (See this PubCo post.) Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit—by repute, the Circuit of choice for advocates of conservative causes—denied those petitions, in effect upholding Nasdaq’s board diversity listing rules. According to the unanimous decision, “AFBR and NCPPR have given us no reason to conclude that the SEC’s Approval Order violates the Exchange Act or the APA.” The case is Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, National Center for Public Policy Research v. SEC.
Cooley Alert: California’s Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act
In this piece in the New Yorker, the author describes the inception in the late 1980s of the carbon-offsetting market, which emerged from the notion that carbon was a fungible commodity, like coffee or cotton. A U.S. power company had “conceived a novel way to reduce emissions: it could surround its main coal-fired power station with a forest, to absorb the carbon billowing from its chimney. That plan turned out to be implausible. Scientists calculated that, to absorb the carbon the facility would pump out in its life span, the company needed to plant some fifty-two million trees—an impossibility in densely populated Connecticut.” But then an executive elsewhere “had an inspiration: since the atmosphere was a global commons, why not situate the forest elsewhere? The company eventually paid for forty thousand farmers to plant trees in the mountains of Guatemala. It cost just two million dollars—pennies per ton of carbon.” The idea caught on, and, a “decade later, the concept of carbon offsetting was enshrined in international law.”
NYSE proposes listing standards for a “natural asset company”—what’s that?
The NYSE has 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.” And, “where doing so is consistent with the company’s primary purpose,” a NAC would also be required to “seek to conduct sustainable revenue-generating operations,” and “may also engage in other activities that support community well-being, provided such activities are sustainable.” In addition, NACs would be prohibited from engaging in unsustainable activities, that is, activities that “cause any material adverse impact on the condition of the natural assets under its control, and that extract resources without replenishing them.” Although existing regulatory and listing requirements would continue to apply to NACs, in many ways, the proposal contemplates something approaching a new NAC governance and reporting ecosystem, if you will, that would involve 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.” Why did the NYSE introduce this proposal? Notwithstanding all of the developments in ESG disclosure and investing (such as ESG funds), the NYSE contends 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.” Will this proposal be a game changer to rescue our environment or merely a chimera? Time will tell. The proposal is open for comment for 21 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Investor Advisory Committee recommends human capital management disclosure
On Thursday last week, the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee voted to approve, with two abstentions, a subcommittee recommendation regarding human capital management disclosure. You probably remember that, in 2020, during the tenure of then-SEC Chair Jay Clayton, the SEC adopted a new requirement to discuss human capital as part of an overhaul of Reg S-K that applied a “principles-based” approach. The new rule limited the requirement to a “description of the registrant’s human capital resources, including the number of persons employed by the registrant, and any human capital measures or objectives that the registrant focuses on in managing the business (such as, depending on the nature of the registrant’s business and workforce, measures or objectives that address the development, attraction and retention of personnel).” (See this PubCo post.) With workforce having grown in importance as a value driver, many viewed the amendment as a step in the right direction, but one that fell short. Subsequent reporting suggested that companies “capitalized on the fact that the new rule does not call for specific metrics,” as “[r]elatively few issuers provided meaningful numbers about their human capital, even when they had those numbers at hand” (although more recent studies have shown some expansion of disclosure). (See this PubCo post.) As you know, Corp Fin is currently working on a proposal to mandate enhanced company disclosures regarding HCM, and, according to the most recent Reg-Flex agenda, October is the target for issuance of the proposal. (See this PubCo post.) Recommendations from SEC advisory committees often hold some sway with the staff and the commissioners. Will the IAC recommendations have any impact?
Alliance Advisors wraps up the 2023 proxy season
Alliance Advisors, a proxy solicitation and corporate advisory firm, has posted its 2023 Proxy Season Review, an analysis of trends from the 2023 proxy season. Its principal message: ESG proposals saw sagging results again this year, “continuing a downward trend” from 2021. Although the number of shareholder proposals submitted to U.S. public companies was substantial (958 as of June 30, 2023, compared with 987 for all of 2022), Alliance Advisors reports that there was a dramatic decline from last year in “average support across all categories of shareholder proposals,” and “the number of majority votes plunged from 80 in 2022 to 28 in the first half of 2023.” More specifically, according to Alliance, average support on governance proposals fell to 29.9% in 2023 from 37.4% in 2022 and 38.4% in 2021, and there was a bit of a roller-coaster effect on compensation-related proposals, where average support declined to 23.7% in 2023 from 31.4% in 2022 but increased from 21% in 2021. Most pronounced was the change in average support for environmental and social (E&S) proposals, which declined to 18.3% in 2023 from 27.3% in 2022 and 37.2% in 2021. Will it turn out that 2021 was the “high-water mark” for shareholder proposals on ESG? The report explores trends in shareholder proposals and examines what may account for the flagging voting results.
Starbucks decision to adopt DEI initiative within Board’s business judgment
In August last year, the National Center for Public Policy Research filed a complaint against Starbucks and its officers and directors, National Center for Public Policy Research v. Schultz, alleging that they caused Starbucks to adopt a group of policies that discriminate based on race in violation of a “wide array of state and federal civil rights laws.” Starbucks characterized the policies as designed to “realize its ‘commitment to Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity[.]’” Starbucks, its officers and directors moved to dismiss, and a hearing on the motion was held on August 11, 2023. At the hearing, the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice and closed the case. A month on, the Court’s Order has now been released. While the Order discusses the various legal bases for the dismissal, the Court’s sentiment was perhaps best summed up by its statement in the Order that “[t]his Complaint has no business being before this Court and resembles nothing more than a political platform.” Much like the recent decision of the Delaware Chancery Court in Simeone v. The Walt Disney Company, the Court concluded that “[c]ourts of law have no business involving themselves with reasonable and legal decisions made by the board of directors of public corporations.” Are we starting to see a trend with regard to board business decisions about corporate social policy?
You must be logged in to post a comment.