Investors are eligible to vote at JPMorgan's upcoming AGM on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on **March 18, 2022**.* See below for more information

**Our Goal**

We want JPMorgan stop all of its investments in fossil fuel industries.  With your investment, Tulipshare will engage with JPMorgan in an effort to pursue this goal. We believe JPMorgan Chase has a responsibility to change its behaviour by reducing the environmental impact of its investments.

When you join our JPMorgan campaign by investing, you'll be adding your voice to our growing community of activists who want to bring about positive change at JPMorgan. Your support may help influence JPMorgan to develop a more aggressive target to end all investment in fossil fuels.

**The issue**

When people think of companies contributing to climate change, it's easy to point to those participating in the fossil fuel industry or [companies that drill or mine for oil, gas or coal, burn them to produce electricity, or refine them for use as fuel for heating or transportation](https://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-sources/fossil). But what about the companies that are financing these companies? 

Reclaim Finance [found that since the Paris Agreement, $3.8 trillion has been invested into fossil fuels by 60 banks](https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf), despite the Paris Agreement's warning that existing oil, gas and coal reserves need to remain in the ground if we are to avoid a 2-degree temperature rise. Reclaim Finance also found that JPMorgan Chase is the world's worst financier of fossil fuels, [having invested $316.735 billion between 2016-2020](https://reclaimfinance.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BOCC__2021_vF.pdf).  

While JPMorgan Chase has [committed $2.5 trillion funding in the next ten years to climate action](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/jpmorgan-pledges-2point5-trillion-over-10-years-toward-climate-change.html) and sustainable development, many don't believe they will reach their climate targets. JPMorgan's [Paris-Aligned Financing Commitment Methodology](https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpm/cib/complex/content/investment-banking/carbon-compass/Carbon_Compass_Final.pdf) focuses on reducing the end-use carbon intensity of its oil and gas investments by 15% by 2030. However, according to Rainforest Action Group, [intensity-only targets for oil and gas, power and autos are fully compatible with expansion of fossil fuels and threaten to rubber-stamp increases in absolute emissions.](https://www.ran.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/RAN-Assessing-JPMorgan-Chases-2030-Climate-Targets-May-2021-1.pdf)  Thus, JPMorgan could still increase their overall greenhouse gas emissions from its oil & gas portfolio over this period. 

What you may or may not know is that while [measuring progress via carbon intensity has its place](https://ourworldindata.org/chinese-turbulence-how-periods-of-political-reform-affect-the-carbon-intensity-of-economies),  we believe its use in JPMorgan Chase's climate targets is misleading. Why? Jason Opeña Disterhoft of the Rainforest Action Group shares that [“different fossil fuels have different carbon intensities, which could let companies manipulate the numbers to lower intensity but not decrease emissions.”](https://www.fastcompany.com/90637949/jpmorgan-chases-latest-climate-goals-show-the-dangers-of-tricky-carbon-accounting)

As a result, we find JPMorgan's target to be unambitious and think it does little to address the scale of the problem.  We'd like to engage with JPMorgan to strengthen its commitment to ending all investments in fossil fuels to significantly reduce their investments impact on climate change. 

**The Environmental Impacts of Fossil Fuels** 

The continued extraction and use of fossil fuels are creating devastating environmental impacts. The burning of fossil fuels results in the [emission of greenhouse gasses](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/fossil-fuels), such as carbon dioxide. These gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect, which increases the earth's temperature by blocking excess heat from escaping into space. 

The recent [IPCC report (2021)](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/)  has issued a 'code red' for humanity, stressing that we will surpass the 2-degree temperature increase threshold without immediate action. Continued greenhouse gas emissions will intensify and increase the frequency of climate change impacts. Air pollution, rising sea levels, the increased spread of diseases and natural disasters such as fires, cyclones and tsunamis are only some of the [climate change impacts](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf) likely to increase with rising temperatures. 

A recent study stated [if we are to meet climate targets on global warming the majority of existing fossil fuel reserves need to be kept in the ground](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8). Furthermore, the study stated that the use of oil and gas must decrease annually by 3% until 2050, and that many planned and operational fossil fuel projects are therefore unviable.

Stopping investment in fossil fuels, otherwise known as [divestment](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcarlin/2021/02/20/the-case-for-fossil-fuel-divestment/?sh=d6f07fd76d22), is a key strategy in reducing  global fossil fuel consumption. Divestment [stigmatises the fossil fuel industry](https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/SAP-divestment-report-final.pdf) and increases the uncertainty surrounding the use, desirability and need for them within society. Divestment has also been [proven to be successful in reducing new capital flows into the industry](https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article/21/1/141/6042790). We believe that if JPMorgan Chase was to increase its divestment from the fossil fuel industry, others would follow – creating a race to move away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable alternatives. 

**JPMorgan Chase’s Current Fossil Fuel Policy**

In JPMorgan Chase's [2020 Environmental, Social & Governance Report](https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/documents/jpmc-esg-report-2020.pdf), the bank has various operational sustainability targets, including maintaining carbon-neutral operations and using renewable energy for their global power needs. In addition, in October 2020, pressure from shareholders resulted in JPMorgan Chase committing to [align its financial portfolio with the goals of the Paris Agreement](https://www.jpmorganchase.com/news-stories/jpmorgan-chase-releases-carbon-reduction-targets-for-paris-aligned-financing-commitment). As a result, JPMorgan has agreed to measure the GHG emissions of their clients in key sectors of their portfolio. 

Today, JPMorgan's [Paris-aligned targets](https://www.jpmorganchase.com/news-stories/jpmorgan-chase-releases-carbon-reduction-targets-for-paris-aligned-financing-commitment) include reducing the carbon intensity of their oil, gas, electric power, and auto manufacturing portfolios by 2030. However, as previously stated, the measurement of progress using carbon intensity is unambitious and misleading, as it does not work towards ending fossil fuel investment.

Ending the exploitation and use of fossil fuels is vital to avoid catastrophic climate change. Yet JPMorgan Chase stated that [we need fossil fuels until we have "affordable clean alternatives to meet all of our global energy needs"](https://www.mic.com/impact/jpmorgan-chase-just-cant-seem-to-quit-fossil-fuels-71716086).  We don’t believe their commitment to reducing their contribution to the burning of fossil fuels through their investments is up to par. 

**Supporting This Campaign**

When JPMorgan shares their proxy statement ahead of the Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they will reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Investors are eligible to vote at JPMorgan's upcoming AGM on Tuesday, May 17, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on March 18, 2022.

Tulipshare submitted a duplicative proposal this year, however [proposal #4](https://www.jpmorganchase.com/content/dam/jpmc/jpmorgan-chase-and-co/investor-relations/documents/proxy-statement2022.pdf) speaks fossil fuel financing, thus eligible shareholders may vote this year to support this campaign.  There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if the company does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at JPMorgan in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


JPMorgan

We'd like to engage with JPMorgan to strengthen its commitment to ending all investments in fossil fuels to significantly reduce their investments impact on climate change.

Stop JPMorgan Chase's Investments in Fossil Fuels

Accelerate JPMorgan Chase’s Commitment to Stop Investment in Fossil Fuels

Chubb is one of the world’s largest providers of commercial property and casualty insurance and reinsurance, with $167 billion in assets and over $38 billion of gross written premiums as of 2018.  With operations in 54 countries, Chubb offers various forms of insurance to a diverse group of clients across the globe.  Insurance [companies have a critical role](https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/blog/insurance-industry-must-align-paris-agreement-starting-now) to play in meeting the [Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5oC) goal](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement), requiring net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, and yet Chubb [does not measure or disclose](https://www.responsible-investor.com/esg-resolution-round-up-100-more-e-and-s-proposals-filed-than-at-same-point-last-year/) its financed emissions, including those attributable to underwriting, insuring, and investments, nor has it adopted targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5oC goal for such emissions. Chubb must begin to measure and disclose these metrics to ensure its progress toward climate related sustainability.

**Our Goal **

Our goal is to support As You Sow’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/12/7-chubb-climate-disclosures-or-other-measures-to-reduce-ghg-emissions-including-setting-net-zero-targets) to Chubb by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a more sustainable future and hold Chubb accountable for its failure to disclose financed emissions and failure to adopt Paris-aligned targets by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. The proposal requests that Chubb issue a report addressing whether and how it intends to measure, disclose, and reduce the GHG emissions associated with its underwriting, insuring, and investment activities in alignment with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5oC goal, requiring net zero emissions.   

A “win” would result in Chubb being required to issue such a report, which should include:

•	Whether Chubb will begin measuring and disclosing the emissions associated with the full range of its operations and when; and

•	Whether Chubb will set a Paris-aligned, net zero target for its full range of emissions and on what timeline.

**Why It’s Important**

Insurance companies have a critical role to play in meeting the [Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5oC) goal](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement), requiring net zero GHG emissions by 2050. Projections have found that [limiting global warming](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05219-5) to 1.5 degrees versus 2 degrees will save $20 trillion globally by 2100, while [exceeding 2 degrees](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18797-8/) could lead to climate damages in the hundreds of trillions. The [U.S. insurance industry](https://shareaction.org/reports/insuring-disaster-a-ranking) is under increasing pressure to address its contributions to climate change from its underwriting, insuring, and investing activities.

These financial activities contribute to systemic portfolio risk to the global economy, investors, and insurers’ profitability,  and [despite the insurance sector’s focus on risk, the world’s largest insurance companies are largely failing to assess the impact of climate change on their investment portfolios.](https://shareaction.org/reports/insuring-disaster-a-ranking) The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission recently acknowledged that climate change could [impair the productive capacity of the national economy](https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20 Report of the Subcommittee on Climate-Related Market Risk - Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System for posting.pdf) and recommended that state insurance regulators require insurers to assess how their underwriting activity and investment portfolios may be impacted by climate-related risks.  

This growing public pressure for the insurance industry to account for its climate related risks and impacts is exemplified by [legislation recently passed](https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20210617/NEWS06/912342605/Connecticut-bill-calls-for-regulation-of-insurers%E2%80%99-climate-risks) in Connecticut requiring regulators to incorporate emissions reduction targets into their supervision of insurers. In the U.K., the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership shared a [recent report by ClimateWise](https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/news/climatewise-report-outlines-ways-insurance-underwritings-support-net-zero) that outlines ways insurance underwriting mechanisms can be improved to support a smooth net zero transition to a low carbon economy such as: (1) setting emission scope boundaries for the insurance industry; (2) measuring net zero alignment with carbon footprinting, transition pathway evaluation and temperature score; (3) understanding net zero implications for each insurance underwriting line of business; and (4) reacting to different insured clients, assets, and activities. 

Shareholders are concerned that Chubb is not adequately reducing the climate footprint of its underwriting, insuring, and investing activities. This failure creates significant risk, [as evidenced by Chubb's reported](https://www.reinsurancene.ws/chubb-sees-q3-net-income-rise-54-despite-1bn-of-catastrophe-losses/) pre-tax catastrophe losses of $1.15 billion in Q3 2021, with $806 million of that figure attributable to Hurricane Ida. [Climate change helped](https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/1032442544/how-climate-change-is-fueling-hurricanes-like-ida) Hurricane Ida gain strength right before it made landfall, jumping from a Category 1 to a Category 4 storm in the span of 24 hours as it moved over abnormally hot water in the Gulf of Mexico. This follows a larger global trend: [insured losses from natural disasters](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/natural-disasters-cost-economic-insurance-2021-extreme-weather-floods-polar-vortex/) reached $42 billion in the first six months of 2021, a ten year high.

[Chubb is a climate laggard](https://insure-our-future.com/scorecard) in the global insurance sector, ranking in the bottom half in a survey of the 30 largest global insurers, due largely to its [lack of restrictions](https://insure-our-future.com/company/chubb/) on oil and gas underwriting and investments.  In contrast, [peers are beginning to address](https://insure-our-future.com/scorecard) the GHG emissions associated with their underwriting and investment activities. Over 20 leading global insurers have also joined the [United Nations’ Net Zero Insurance Alliance](https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-insurance/) in which they commit to transition their emissions from insurance and reinsurance underwriting portfolios to net zero by 2050. 

Chubb does not measure or disclose its financed emissions, including those attributable to underwriting, insuring, and investments, nor has it adopted targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5oC goal for such emissions. This must be corrected.

**Supporting This Campaign**

Chubb was able to exclude a similar proposal submitted last year by another shareholder proponent, however, this year in light of [new guidance](https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14l-shareholder-proposals), the SEC has [agreed](https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8/2022/asyousowchubb032522-14a8.pdf) with As You Sow’s assertion that Chubb may not exclude this proposal from its 2022 proxy statement, thus As You Sow’s proposal will be on the ballot at Chubb’s upcoming annual general meeting (AGM) to be held on May 19, 2022. Note that the record date for shareholders (owning common shares) to be eligible to vote at the upcoming AGM is March 25, 2022. 

However, If you are a beneficial holder of shares held in “street name” and ask to become a shareholder of record for those shares after March 25, 2022 but on or before May 6, 2022 and want to vote those shares at the AGM (by way of the independent proxy), you will need to obtain proxy materials by contacting Chubb’s Investor Relations by telephone at +1 (212) 827-4445 or via e-mail at investorrelations@chubb.com. Also, if you are a record holder of Chubb shares (as opposed to a beneficial holder of shares held in “street name”) on March 25, 2022 but sell your shares prior to May 6, 2022, you will not be entitled to vote those shares at the AGM. This information can be found in Chubb’s [preliminary proxy statement](https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000896159/c6ba0af2-2567-47b6-87e9-b9123decb756.pdf). Please also see [Tulipshare’s FAQ page](https://tulipshare.com/faq). 

Tulipshare plans to continue engaging with Chubb around Climate Change issues. There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if the company does not take the requested action. Thus, even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Chubb in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com. 


Chubb

Insurance companies have a critical role to play in meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius goal, and yet Chubb does not measure or disclose its financed emissions.

Chubb must disclose GHG emission reduction measures

Chubb Ltd is Failing to Disclose Any GHG Emissions Reduction Measures

Google has not yet shared their proxy statement for their upcoming AGM, however based on last years proxy statement investors needed to have held shares by **6 April ** to support this proposal* See below for more information

**Our Goal**

Our goal is to support As You Sow’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/12/23-alphabet-report-on-policies-and-practices-to-reduce-climate-related-water-risk) to Alphabet, Google’s parent company, by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a more sustainable future and hold Google accountable for its contribution to global water scarcity by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. The proposal requests that Google annually report quantitative water-related metrics by location, including data centres, and for each location, practices implemented to reduce climate-related water risk. A “win” would result in Google being required to issue those annual reports evaluating and disclosing the above-referenced quantitative water-related metrics by location, including for data centres, along with: any location-specific water reduction targets and annual progress in achieving them, location-specific risk assessments and water scarcity planning, any integration of water and company governance mechanisms, and any compensation incentives related to water use reductions. Under the SEC’s new guidance, Google should no longer be able to classify its water usage as a “trade secret” considering that  straining local water supplies and contributing to water scarcity is a significant social policy issue that transcends the company’s ordinary business.

**Why It’s Important**

Climate change is expected to exacerbate water shortages globally. [NASA, using an array of satellites](https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-satellites-reveal-major-shifts-in-global-freshwater/), has observed a distinctive pattern of the wet land areas of the world getting wetter and the dry areas in between getting dryer, increasing regional droughts, and resulting in hotspots of groundwater depletion.

Increasing drought and water scarcity [poses an outsize risk to Google](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-01/how-much-water-do-google-data-centers-use-billions-of-gallons), whose data centres require substantial amounts of water for cooling. Google will be affected by water scarcity in ways that may not seem obvious now – not only does the high-tech industry depend heavily on water, but also the food and beverage sector, power generation, mining, and pulp and paper all depend on water and are thus directly exposed to water scarcity; water is vital to industry whether it is used directly or indirectly for cooling or heating, transport, cleaning, and much more; and in addition to industrial needs, communities also have a high demand for household water.  In light of these facts, [Google faces risks due to competition for water resources](https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/sustainability/pdfs/report_large_water_users.aspx) by local communities, in addition to other companies or industries.  

To reduce water risk and reduce costs, many large companies have developed water planning measures, water conservation programs, and reporting of water stress and water use, among other practices. [Google’s 2021 Water Stewardship Report](https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-water-stewardship.pdf) indicates an understanding of the important role of water scarcity management, describing generalised commitments to improve its operational water sustainability, including a goal to “[replenish more water than we consume by 2030](https://sustainability.google/commitments/water/#technology-tools).”

[Google further states](https://sustainability.google/commitments/water/#technology-tools) the importance of water-related data, describing a tool it helped develop “which aims to democratise information on water resources and empower policymakers, conservation organisations, and communities to better manage water resources collectively.”

Yet, [despite acknowledging the importance of these issues](https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2021-environmental-report.pdf), Google offers no recent reporting on its total enterprise-wide water use, nor does it disclose annual water use or other risk metrics by location. In fact, [Google states that](https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2021/11/the-dalles-sues-to-keep-googles-water-use-a-secret.html) its local water use information, and its water use agreements with local governments, are trade secrets. The company has claimed that public officials cannot disclose the company’s water consumption and may not respond to public record act requests seeking information about Google’s actual and proposed water use. This behaviour has led to [lawsuits](https://law.yale.edu/wanting-keep-googles-water-use-secret-oregon-city-sues-news-organization#:~:text=A%20city%20in%20Oregon%20is,use%20is%20a%20public%20record.), [ill-will, and reputational damage](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/09/29/google-water-data-center-the-dalles-oregon/).

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has become one of the world's largest technology conglomerates, with a market capitalization of [$1.4 trillion as of February 17, 2021](https://www.investopedia.com/investing/companies-owned-by-google/#citation-34), and a net income of $40.3 billion on revenue of $182.5 billion during its 2020 fiscal year according to [the company’s disclosure](https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20210203_alphabet_10K.pdf?cache=b44182d) to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In fact, Alphabet hit an all new record for annual revenue in 2021, showing no signs of slowing despite the ongoing coronavirus pandemic or lingering issues with the global supply chain. Alphabet reported a 41% [year-over-year jump](https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/1/22912196/google-alphabet-200-billion-annual-revenue-youtube-pixel-search) in revenue to $257 billion in 2021. Considering that Google understands the important role it plays in water scarcity management, as evidenced by its 2021 Water Stewardship Report referenced above, and that Google has the means to mitigate its impact on global water scarcity, as evidenced by its revenue and its generalised goal to replenish more water than it consumes, the company should improve its reputation for transparency by reporting on its water usage and improvements on its water usage policies.

Overall, more companies disclose on [water withdrawal than on water consumption](https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-research/resource/investors-esg-blog/a-reflection-of-water-reporting-around-the-world), and the top ten countries reporting on both of those metrics are primarily European, likely due to stricter regional environmental standards and guidelines. Google needs to step up its reporting and transparency efforts considering disclosure of location-specific water use metrics and management actions is the primary means by which investors can gauge whether Google is sufficiently managing its water risk. [Companies such as Coca-Cola](https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/policies/pdf/sustainability/2020-cdp-water-response.pdf) provide in-depth water reporting including information on water-stressed areas. 

Especially given the sheer size and global impact of the company, Google needs to provide adequate information to shareholders on its location-specific water use, impacts, and actions so as to allow shareholders to accurately gauge localised water stress trends and risks, which are expected to be exacerbated by climate change.

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Google shares their proxy statement ahead of the Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they will reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 6 April to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until Google issues their proxy statement.

Tulipshare plans to follow this campaign closely to continue engaging with Google around climate change issues. There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if the company does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Google in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


Climate change is expected to exacerbate water shortages globally. Google's impact on water scarcity cannot be ignored.

Alphabet, Inc.

Alphabet is a collection of companies, the largest of which is Alphabet’s flagship subsidiary, Google. Google has dominated the worldwide search engine market since its inception in 1998, but you may not realise the secret cost of Google’s data centres - billions of gallons of water to cool the company’s servers. Despite its large-scale water usage, Google offers no recent reporting on its total enterprise-wide water use, nor does it disclose annual water use or other risk metrics by location. In fact, Google states that its local water use information, and its water use agreements with local governments, are trade secrets. Considering Google is the largest and most frequently used search engine worldwide, maintaining a 92.47 percent market share as of June 2021, its impact on water scarcity cannot be ignored.

Stop Google from Hiding its Impact on Water Scarcity as a “Trade Secret”

The issue
 
 
 Currently, Apple customers do not have the right to have the Apple devices they own repaired by any repair technician or company not previously approved by Apple. Customers must have their devices repaired by Apple repair technicians or companies which are part of Apple’s Independent Repair Provider program. In this program, independent companies can apply for access and permission to repair Apple devices with ‘genuine’ Apple parts. However, Apple has the power to decide which companies can have access to these resources and repair their products, therefore restructuring customer choice on where and how to repair their devices. Furthermore, these independent companies are restricted from performing certain types of repairs.
 
 
 Apple has argued that it cannot introduce a right to repair policy as repairs made using ‘non-genuine’ parts would compromise the safety and the security of their products. Apple uses a DRM (Digital Rights Management) and DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) to prevent customers from fixing their devices.
 
 
 "Apple has actively tried to prevent customer choice and the right to repair. New York's lobbying disclosure laws reveal that Apple pays lobbying firm Roffe Group $9,000 per month for its services, and records show that Fair Repair (New York Senate Bill 618A) is one of three bills which Apple lobbied on in March and April 2017. Apple also took Norwegian small business owner and repairer Henrik Huesby to Norway’s Supreme Court over trademarking laws, despite Oslo District Court ruling that Huseby did not violate Apple’s trademark.
 
 
 Apple uses various tactics to prevent product owners and independent parties from repairing Apple products. For example, Apple has created a unique screw for use with its products, making it difficult for anyone else to repair them. Apple also caused error messages to appear on iPhones when users who had repaired their iPhones with non-Apple parts upgraded their iOS software.
 
 
 Supporting Statement
 
 
 Apple will be unable to reach its aim of carbon neutrality by 2030 while withholding consumers’ right to repair the Apple products they own. 53 million tonnes of electronical waste is produced each year, making it the fastest growing form of waste in the world. By implementing a right to repair policy, Apple would reduce its electronic waste, increase its products’ durability and reduce its impact on the environment.
 
 
 The absence of competition on repairs means that many customers opt to buy new devices instead of repairing them. This is due to the price of repairs and the inconvenience of current repairment procedures . The average lifespan of a smartphone is 2 years, however allowing the right to repair can increase the lifespan of devices to 10 years. By introducing a right to repair policy, Apple would encourage its customers to change their behaviour and become part of the circular economy, which in turn will increase the sustainability of Apple.
 
 
 Giving customers the right to repair will increase economic competition as small and independent businesses would be able to compete within the market. This in turn increases the repair accessibility and options for consumers.
 
 
 Right to repair policies are gaining traction internationally. The EU and the U.K. are planning to implement a ‘Right to Repair’ law in summer 2021 which would require manufacturers to make spare parts available to the public. It is important for Apple to follow this trend.
 
 
 Recommendation
 
 
 We recommend that Apple implement a right to repair policy to give customers the right to decide where and who repairs the products they own. Apple should make available the repair information for its devices and allow any business or individual to be able to repair Apple devices. Apple needs to make ‘genuine’ Apple parts widely available and not limit access to the Independent Repair Provider program. Apple should program software to work regardless of whether products have been fixed with ‘genuine’ parts.
 
 
 Links
 
 <ul>
 <li>https://support.apple.com/en-gb/irp-program</li>
 <li>Svensson, S. Richter, J. Maitre-Ekern, E. Pihlajarinne, T., Maigret, A. & Dalhammar, C (2018). The Emerging ‘Right to Repair’ legislation in the EU and the US. Paper presented at Going Green CARE INNOVATION 2018. Vienna, Austria</li>
 <li>Moore (2021). You gotta fight for your right to repair: The digital millennium copytight act’s effect on right-to-repair legislation. The Digital Millennium. Bluebook 21st ed.</li>
 <li>Koebler (2017) Apple is lobbying against your right to repair iPhones, New York State Records confirm. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz85y7/apple-is-lobbying-against-your-right-to-repair-iphones-new-york-state-records-confirm</li>
 <li>Mikolajczak (2020) Apple crushes one-man repair shop in Norway’s supreme court after three-year battle. Available at: https://repair.eu/news/apple-crushes-one-man-repair-shop/</li>
 <li>https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/Intro</li>
 <li>https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2020.pdf</li>
 <li>https://repair.eu/</li>
 <li>Harrabin, R. (2021). ‘Right to Repair’ law to come in this summer. BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56340077</li>
 </ul>

**Important disclosure:** Tulipshare has co-invested alongside our users in support of this campaign. As of 11 April 2022, Tulipshare owns 200 Apple shares. Please see below to learn more about supporting our campaign.

**Our Goal**

With your investment, we will advocate on your behalf to lobby for Apple to implement fair Independent Repair and Self Service Repair programs so that you have more control over getting your Apple devices repaired. We hope that our work will make it easier for repair technicians to work on Apple products without having to meet Apple’s approval process.

We’re also calling on Apple to make repair information for its devices available, alongside “genuine” parts outside of their independent repair program. We’d like Apple software to work regardless of whether products have been fixed with genuine parts. 

**Why it's important**

Fighting for the right to repair isn’t just about consumers or businesses – it’s also about [cutting landfill from electronic waste](https://www.ifixit.com/Right-to-Repair/E-waste) by increasing the lifespan of devices. Did you know that on a global level, [increasing the lifespan of a smartphone by just 33%](https://therestartproject.org/the-global-footprint-of-mobiles/) could prevent the annual carbon emissions that equate to the annual emissions of the country of Ireland?

Apple’s current [Independent Repair Program](https://support.apple.com/irp-program) only allows [approved repair technicians](https://www.vice.com/en/article/evjx9j/apple-will-finally-sell-iphone-parts-to-repair-shops-but-not-to-you) to work on Apple tech, and they have to use “official” parts. Additionally, Apple’s newly announced Self Service Repair Program is not useful for consumers with older Apple products, since the program will only be available for iPhone 12, iPhone 13, and Mac computers featuring M1 chips.

Although the right to repair movement is gaining steam, a lot more progress is needed.  The EU and UK have nodded to implementing a [Right to Repair law](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56340077) before the end of the year (2021) where manufacturers will be obliged to make spare parts for appliances available to consumers. Disappointingly, legislators chose to [scope out smartphones and laptops when drafting the law](https://repair.eu/news/new-ecodesign-regulations-5-reasons-europe-still-doesnt-have-the-right-to-repair/) and the update promised for the end of 2021 has not been made public.   

In July 2021, the US Federal Trade Commission issued [new rules](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-ramp-law-enforcement-against-illegal-repair-restrictions) to prevent companies from limiting customers’ ability to repair products themselves or with third-party shops. Likewise, the French Government introduced a new [anti-waste law](https://www.hoganlovells.com/-/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/2020-pdfs/2020_06_01_iplr77_promoting-the-circular-economy-france-adopts-anti-waste-law.pdf) in an effort to create a circular economy. The French law was created in response to findings that Apple had [failed to inform](https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2020-02-28/france-watchdog-agency-fines-apple-for-deceitful-practice/) consumers that updating iPhone’s operating systems may cause some older models to slow down. This new French anti-waste law requires that spare parts will have to be available for [5 years](https://repair.eu/news/major-steps-taken-for-durability-and-right-to-repair-in-france/) for electronic products such as smartphones and laptops. With this in mind, Apple’s new Self Service Repair program falls short of the French 5 year requirement given that the program only applies to iPhone 12 ([released in 2020](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/10/apple-announces-iphone-12-and-iphone-12-mini-a-new-era-for-iphone-with-5g/)), iPhone 13 ([released in 2021](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/apple-introduces-iphone-13-and-iphone-13-mini/)), and Mac computers featuring M1 chips ([released in 2021](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/introducing-m1-pro-and-m1-max-the-most-powerful-chips-apple-has-ever-built/)). The inability to repair older iPhone and Mac models isn’t just bad for your bank balance: it can also be damaging for the environment, as every year the world throws away around [53 million tonnes](https://repair.eu/) of electronic waste. 

Join us in the fight in creating a fair Right to Repair Policy, Self Service Repair and Independent Repair programs in ways that are better for our planet. With your help (and the rest of the Tulipshare community) we could make a difference.

**Supporting This Campaign**

Tulipshare is in contact with Apple's investor relations team in hopes of coming to a resolution and has not yet submitted a proposal in respect of this campaign for their 2023 AGM. By investing behind this campaign, you are adding your voice to a group of investors passionate about creating a true Right to Repair policy at Apple.

When Apple shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2023 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they will reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 3 January, 2023 to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until Apple issues their proxy statement closer to their AGM. 

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.



Apple

Fighting for the right to repair isn’t just about consumers or businesses – it’s also about cutting landfill from electronic waste by increasing the lifespan of devices. 

Demand that Apple Adopt Fair and Accessible Right to Repair Policies 

Allow independent and third party technicians to repair Apple products @Apple 

The company [continues to explore for new oil and natural gas on six continents](https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/About-us/Business-divisions) despite its acknowledgment of climate change-related risk.  [ExxonMobil’s Chairman even stated](https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/media/Global/Files/sustainability-report/publication/Sustainability-Report.pdf), “Few would disagree that one of the most urgent societal challenges we face today is addressing the risks of climate change.” As such an expansive company with global impact, ExxonMobil must be held accountable for its continued development of new fossil fuel resources without adequate climate impact disclosures and measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Investors are eligible to vote at Exxon's upcoming AGM on Wednesday the 25th of May, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on **1 April, 2022*** See below for more information

**Our Goal**

Our goal is to support *As You Sow*’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/11/15-exxonmobil-climate-disclosures-or-other-measures-to-reduce-ghg-emissions) to ExxonMobil by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a more sustainable future and hold ExxonMobil accountable for its continued development of new fossil fuel resources without adequate climate impact disclosures and measures to reduce GHG emissions by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. Investors owning stock as of 1 April, 2022 are eligible to vote at this year’s AGM. The proposal requests that ExxonMobil's Board of Directors seek an audited report assessing how applying the assumptions of the [International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 pathway](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/932ea201-0972-4231-8d81-356300e9fc43/WEM_Documentation_WEO2021.pdf) would affect the assumptions, costs, estimates, and valuations underlying its financial statements, including those related to long-term commodity and carbon prices, remaining asset lives, future asset retirement obligations, capital expenditures, and impairments. A “win” would result in ExxonMobil being required to publish this audited report by February 2023, supported with reasonable assurance from an independent auditor.

**Why It’s Important**

Many policymakers, investors, and companies have converged on goals including the need to limit global temperature increase to 1.5° C and to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050, [if not sooner](https://www.gfanzero.com/press/amount-of-finance-committed-to-achieving-1-5c-now-at-scale-needed-to-deliver-the-transition/).

The International Energy Agency’s Net Zero 2050 Roadmap (NZE) describes an energy sector path for [net-zero GHG emissions](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021). [According to the IEA](https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4ed140c1-c3f3-4fd9-acae-789a4e14a23c/WorldEnergyOutlook2021.pdf), no investment in new fossil supply projects is needed in a net zero scenario and the IEA anticipates oil prices dropping as low as $36/barrel in 2030 and $24/barrel in 2050, projecting a negative trend for a fundamental input in developing ExxonMobil’s cash flow projections for oil and gas production assets.

Yet, ExxonMobil continues development of new fossil fuel resources, even while acknowledging that climate change scenarios pose uncertainties that [may lead to impairments](https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408821000064/xom-20210930.htm). [Investors are concerned](https://www.ft.com/content/5ab010de-43c8-4b60-80f2-020f01610eee) that the continued development of new fossil fuel resources increases the risk of such future impairments. ExxonMobil’s existing, audited annual disclosures do not provide investors with sufficient insight into stranded asset risk related to the energy transition. “If climate change impacts the entity, the auditor needs to consider whether the financial statements appropriately reflect this,” according to the[ International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board](https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IAASB-Climate-Audit-Practice-Alert.pdf).

An independent September 2021 [analysis concluded](https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IAASB-Climate-Audit-Practice-Alert.pdf) that the financial statements of ExxonMobil lack the requisite transparency about climate-related assumptions and estimates, and company disclosures do not appear to use [Paris-aligned](https://www.clientearth.org/media/40omeroa/2020-10-16-principles-for-paris-alignment-position-paper-ce-en.pdf) assumptions and estimates. In contrast, peers (Royal Dutch Shell, bp, TotalEnergies) released more transparent disclosures in their [audited financial statements](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000121465921004380/cg421210px14a6g.htm), articulating the extent of consideration of climate change contingencies and risks.

Investors with $103 trillion in assets under management [have already called for companies and their auditors to rigorously disclose climate risks in financial reporting](https://www.unpri.org/accounting-for-climate-change/investor-groups-call-on-companies-to-reflect-climate-related-risks-in-financial-reporting/6432.article), or risk overstatement by failing to integrate impacts on profits and financial positions.

There is considerable hope that the new Board of Directors at ExxonMobil will issue the requested audited report given that some of the company’s biggest institutional investors (BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street) supported activist investor, Engine No. 1’s proposal by voting in favour of replacing the company’s prior management which “[wasn’t making needed changes fast enough](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engine-no1-activist.html#:~:text=The%20tiny%20firm%20wouldn't,1%20powerful%20support).” Last year, this topic received 49.4% support of ExxonMobil investors, including support from big investors BlackRock and State Street, which combined hold [more than 12% of Exxon shares](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/exxon-investors-prod-revamped-board-net-zero-carbon-study-2021-06-22/ ). In light of ExxonMobil’s disclosures regarding potential impairments from uncertain climate scenarios [depressing product demand](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-warns-some-assets-may-risk-impairment-due-climate-change-filing-2021-11-03/), it is urgent for investors to vote in favour at this year’s AGM.  

**Supporting This Campaign**

Exxon has released their proxy statement ahead of this year's Annual General Meeting ("AGM") to be held on 25 May, 2022, which has revealed the date shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date is set for 1 April, 2022 - meaning you must already own shares to support this campaign. 

However, Tulipshare plans to follow this campaign closely to continue engaging with Exxon around climate change issues. There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if the company does not take the requested action. Thus even if you choose to purchase shares after the record date - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Exxon in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil Corporation is one of the largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies operating worldwide, one of the largest chemical companies, and the world’s largest refiner and marketer of petroleum.

Demand ExxonMobil Disclose Climate Related Risk in its Fossil Fuel Expansion

Investors are eligible to vote at Johnson & Johnson's upcoming AGM on Thursday, April 28, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on **March 1, 2022*** See below for more information

**Our Goal**

Tulipshare has submitted a proposal to Johnson & Johnson demanding the termination of global sales of the company’s talc-based powder. By investing in our campaign, you’re adding your voice to a call-to-action seeking to hold Johnson & Johnson accountable and putting an end to  the sale of this known cancer-causing product globally, not just in North American markets. 

**Why It's Important**

Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based Baby Powder (talcum powder) was shown to contain traces of asbestos - a carcinogen known to cause cancer with no safe exposure level. What’s worse is that Johnson & Johnson reportedly [knew about the asbestos contamination](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/), yet continued to [heavily market the product to minority, overweight women](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-marketing-specialrepo/special-report-as-baby-powder-concerns-mounted-jj-focused-marketing-on-minority-overweight-women-idUSKCN1RL1JZ). 

Soon after Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based powder was discovered to be [contaminated with asbestos](https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-recalls-alerts/fda-advises-consumers-stop-using-certain-cosmetic-products), the company recalled the product and discontinued the sale of its talc-based powder in North America citing [‘a lack of demand’ and a ‘constant barrage of litigation advertising’](https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-consumer-health-announces-discontinuation-of-talc-based-johnsons-baby-powder-in-u-s-and-canada) in 2020. However, the company continues to sell its talc-based products globally, including in the [UK](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52732755).  

But even if Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products are asbestos-free, and despite the company’s assertions that[ “talc is safe” and “talc does not cause cancer,”](https://www.factsabouttalc.com) talc itself, without contamination from asbestos, is a carcinogen dangerous to human health. The [Government of Canada](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemicals-product-safety/talc.html#a2) classified non-asbestos talc as a “very toxic,” “cancer causing” substance and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (“IARC”) even concluded that use of talc-based powder consistently resulted in a [30-60% increased risk of ovarian cancer](https://www.hpylaw.com/publications/epidemiological-and-state-of-art-evidence-presented-in-cosmetic-talc-and-ovarian-cancer-litigation-2/) in women. 

Across the UK, [20 MPs](https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/58341/talcum-powder-asbestos-contaminants-and-cancer?__cf_chl_managed_tk__=vtC0Q9C9rlm877yeYe4OwoIuJkfQJuDl6daeyTfb.no-1643120673-0-gaNycGzNCNE) have called on Johnson & Johnson to withdraw the sale of talcum powder in the UK and terminate all sales of the product globally. Shockingly, Johnson & Johnson continues to say that their product is “safe” even though  long-term use of talcum powder has been linked to multiple cancers including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. As a result, Johnson & Johnson is involved in thousands of personal injury claims alleging that the use of its talc-based products cause cancer. With that, lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts in the United States as well as in courts outside the United States. Johnson & Johnson’s litigation costs in 2021 alone are [estimated at $3.9 billion](https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/to-mitigate-cost-for-talc-cases-johnson-johnson-considers-bankruptcy-strategy-used-by-other).  
- In June 2021,[ Johnson & Johnson had to pay $2.1 billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-01/j-j-must-pay-2-1-billion-talc-award-as-top-court-rejects-appeal) in damages after the US Supreme Court refused to hear the company’s objection to a 2018 verdict that their talc-based powder caused ovarian cancer in more than 20 women.
- Johnson & Johnson is currently attempting to shield itself from litigation through a [controversial bankruptcy maneuver ](https://www.npr.org/2021/10/21/1047828535/baby-powder-cancer-johnson-johnson-bankruptcy) by shifting its talc liabilities stemming from [38,000 ongoing US talc-related injury claims](https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/jj-talc-judge-says-legal-shield-dispute-is-bankruptcy-court-2022-01-12/) to its subsidiary, LTL Management LLC.

We want Johnson & Johnson to stop the sale of its talc-based powder globally. 

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Johnson & Johnson shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2022 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Investors are eligible to vote at Johnson & Johnson's upcoming AGM on Thursday, April 28, 2022 if they held Johnson & Johnson shares by the close of business on March 1, 2022. 

There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if Johnson & Johnson does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Johnson & Johnson in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.



Johnson & Johnson, Talc-based Baby Powder, Stop the sale of baby powder, Cancer-causing baby powder

Johnson & Johnson

We want Johnson & Johnson to stop the sale of its talc-based powder globally. Shockingly, Johnson & Johnson continues to say that their product is “safe” even though  long-term use of talcum powder has been linked to multiple cancers including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Demand Johnson & Johnson stop global sales of cancer-causing products

I #StandWithTulipshare & want $JNJ to stop the global sales of cancer-causing products 

McDonald’s itself states that these are “some serious numbers,” but another serious number connected to McDonald’s operations is the [153,000 metric tons](https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/transparent-2020) of plastic packaging the company used in its beverage cups, lids, and utensils alone, or the estimated [2 million tons](https://www.sidmartinbio.org/how-much-waste-does-mcdonalds-produce-per-year/#How_much_plastic_waste_does_McDonalds_produce) of packaging waste the company produces each year – which is about three tons of waste every minute. Considering that only [9% of all plastics](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/whopping-91-percent-plastic-isnt-recycled/#:~:text=Of%20the%208.3%20billion%20metric,the%20natural%20environment%20as%20litter.) ever made have been recycled, these numbers significantly contribute to the global plastic pollution crisis and must be corrected.

McDonald's has not yet shared their proxy statement for their upcoming AGM, however based on last years proxy statement investors needed to have held shares by **22 March** to support this proposal* See below for more information

**Our Goal** 

Our goal is to support As You Sow’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/12/9-mcdonalds-sustainable-packaging-policies-for-plastics) to McDonald’s by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a more sustainable future and hold McDonald’s accountable for its continued usage of substantial amounts of plastic packaging while plastic pollution grows unabated by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. The proposal requests that the McDonald’s Board of Directors issue a report: (1) assessing the reputational, financial, and operational risks associated with continuing to use substantial amounts of plastic packaging while plastic pollution grows unabated; (2) evaluating the benefits of dramatically reducing the amount of plastics used in packaging; and (3) describing how McDonald’s can further reduce single-use packaging, including any planned reduction strategies or goals, materials redesign, transition to reusables, substitution, or reductions in use of virgin plastic. A “win” would result in McDonald’s being required to issue that report describing how the company will reduce its plastics use in alignment with the reductions findings of the [Pew Report](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/07/23/breaking-the-plastic-wave-top-findings), or other authoritative sources, to feasibly reduce ocean pollution.

**Why It’s Important**

The growing plastic pollution crisis poses increasing risks to the global population, investors of the company, and McDonald’s itself. Corporations could face an [annual financial risk](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/07/breakingtheplasticwave_report.pdf) of approximately $100 billion should governments require them to cover the waste management costs of the packaging they produce, a policy that is increasingly being enacted around the globe. McDonald’s itself recognizes that its biggest opportunity area for improvement is in fixing its packaging, and recycling alone will not fix the plastic pollution crisis. The company noted that, “we know that when packaging and plastic waste aren’t recovered or recycled correctly, it can have a [negative impact on our planet, creating litter and pollution](https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-purpose-and-impact/our-planet/packaging-and-waste.html).”

Pew Charitable Trusts released a groundbreaking study, [Breaking the Plastic Wave (Pew Report)](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2020/07/23/breaking-the-plastic-wave-top-findings), concluding that if all current industry and government commitments were met, ocean plastic deposition would be reduced by only 7%. Without immediate and sustained new commitments throughout the plastics value chain, annual flows of plastics into oceans could nearly triple by 2040.  

The Pew report finds that improved recycling is insufficient to stem the plastic tide -- it must be coupled with reductions in use, materials redesign, and substitution. It concludes that at least one-third of plastic use can be reduced and that reduction is the most attractive solution from environmental, economic, and social perspectives.  The European Union has [banned 10 single-use plastic products](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/plastics/single-use-plastics_en) commonly found in ocean cleanups and enacted a $1/kg tax on non-recycled plastic packaging waste.

McDonald’s is part of a [“to go” packaging culture](https://civileats.com/2020/01/14/plastic-to-go-containers-are-bad-but-are-the-alternatives-any-better/), contributing to plastic pollution of land and water through its disposable packaging. The company has removed polystyrene foam containers from its operations but continues to use significant amounts of single-use plastic. McDonald’s reported the tonnage of plastic packaging it used in its beverage cups, lids, and utensils in 2018 at 153,000 metric tons, with only 2% recycled content.  To reduce plastic use, McDonald’s should position the company to shift permanently away from single-use packaging and towards [reusable containers](https://oceana.org/blog/how-reusable-bottles-and-containers-can-help-save-ocean/#:~:text=Oceana%20estimates%20that%20just%20a,of%20the%20ocean%20each%20year.).

Competitor Starbucks is [shifting away from single-use packaging](https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2022/starbucks-innovates-tests-and-learns-from-store-partners-to-achieve-waste-goals/) and developing new global reusable container goals, which could reduce plastic use by thousands of tons. 

Unilever has taken the most significant corporate action to date, agreeing to [cut virgin plastic packaging by 50% by 2025](https://www.unilever.com/news/press-and-media/press-releases/2019/unilever-announces-ambitious-new-commitments-for-a-waste-free-world/), including absolute elimination of 100,000 tons of plastic packaging. Seventeen other consumer goods companies have [virgin plastic reduction goals](https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/plastic-pollution-scorecard-2021/), including Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Nestlé, and Target. McDonald’s has only set a virgin plastic reduction goal in relation to its [Happy Meal toys](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/mcdonalds-to-offer-more-sustainable-happy-meal-toys-by-end-of-2025.html).

As the world’s largest fast-food chain operating in 118 countries and territories across the world, McDonald’s should be required to issue a report describing how the company will reduce its plastics use in alignment with the reductions findings of the Pew Report, or other authoritative sources, to feasibly reduce ocean pollution.

**Supporting This Campaign**

When McDonald's shares their proxy statement ahead of the Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they will reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 22 March to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until McDonald's issues their proxy statement.

Tulipshare plans to follow this campaign closely to continue engaging with McDonald's around climate change issues. There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if the company does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at McDonald's in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


McDonald’s is the world’s largest fast-food chain by revenue with an estimated 2 million tons of packaging waste year over year.

McDonald's

McDonald’s is the world’s largest fast-food chain by revenue, with over 34,000 restaurants operating in 118 countries and territories across the world; in the U.K. alone, McDonald’s operates 1,200 restaurants serving more than 3.8 million customers each day. 

McDonald’s Must Enact Better Sustainable Packaging Policies for Plastics

Salesforce has not yet shared their proxy statement which includes the date of their upcoming AGM and the record date, the date that investors would have needed to hold shares by to support our proposal. ***See below for more information**

**Our Goal**

Tulipshare has submitted a proposal to Salesforce requesting a publicly disclosed independent third-party racial equity audit of Salesforce's impact on civil rights, equity, diversity and inclusion; the audit should be conducted with input from civil rights organizations, employees, and communities in which Salesforce operates. This proposal will be on the ballot at Salesforce’s upcoming Annual General Meeting. By investing in our campaign and casting your vote, you’re adding your voice to a call-to-action seeking to hold Salesforce accountable and improve the company’s representation and treatment of minority groups.

**Why it’s important**

Recent events, including the murder of George Floyd and the disproportionate impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have galvanized the movement for racial justice and equity. As [the number one customer relationship manager (CRM)](https://www.salesforce.com/campaign/worlds-number-one-CRM/) in the world, it is important that Salesforce also leads in its diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Increased diversity in the workplace is linked to increased [productivity, innovation and performance](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/11/12/how-diversity-can-help-with-business-growth/?sh=12240aa252ad). Although Salesforce hired its first Chief Equality Officer in 2016 and began releasing quarterly equality reports, the company’s diversity numbers [barely improved](https://www.businessinsider.com/salesforce-push-to-improve-equality-yielded-slow-results-tony-prophet-2020-11). The percentage of Hispanic and Black employees at Salesforce merely inched up from 4% Hispanic and 2% Black in [2015](https://www.salesforce.com/content/dam/web/en_us/www/assets/pdf/datasheets/sustainability-report-fy1516.pdf) to 5.1% Hispanic and 4.3% Black in [2021](https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/quarterly-equality-update-inclusive-employee-experience/).

Recent resignations from [two Black women](https://www.fastcompany.com/90608433/vivianne-castillo-leaves-salesforce-citing-rampant-microaggressions-and-gaslighting) in prominent positions at Salesforce indicate a lack of progress regarding the company’s diversity and racial equity.

The first woman from Salesforce to publicly resign, a senior manager of research in business technology, asserted that there is a “[big gap from how Salesforce portrays itself and the lived experience](https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6763264995485728768/?src=aff-lilpar&veh=aff_src.aff-lilpar_c.partners_pkw.10078_plc.Skimbit%20Ltd._pcrid.449670_learning&trk=aff_src.aff-lilpar_c.partners_pkw.10078_plc.Skimbit%20Ltd._pcrid.449670_learning&clickid=TfZ1VE04PxyIT2wUaUwrVVf2UkG2ff1V2UURRU0&mcid=6851962469594763264&irgwc=1)” of working for the company. She claimed she was “manipulated, bullied [and] neglected” while working within Salesforce’s “toxic environment”. Later that month, a manager of design research and innovation resigned, alleging that Salesforce lacks accountability regarding diversity, equity and inclusion and the company’s “[disingenuous marketing around equality](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vccastillo_vivianne-castilloresignation-letter21521-activity-6770470033694035968-sWJR/?src=aff-lilpar&veh=aff_src.aff-lilpar_c.partners_pkw.10078_plc.Skimbit%20Ltd._pcrid.449670_learning&trk=aff_src.aff-lilpar_c.partners_pkw.10078_plc.Skimbit%20Ltd._pcrid.449670_learning&clickid=TfZ1VE04PxyIT2wUaUwrVVf2UkG2ff1h2UURRU0&mcid=6851962469594763264&irgwc=1)” does not align with internal practices. She further stated that Salesforce lacks a proactive action plan to prevent underrepresented minorities from suffering “unchecked harm and trauma”. Salesforce consistently fails to implement a proactive action plan to prevent harm to its Black, Indigenous, People of Color (“BIPOC”), and instead simply refers employees who have suffered harm to “Warmline,” its employee advocacy program “[to have confidential conversations](https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/our-initial-quarterly-equality-update/).”

Even if Salesforce achieves its [purported goal](https://www.salesforce.com/company/equality/) of having 50% of its U.S. workforce consisting of underrepresented groups by 2023, certain groups would likely remain underrepresented. Salesforce bundles “Women, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Multiracial, LGBTQ+ employees, People with Disabilities, and Veterans” together to form the company’s definition of “[underrepresented groups](https://www.salesforce.com/company/equality/)”. Combining all of those employees’ unique identities into one intersectional category allows Salesforce to seemingly reach its goal while still leaving particular groups underrepresented. On top of that, Salesforce’s goal of [“doubling” its “representation of Black leaders”](https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/quarterly-equality-update-inclusive-employee-experience/) by 2023 would be a misleading achievement considering that only 1.5% of the company’s total leadership roles were comprised of [Black employees ](https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-executives-racism-diversity-black-lives-matter-protests-2020-6#salesforce-14)in 2020. 

You can find Salesforce’s most recent Equal Employment Opportunity Report [here](https://www.salesforce.com/content/dam/web/en_us/www/documents/reports/sfdc-certified-eeo-1-2021-report.pdf), which shows the vast disparity in representation amongst its employees.

Following controversies, Facebook and Starbucks conducted civil rights and equity audits that assisted each company to identify, prioritize, and implement improvements. These efforts provide an emerging model for such audits, typically conducted by a third party, in collaboration with experts in civil rights, and input from an array of stakeholders.

Tulipshare’s approach to improving diversity and inclusion within Salesforce is the most productive first step that we can take as activist investors – to request an independent third-party audit with input from civil rights organizations and communities wherein Salesforce operates. This type of report will provide greater transparency into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) metrics at Salesforce and how they can be improved.

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Salesforce shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2022 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 15 April to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until Salesforce issues their proxy statement.

There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if Salesforce does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Salesforce in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


Salesforce

Despite high-profile diversity marketing, Salesforce has consistently failed to improve its U.S. workforce diversity numbers, and underrepresented employees in prominent positions have left the company due to “rampant microaggressions and gaslighting”.  We want Salesforce to commission an independent racial equity audit analysing Salesforce’s impact on civil rights, equity, diversity and inclusion.   

Fight for Racial Equity at Salesforce

  **Our Goal**  
  
We recommend that Coca-Cola increase its target of using 50% of recycled material in its packaging by 2030 to ‘using 100% of recycled material in its packaging by 2030’. This target increase will help prioritise the need for changes to be made in Coca-Cola’s plastic production systems and should reduce the global plastic pollution created by Cola-Cola. The increased target should also reduce Coca-Cola’s contribution to climate change.  

**The Issue**  
  
Coca-Cola’s current target is to use at least 50% recycled material in its packaging by 2030. Coca-Cola re-committed to this target in 2018, after it failed to reach its initial target of using at least 25% of recycled material in its packaging by 2015. In reality, Coca-Cola actually used only 12.4% of recycled material in its packaging, falling far short of its 2015 goal. Coca-Cola has insisted that it will not abandon plastic bottles due to their popularity with customers; however, in order to reach their sustainability goals, Coca-Cola needs to prioritise adjusting its plastic production methods and reduce its waste.  
  
Coca-Cola has recently been named the top global polluter of plastic for the 3rd year in a row by the currently Break Free from Plastic Audit, which was conducted by 14,734 volunteers across 55 countries in 2020. Currently, Coca-Cola produces 3 million tonnes of plastic packaging every year and 200,000 bottles a minute. Coca-Cola needs to address its plastic pollution and the global impact it creates.  
  
**Why It's Important**  
  
Plastic pollution is a huge global environmental issue as plastic is not-biodegradable. While plastic breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces, it still remains in the environment and enters our food chain. The production of plastic globally is continuing to increase with 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic being produced since 1950. Furthermore, half of the plastic ever produced was manufactured in the last 15 years. Single-use plastic can remain on the planet for centuries and hugely impact future generations.  
  
Greenpeace found that companies distract from their plastic production by providing false solutions such as ‘compostable’ plastic. Greenpeace suggests Coca-Cola is doing this with Coca-Cola’s announcement of the PlantBottleTM , a bottle made partially from sugar cane. Greenpeace, however, states that using a percentage of plant matter in the production of plastic instead of using fossil fuels alone and labelling the material as ‘plant plastic’ or ‘not plastic’ is greenwashing. They argue that plant material undergoes similar chemical reactions as plastic made entirely from fossil fuels, and that plant plastic usually does not degrade. Companies’ greenwashing recycling messages are misleading and can easily confuse the public over their actual environmental commitment and impact.  
  
Coca-Cola states that 60% of its packaging is refilled or collected for recycling and that 90% of its packaging is recyclable globally. However, the fact remains that only 9% of plastic made has ever been recycled. This highlights the need for more to be done to ensure that plastic is being recycled and reused by Coca-Cola.  
  
Plastic production contributes to climate change through the use of fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. With 99% of plastic being made from fossil fuels, producing new plastic to use for Coca-Cola packaging has a huge environmental impact. Producing plastic products made entirely out of recycled plastic should greatly reduce Coca-Cola’s fossil fuel use and therefore its contribution to climate change.  

**Supporting This Campaign**

Tulipshare is in contact with Coca-Cola's investor relations team in hopes of coming to a resolution and has not yet submitted a proposal in respect of this campaign for their 2023 AGM. By investing behind this campaign, you are adding your voice to a group of investors passionate about creating better plastic policies at Coca-Cola.

When Coca-Cola shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2023 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they will reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by February 23, 2023 to be able to vote at their 2023 AGM, however we won't know the record date for certain until Coca-Cola issues their proxy statement closer to their AGM.
  
**Links**  

*   https://www.coca-colacompany.com/news/dasani-boosts-sustainability-credentials
*   The Elle MacArthur Foundation. The Global Commitment 2020 Progress Report. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Global-Commitment-2020-Progress-Report.pdf
*   Break Free From Plastic (2020) Branded, Vol. III. Available at: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BFFP-2020-Brand-Audit-Report.pdf
*   Evans (2020) Coca-Cola and rivals fail to meet plastic pledges. Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/bb189a2a-57ca-44ce-82ab-1d015a20ca1c
*   https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/the-facts
*   https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/plastic-pollution
*   Break Free From Plastic (2020) Branded, Vol. III. Available at: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BFFP-2020-Brand-Audit-Report.pdf
*   https://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainable-business/packaging-sustainability
*   Break Free From Plastic (2020) Branded, Vol. III. Available at: https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BFFP-2020-Brand-Audit-Report.pdf

Coca-Cola

We recommend that Coca-Cola increase their target of using 50% of recycled material in their packaging by 2030 to ‘using 100% of recycled material in their packaging by 2030’. 

Produce plastic bottles made from 100% recycled material

@CocaCola Produce plastic bottles made from 100% recycled material

Caterpillar conducts [business on every continent](https://fortune.com/company/caterpillar/) across the globe, manufacturing its products in over 110 facilities worldwide which are then distributed in nearly 200 countries. Although Caterpillar’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity worldwide in 2020 equated to [35 metric tons of CO2 per million dollars](https://www.statista.com/statistics/619610/ghg-emissions-intensity-of-caterpillar/#:~:text=Caterpillar's%20GHG%20emissions%20intensity%20worldwide%202006%2D2020&text=Caterpillar's%20greenhouse%20gas%20intensity%20was,sales%20and%20revenues%20in%202020.) of sales and revenues, the company has not set targets to reduce GHG emissions across its entire enterprise, including supply chain emissions, nor has it disclosed a plan for how to achieve [Paris-aligned](https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement) GHG emissions reductions.

Caterpillar has not yet shared their proxy statement for their upcoming AGM, however based on last years proxy statement investors needed to have held shares by **April 12** to support this proposal* See below for more information

**Our Goal**

Our goal is to support *As You Sow*’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/12/22-caterpillar-climate-disclosures-or-other-measures-to-reduce-ghg-emissions) to Caterpillar by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a more sustainable future and ensure Caterpillar is endeavouring to limit its impact on climate change by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. The proposal requests that Caterpillar issue a report within a year, and annually thereafter, disclosing interim and long-term greenhouse gas targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of maintaining global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius, and progress made in achieving them. This reporting should cover the Company’s full scope of operational and product related emissions. A “win” would result in Caterpillar being required to such a report annually which should further describe:

- Caterpillar’s climate transition plan for achieving its GHG reduction goals, including aligned capital allocation where relevant;
- A rationale for any decision not to set targets aligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degree goal;
- Other information deemed appropriate.

**Why It’s Important**

The increasing rate and number of climate-related disasters affecting society is causing alarms to be raised within the [executive](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030-greenhouse-gas-pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating-good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/), [legislative](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/climate_change_and_greenhouse_gases/6040#sort=-introduced_date), and [judicial](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02424-7) branches of government, making the corporate sector’s contribution to climate mitigation a significant policy issue.

In addition to environmental and social harms, climate change is creating systemic risks to the economy. The [Commodity Futures Trading Commission](https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/9-9-20%20Report%20of%20the%20Subcommittee%20on%20Climate-Related%20Market%20Risk%20-%20Managing%20Climate%20Risk%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Financial%20System%20for%20posting.pdf) last year underscored that climate change could impair the productive capacity of the U.S. economy.

Shareholders are increasingly concerned about material climate risk and seek clear and consistent disclosures from the companies in which they invest, including credible climate transition plans, as evidenced by this [report by the Principles for Responsible Investment](https://www.unpri.org/pri-blog/shareholders-pressing-for-climate-risk-disclosures-are-doing-companies-a-favour/7713.article). BlackRock’s CEO notes that investment flows into climate aligned assets will drive long term outperformance and that companies should disclose plans for how their business model will be compatible with a net zero economy.

In response to material climate risk, the [Climate Action 100+ initiative](https://www.climateaction100.org/) (CA100+), a coalition of 700 investors with $68 trillion in assets, issued a [Net Zero Company Benchmark](https://www.climateaction100.org/net-zero-company-benchmark/) (Benchmark) outlining metrics that create climate accountability for companies and transparency for shareholders. Indicators 1 through 5 of the Benchmark seek reporting on companies’ net zero emissions ambitions; short-, medium- and long-term GHG reductions goals; and strategic actions planned to [achieve decarbonization targets]( https://www.climateaction100.org/net-zero-company-benchmark/). 

Climate science shows that, to achieve temperature targets set by the Paris Agreement, carbon emissions have to stop – reducing them is [not sufficient to halt climate change]( https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl069563). [‘Net zero’]( https://netzeroclimate.org/what-is-net-zero/) is achieved once emissions are balanced by removing an equivalent amount of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The [GHG Protocol](https://ghgprotocol.org/) separates emissions into three different scopes. Scope 1 emissions encompass direct emissions emitted by company-owned resources. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy. Scope 3 emissions encompass all other indirect emissions that occur In the company's value chain. There are 15 categories of Scope 3 emissions. Each business will have a unique emission composition and will have to measure and identify significant [emission sources](https://ghgprotocol.org/standards). As scope 3 emissions are not under the direct control of a company, [scope 3 is often the most complex and challenging emission source to measure and reduce](https://ghgprotocol.org/standards/scope-3-standard). However, scope 3 often represents the bulk of company emissions, so they [cannot go unaddressed](https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance). There are [plenty of strategies](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBT_Value_Chain_Report-1.pdf) to address scope 3 emissions, including working with suppliers to set their own reduction targets.

Caterpillar is a leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, engines, turbines, and locomotives. Last year the company released its [2020 Sustainability Report](https://reports.caterpillar.com/) on enterprise strategy for long-term profits which announced [sustainability goals for 2030](https://investors.caterpillar.com/news/news-details/2021/Caterpillar-Announces-New-2030-Sustainability-Goals-and-Reports-Environmental-Social-and-Governance-ESG-Progress/default.aspx#:~:text=%20Caterpillar%20Announces%20New%202030%20Sustainability%20Goals%20and,Waste%3A%20Reduce%20landfill%20intensity%20by%2050%25...%20More%20). 

However, the company [failed to meet 11 of the 19 criterion outlined by the Transition Pathway Initiative](https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/companies/caterpillar), such as failing to: (1) disclose scope 3 emissions, (2) undertake climate scenario planning, and (3) incorporate climate change risks and opportunities in strategic assessment. Additionally, Caterpillar [has not set targets to reduce GHG emissions across its entire enterprise](https://www.climateaction100.org/company/caterpillar-inc/), including supply chain emissions, or disclosed a plan for how to achieve Paris-aligned GHG emissions reductions. Caterpillar’s emission reduction [targets only address Scope 1 and 2 emissions](https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20210510-0a331-f387b). In contrast, [41 peers in the construction materials sector](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#table) have committed to validate their GHG targets through the Science-Based Targets initiative.

Climate-related decisions by a company have [portfolio and economy-wide implications](https://www.nb.com/en/global/insights/climate-change-assessing-impact-at-the-portfolio-level). Setting net zero GHG targets and developing a climate transition plan aligned with such goals is an [important means of assuring that management is comprehensively reducing its climate contribution](https://www.nb.com/en/global/insights/climate-change-assessing-impact-at-the-portfolio-level) and taking seriously the growing risks of climate change, benefitting both the company and investors.

This proposal was previously submitted by *As You Sow* for Caterpillar’s 2021 Annual General Meeting (AGM). However, this proposal has been resubmitted for the 2022 AGM since Caterpillar has failed to take meaningful action on this request, despite a [47% vote of support last year which underscored shareholder frustration](https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2021/6/9/caterpillar-shareholders-support-climate-action) with Caterpillar’s inaction on a climate transition plan. Danielle Fugere, president of [*As You Sow*](link) [explained that](https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2021/6/9/caterpillar-shareholders-support-climate-action) “Caterpillar has lagged considerably in addressing climate-related risks,”  and “without measurable and comprehensive emissions targets and plans, shareowners have to assume that Caterpillar as an enterprise will become increasingly less competitive in a low carbon economy.”

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Caterpillar shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2022 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 12 April to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until Caterpillar issues their proxy statement.

There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if Salesforce does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Caterpillar in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.



Caterpillar Inc.

Caterpillar Inc. is the world’s leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, off-highway diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines, and diesel-electric locomotives; the company reported sales and revenues of $51 billion in 2021 alone. 

Caterpillar Must Be Held Accountable for Its Contribution to Climate Change

Caterpillar Must Be Held Accountable for Its Contribution to Climate Change @Tulipshare 

The issue
 
 
 Amazon aims to become the “Earth’s Best Employer, and Earth’s Safest Place to Work”, however, there have been continuing reports of unsafe working conditions and unfair treatment of their employees globally. There are consistent reports about the treatment and working conditions of Amazon warehouse workers.
 
 
 In 2018, Amazon increased the minimum wage of their employees to $15 an hour. Many critics argue, however, that the wage increase was in response to negative reports surrounding the treatment and working conditions of Amazon workers. Furthermore, reports state that the same year bonuses were eliminated for warehouse workers meaning that the hourly wage increase barely impacted Amazon’s fourth-quarter operating costs of $68.6 billion that year. 
 
 Amazon claims that they “provide a safe and positive workplace”, however, there are numerous reports of injury in warehouses, unattainable performance targets and unfair treatment of workers.
 
 
 Since the global pandemic, Amazon's profits have increased with a 37% increase in year on year quarterly sales reported in October 2020. This equated to over US$96.1 billion in revenue. Former CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth also increased in 2020 and now exceeds US$200bn, making Jeff Bezos one of the richest people on the planet. There is a huge disparity in wealth throughout Amazon, highlighted by a report which states that it takes eight weeks for an amazon warehouse worker to earn what Jeff Bezos makes in a second. After the recent unionisation vote by Amazon warehouse workers in Alabama, former CEO Jeff Bezos claimed that Amazon needs “to do a better job for our employees”. An independent audit of Amazon’s workers would ensure that the best is being done for Amazon employees and that they are receiving a fair wage for their work.
 
An independent audit of the working conditions and wages of Amazon warehouse workers should be implemented to address the issues and concerns which are regularly reported.
 
 
 Supporting Statement
 
 
 In response to the increased demand for online shopping during the pandemic, Amazon has hired an additional 400,000 employees in the U.S. alone, however, throughout the pandemic there have also been increased complaints of unsafe working conditions, which has resulted in Amazon workers signing petitions and protesting their working environments. The increase in demand and the displeasure of employees over pandemic working conditions highlight that there are still issues with how Amazon treats its employees which needs to be investigated.
 
 
 There is widespread demand for Amazon to improve the treatment of their workers. Over 400 legislators from 34 countries have signed a letter addressed to Jeff Bezos stating that “the world knows that Amazon can afford to pay its workers”. 
 
 
 There are numerous stories of Amazon warehouse workers who have been injured while at Amazon warehouses, particularly during the holiday season. A report found that in Rugby, England, on average one ambulance was called a week to the Amazon warehouse which employed over 1,000 people.
 
 
 Other reports of the mistreatment of Amazon warehouse workers state that workers lose their jobs for a variety of reasons including going into negative unpaid time-off, and not reaching their performance targets, which many report are unattainable. Warehouse workers in the UK report having to process a package every 9 seconds.
 
 
 Recommendations
 
 
 We recommend that Amazon provide an independent audit of Amazon warehouse workers wages and working conditions. This will ensure that workers are being paid fairly for the work they do and that they are being provided with a safe working environment.
 
 
 Links
 
 <ul>
 <li>https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us</li>
 <li>Sainato, M. (2019) Revealed: Amazon touts high wages while ignoring issues in its warehouses. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/06/amazon-workers-minimum-wage-injuries-working-conditions </li>
 <li>Hamilton, I and Cain, A. (2019) Amazon warehouse employees speak out about the brutal reality of working during the holidays, when 60-hour weeks are mandatory and ambulance calls are common. Available at: 
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2?r=US&IR=T </li>
 <li>Bonazzo, J. (2018) Report: Amazon workers have to process 300 packages an hour and Pee in Bottles. Observer. Available at: https://observer.com/2018/04/amazon-britain-harsh-working-conditions/</li>
 <li>Kohan, S. (2020). Amazon’s Revenue Climbs 37% In Knockout Quarter As Online Spending Shifts Online. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2020/10/29/amazon-sales-up-37-for-q3-and-projected-to-hit-over-372-billion-for-2020/?sh=29e60d232df7</li> 
 <li>Ng, K. (2020) It takes eight weeks for an Amazon warehouse worker to earn what Jeff Bezos makes in a second, says union. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-warehouse-worker-jeff-bezos-salary-tuc-union-b1775679.html</li>
 <li>Hansen, S. (2021). Jeff Bezos on Amazon Union Vote: “We need to do a better job for our Employees’. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/04/15/jeff-bezos-on-amazon-union-vote-we-need-to-do-a-better-job-for-our-employees/?sh=355a20161c66</li>
 <li>Welse, K. (2021) Amazon to raise pay for 500,000 workers. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/technology/amazon-pay-increase.html </li>
 <li>Palmer, A. 2020. How Amazon keeps a close eye on employee activism to head off unions. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-amazon-prevents-unions-by-surveilling-employee-activism.html</li>
 <li>Barbaschow, A. (2020). 400 global public officials call on Amazon to pay its dues. ZDNet. Available at: https://www.zdnet.com/article/400-global-public-officials-call-on-amazon-to-pay-its-dues/</li>
 <li>Hamilton, I and Cain, A. (2019) Amazon warehouse employees speak out about the brutal reality of working during the holidays, when 60-hour weeks are mandatory and ambulance calls are common. Available at: 
https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2?r=US&IR=T</li>
 <li>Hamilton, I. (2020). Amazon won't penalise warehouse workers for taking unpaid time off amid the coronavirus outbreak. Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-relaxing-attendance-policy-coronavirus-2020-3</li>
 <li> Bonazzo, J. (2018) Report: Amazon workers have to process 300 packages an hour and Pee in Bottles. Observer. Available at: https://observer.com/2018/04/amazon-britain-harsh-working-conditions/</li>
 </ul>

Investors are eligible to vote at Amazon's upcoming AGM on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on **March 31, 2022*** See below for more information

**Our Goal**  
  
We recommend that Amazon provide an independent audit of the working conditions and treatment that Amazon warehouse workers face.  This will ultimately force Amazon to take concrete action to improve the working conditions and treatment imposed upon its warehouse workers in a meaningful way. 

**The issue**  
  
While Amazon purportedly strives to be the “Earth’s Best Employer” and “Earth’s Safest Place to Work”, there have been continuing reports of its employees being subjugated to unsafe working conditions and unfair treatment on a global scale, including its warehouse workers. 

In late 2018, Amazon increased the minimum wage of its employees to $15 an hour in the US .  Critics argue that the wage increase was in response to negative reports surrounding the treatment and working conditions of its warehouse workers. However, further reports note that with the increased minimum wage came the slashing of bonuses, leaving some warehouse workers worse off; the minimum wage increase barely impacted Amazon’s fourth-quarter operating costs of $68.6 billion that year.

Amazon claims that it “provides a safe and positive workplace”, however there are numerous reports of injuries occurring in warehouses, unattainable performance targets and unfair treatment of workers. 

Since the global pandemic, Amazon’s profits have experienced a 37% increase in year-on-year quarterly sales as reported in October 2020 . This amounts to over US$96.1 billion in revenue. CEO Jeff Bezos’ net worth also experienced dramatic growth in 2020 and now exceeds US$200bn, making Bezos one of the richest people on the planet. There is a massive income disparity at Amazon, highlighted by a report which states that it takes eight weeks for an Amazon warehouse worker to earn what Jeff Bezos makes in a single second vi. After the recent unionisation vote by Amazon warehouse workers in Alabama, Bezos publicly acknowledged that Amazon needs “to do a better job for our employees”. Now is the time for Amazon to follow up with meaningful action.  An independent audit of Amazon’s workers would shine a spotlight on warehouse workers’ unsafe working conditions and unfair treatment, forcing Amazon to both acknowledge the disparity between reality and its purported goals of being the “Earth’s Best Employer” and “Earth’s Safest Place to Work” and to enact positive change that will improve conditions for its warehouse workers. 
  
**Why It's Important**  
  
In response to the increased demand for online shopping during the pandemic, Amazon has hired an additional 400,000 employees in the U.S. alone.  However, there have also been increased complaints of unsafe working conditions, which has resulted in Amazon workers signing petitions and protesting their working environments. The increase in consumer demand and the frustration of employees over pandemic working conditions highlight that there are pervasive issues with how Amazon treats its employees which need to be investigated properly and tied to meaningful improvements. 

There is widespread demand for Amazon to improve the treatment of its workers. Over 400 legislators from 34 countries have signed a letter addressed to Jeff Bezos demanding that Amazon better protect its workers, stating that “the world knows that Amazon can afford to pay its workers, its environmental cost, and its taxes. And yet -- time and again -- you have dodged and dismissed your debts to workers, societies, and the planet”.  

There are numerous stories of Amazon warehouse workers getting injured while on the job, particularly during the holiday season. A report found that in Rugby, England, on average one ambulance was called each week to the Amazon warehouse which employed over 1,000 people. 

Other reports of the mistreatment of Amazon warehouse workers state that workers unfairly lose their jobs for a variety of reasons including going into negative unpaid time-off and not reaching their performance targets, which many report are unattainable. The demands on warehouse workers are so harsh that some don’t even have sufficient time to visit the restroom during their long shifts and are expected to process a package every 9 seconds.

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Amazon shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2022 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Investors are eligible to vote at Amazon's upcoming AGM on Wednesday, May 25, 2022 if they held shares by the close of business on March 31, 2022.

There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if Amazon does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Amazon in the future to support workers rights. 

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.
  
  
**Links**  

*   https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us
*   Sainato, M. (2019) Revealed: Amazon touts high wages while ignoring issues in its warehouses. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/06/amazon-workers-minimum-wage-injuries-working-conditions
*   Hamilton, I and Cain, A. (2019) Amazon warehouse employees speak out about the brutal reality of working during the holidays, when 60-hour weeks are mandatory and ambulance calls are common. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
*   Bonazzo, J. (2018) Report: Amazon workers have to process 300 packages an hour and Pee in Bottles. Observer. Available at: https://observer.com/2018/04/amazon-britain-harsh-working-conditions/
*   Kohan, S. (2020). Amazon’s Revenue Climbs 37% In Knockout Quarter As Online Spending Shifts Online. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelleykohan/2020/10/29/amazon-sales-up-37-for-q3-and-projected-to-hit-over-372-billion-for-2020/?sh=29e60d232df7
*   Ng, K. (2020) It takes eight weeks for an Amazon warehouse worker to earn what Jeff Bezos makes in a second, says union. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-warehouse-worker-jeff-bezos-salary-tuc-union-b1775679.html
*   Hansen, S. (2021). Jeff Bezos on Amazon Union Vote: “We need to do a better job for our Employees’. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2021/04/15/jeff-bezos-on-amazon-union-vote-we-need-to-do-a-better-job-for-our-employees/?sh=355a20161c66
*   Welse, K. (2021) Amazon to raise pay for 500,000 workers. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/technology/amazon-pay-increase.html
*   Palmer, A. 2020. How Amazon keeps a close eye on employee activism to head off unions. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/how-amazon-prevents-unions-by-surveilling-employee-activism.html
*   Barbaschow, A. (2020). 400 global public officials call on Amazon to pay its dues. ZDNet. Available at: https://www.zdnet.com/article/400-global-public-officials-call-on-amazon-to-pay-its-dues/
*   Hamilton, I and Cain, A. (2019) Amazon warehouse employees speak out about the brutal reality of working during the holidays, when 60-hour weeks are mandatory and ambulance calls are common. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
*   Hamilton, I. (2020). Amazon won't penalise warehouse workers for taking unpaid time off amid the coronavirus outbreak. Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-relaxing-attendance-policy-coronavirus-2020-3
*   Bonazzo, J. (2018) Report: Amazon workers have to process 300 packages an hour and Pee in Bottles. Observer. Available at: https://observer.com/2018/04/amazon-britain-harsh-working-conditions/

Amazon

Amazon should provide an independent audit of warehouse workers wages and working conditions. 

Ensure fair and safe working environments for Amazon warehouse workers

@amazon Ensure fair and safe working environments for Amazon warehouse workers

One such incident was the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol which was incubated by the [spread of disinformation on social media regarding the 2020 US presidential election results](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/04/facebook-election-misinformation-capitol-riot/). Meta has a responsibility to its users and investors to improve the implementation of its “[Community Standards](https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/)” and effectively control the dissemination of user content that contains or promotes hate speech, disinformation, or content that incites violence and/or harm to public health or personal safety.

Meta has not yet shared their proxy statement for their upcoming AGM, however based on last years proxy statement investors needed to have held shares by April 1 to support this proposal* See below for more information

**Our Goal**

Our goal is to support *As You Sow*’s [proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2021/12/2-facebook-seeking-a-report-on-risks-related-to-company-failures-in-content-governance) to Meta by launching a campaign that allows individuals to invest in a safer and more just future and ensure Meta is striving to oversee content shared on the company’s platforms in a way that does not harm society and create investor risk by voting at the company’s next shareholder meeting. The proposal on behalf of shareholders seeks to remedy the past ineffectiveness of Meta’s technological and human-screening system by requesting that Meta’s Board of Directors prepare a report analysing why the enforcement of “Community Standards” as described in the “Transparency Center”  has proven ineffective at controlling the dissemination of user content that contains or promotes hate speech, disinformation, or content that incites violence and/or harm to public health or personal safety. A “win” would result in Meta being required to issue this report which should include:

- A quantitative and qualitative assessment by an external, independent panel of qualified computer scientists of the effectiveness of Meta’s algorithms to locate and eliminate content that violates the Community Standards
- An assessment of the effectiveness of Meta’s staff and contractors in locating and eliminating content that violates the Community Standards
- An examination of benefits to users and impact to revenue if the Company would voluntarily follow existing legal frameworks established for broadcast networks (e.g. laws forbidding child pornography and rules governing political ads)
- An analysis of the benefits of the Company continuing to conduct technology impact assessments focused on how Meta’s platforms affect society. 

This report should cover each of Meta’s major products, including Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, WhatsApp, and any other app that reaches over 100 million users.

**Why It’s Important**

The Meta (formerly Facebook) brand has continued to be wracked by management missteps and lack of Board oversight, resulting in continued harm by its platform including: 

•	Millions of high-profile users [exempted from its rules](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353), permitting continued widespread; incitement of violence and harassment; 
•	[Internal Company research](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739) demonstrating that Instagram is toxic for teen girls;  
•	[Mental health crises](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/technology/facebook-accenture-content-moderation.html) among outsourced moderators due to viewing child pornography and animal cruelty; 
•	[Lack of cooperation with authorities](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/21/facebook-admits-encryption-will-harm-efforts-to-prevent-child-exploitation) to prevent and detect child exploitation and abuse;  
•	[Ignored employee red flags](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/technology/facebook-election-misinformation.html?referringSource=articleShare) about the spread of election misinformation; 
•	Political advertisements containing [deliberate lies and mistruths](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/10/facebook-policy-political-speech-lets-politicians-lie-ads/);  
•	[Hate speech](https://www.dailydot.com/debug/hate-speech-facebook/) that continues to thrive;  
•	[Anti-immigrant violence](https://www.dw.com/en/new-study-shows-afd-facebook-posts-spur-anti-refugee-attacks/a-41972992) around the world. 

A whistle-blower complaint filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) argues that the company has failed to adequately warn investors about the material risks of dangerous and criminal behaviour, terrorist content, hate speech, and [misinformation on its sites](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/facebook-new-whistleblower-complaint/).  Company failure to control these activities reflects a grave lack of oversight by management and the board.  Since the SEC is not required to take any action on whistle-blowers’ tips, and when the commission does conduct investigations, it does so on a confidential basis as a [matter of policy](https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower/frequently-asked-questions#faq-12),  it isn’t clear whether the SEC is [investigating Meta](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-whistleblower-documents-detail-deep-look-facebook-rcna3580).  Nevertheless, two new whistle-blower complaints filed with the SEC accuse Meta of misleading investors about its efforts to control [misinformation about climate change and COVID-19](https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/20/22943279/facebook-whistleblower-climate-change-misinformation-frances-haugen-sec).  Despite establishing an internal Oversight Board, the company’s platforms continue to [harm society and create investor risk](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/facebook-repeatedly-lied-to-oversight-board-about-secret-vip-list-that-let-users-break-rules-whistleblower-says/ar-AAPptDX?MSCC=1599977381&pfr=1).  An internal review of company practices [highlighting harassment and incitement to violence states](https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353), “We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” and deems company’s actions “a breach of trust.”  

Though Meta’s failure to police its platform became a hot topic in relation to the 2020 US presidential election, the issue extends outside the US, including in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, where [the company has issued apologies](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/zuckerberg-open-letter-hate-speech-myanmar) for its actions contributing to physical violence against religious or ethnic groups. 
Management has attempted to address the material risk of dangerous user content through the creation of the “Transparency Center” that displays qualitative and quantitative reports on the elimination of posts that violate [the 25 “Community Standards.”](https://transparency.fb.com/; see also https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/?source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcommunitystandards)  Shareholders applaud this action, yet ask why this seemingly robust technological and human-screening system is ineffective?

**Proposal Background**

This is the second year for this type of governance of media content proposal with Meta (formerly Facebook).

Last year, during the 2021 proxy season, *As You Sow* submitted [this proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2020/12/11/facebook-report-on-problematic-media-content-management) that went to a vote and earned a 19.5% overall vote (which translated to approximately 63.2% of independent shareholders). By independent shareholders, we mean shareholders other than Mark Zuckerburg. These independent shareholder statistics were reported by [Open MIC](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_wXI7MBJ1Rh08JlNOWB50e3_XspyHV3M/view). 

During the 2020 proxy season, *As You Sow* filed [this proposal](https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2019/12/12/reboot-facebook) that addressed similar concerns, but the “ask” was different than the proposal for 2021 and 2022. As You Sow withdrew this proposal when it was determined that *As You Sow* would probably not win the no-action challenge that was filed against it.
 
The CEO of *As You Sow* had a meeting with the Meta on March 21, 2022 regarding this year’s proposal. After that meeting, it became apparent that As You Sow and Meta will not be coming to an agreement. Since an agreement was not reached and *As You Sow* won the no-action challenge on March 31, 2022, *As You Sow* will definitely be taking this proposal to a vote at the Annual General Meeting (AGM). We do not have the actual AGM date yet. Last year’s proxy statement was released by Meta on April 9, 2021. The record date and the AGM date will be updated on the Tulipshare platform as soon as the proxy statement is posted.

There have not been any SEC filings made by Meta in regards this year’s proposal. We DO have the text of the opposition statement that Meta plans to include in their proxy statement. I have attached it to this email. *As You Sow* is currently writing our Proxy Memo (exempt solicitation) which is our response to their opposition. We will send this to you as soon as it is finalized (this should be around Friday 4/14) and it will be posted to the SEC website. 

**Supporting This Campaign**

When Meta (Facebook) shares their proxy statement ahead of their 2022 Annual General Meeting ("AGM"), they reveal the date in which shareholders are required to hold shares to be eligible to vote. This is known as the record date. This date tends to fall around the same time year over year. Based on last years record date, you need to buy shares by 1 April to support this proposal, however we won't know the record date for certain until Meta issues their proxy statement.

There is also the possibility that this proposal will be resubmitted next year if Meta does not take the requested action. Thus even if you're late to the game this year - you'll be able to support our campaign in applying stronger ESG best practices at Meta in the future.

If you have any questions about record dates, please do not hesitate to reach out to support@tulipshare.com.


Meta Platforms Inc.

Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of social media giants Instagram and Facebook, employs 68,000 people and has a market value of $840 billion. Considering there are over 2 billion monthly active users on Instagram and 2.912 billion monthly active users on Facebook, management missteps and a lack of Board oversight on misleading and harmful information shared on the platforms can lead to dire consequences. 

We’re on a mission to give a voice to the retail investor and encourage them to rethink their investment strategies