  
**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 currently 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.  
  
**Supporting Statement**  
  
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.  
  
**Recommendation**  
  
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.  
  
**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

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>

**The Issue**


Fixing your Apple products can be tricky. Only [approved repair technicians](https://www.vice.com/en/article/evjx9j/apple-will-finally-sell-iphone-parts-to-repair-shops-but-not-to-you) are allowed to work on Apple tech, and they have to use “official” parts. This 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 of electronic waste. ](https://repair.eu/)


The good news is that you have the power to propose that Apple develop a true Right to Repair Policy. Owning shares in Apple through Tulipshare enables us to unify your investing power with other like-minded investors and then leverage your shareholder rights to advocate on your behalf. 

Our goal within this campaign is to help Apple create a Right to Repair Policy in ways that are better for our planet. With your help (and the rest of the Tulipshare community) we could make a difference.

**How does it work?**

Big businesses don’t have to listen to activists, but they do if they’re shareholders.  Using your shareholder rights is a direct way to make your voice heard. That’s why we started Tulipshare. 

When you join our Apple campaign by making an investment, you’ll be adding your voice to our growing community of activists who want to bring about positive change at Apple. 

The good news is that we’ve already hit the threshold needed to submit a shareholder proposal, and over $32,000 has been invested so far. However, your support can help influence Apple as we push them to develop a Right to Repair Policy.  

**Apple’s current repair policy**

Apple customers have to get products repaired by approved technicians, or businesses under the Independent Repair program. As an Apple customer, you have the choice to send off your device to an Apple repair center, an approved technician, or make a reservation at the Genius bar.

This policy can be tough for independent repair businesses too, as they need to go through an approval process before they’re allowed to work on Apple products. Apple has in the past argued that introducing a right to repair policy using “non-genuine” parts would make their products less secure. This often forces independent repair businesses to pay a premium for “official” parts when there are often more affordable options on the market. 

If you break the rules, your warranty could be void. For some iPhones, using a non Apple screen could mean you see an error message highlighting the non "genuine" replacement part. 

The cost to repair Apple devices often encourages customers to buy new devices instead of repairing their current device. As discussed above, this has a considerable environmental impact. 


**What are we hoping to achieve?** 

With your investment, we will advocate on your behalf to lobby for Apple to implement a Right to Repair policy 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.

But 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% could prevent the annual carbon emissions that equate to the annual emissions of the country of Ireland](https://therestartproject.org/the-global-footprint-of-mobiles/)?

We’re already in talks with Apple’s investor relations team. And once our shares are held for a year, we’ll be able to submit a shareholder proposal. Subject to certain conditions, you’ll be able to vote on shareholder proposals once you become an Apple shareholder.  


**Why should you join Tulipshare in the fight against Apple?**


Although the right to repair movement is gaining steam, a lot more progress is needed.  The EU and UK are set to implement a Right to Repair law 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/).  

Apple doesn’t have to listen to hashtags or online petitions. They do, however, have to engage with their shareholders. We believe the more investment and support we can garner from our community, the more likely Apple will pay attention. Voting with your money is a direct channel to the boardrooms of multinational companies.

Join us in the fight for the right to repair. 


Apple

Apple customers should be allowed to decide where they want the products they own repaired.

Allow independent and third party technicians to repair Apple products

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

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>

**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. 
  
**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, 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.
  
**Recommendations**  
  
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. 
  
**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

**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. 

**How does it work?**

Big businesses don't have to listen to activists, but they do if they're shareholders.  Using your shareholder rights is a direct way to make your voice heard. That's why we started Tulipshare. 

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 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. 

**What are we hoping to achieve?**

We recommend that 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.


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.