This week we look at:

• The impact of AI on human rights, elections and workers

• Linking environmental and social concerns

• Company proxy vote and policy misalignment

• Philanthropy, proxy voting and 'active ownership' 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Shareholders long concerned about human rights took note after the creators of AI started warning of its perils while many started to play with ChatGPT last year. The result is a new crop of proposals asking for more board oversight and new ethical standards for AI use. At big tech companies, they raise new angles about potentially turbocharged dis- and misinformation and how it could affect 2024 elections and human rights worldwide. Resolutions at entertainment companies raise concerns about AI’s impact on the workforce.

• Vote due date: Amazon, May 21; Meta, May 28; Warner Bros. Discovery, June 2; Paramount Global, June 3; Alphabet, June 6.

• Learn more: Assessing Risks of AI Misinformation and Disinformation

Environmental Justice

Polluting factories and toxic dump sites in or near communities of color and pipelines built across Indigenous lands are longstanding problems. An increasing number of shareholder proposals focus on these concerns; this year, proponents want third-party environmental justice audits and human rights reports to assess and report on related corporate financial risks. Some focus on if and how companies use the ILO’s Just Transition framework to protect jobs, communities and the environment as society shifts to a low carbon economy.

• Vote due date: JPMorgan Chase, May 20; Amazon, May 21; Republic Services, May 22; ExxonMobil, May 28; Kroger, June, TBD.

• Learn more: Investors Leverage Shareholder Proposals for Just Transition Impact

• Learn more: There is No ‘Just Transition’ Without Environmental Justice

Proxy Voting Policies

More than a dozen large investment firms this year face proposals asking how their proxy voting records align with policies on climate change, diversity and other topics. There is new interest because proponents see increasing conflicts between proxy votes and stated company pledges, such as at JPMorgan Chase. Earlier, investors voted on a Northern Trust proposal about misalignment between fund votes and clients’ preferences. Undergirding these proposals is the view that universal owners will maximize long-term profits only if they encourage companies to address systemic risks, thereby boosting portfolio-wide returns.

• Vote due date: JPMorgan Chase, May 20.

• Learn more: Proxy Voting Could Bridge the Red and Blue Divide

Philanthropy and Proxy Voting

Proxy Preview was started 20 years ago to educate foundations about shareholder resolutions relevant to their mission. A foundation legally must distribute 5 percent of its assets annually to support its aims. But what about the other 95 percent? Proxy voting is an easy first step to help foundations align investments with mission. It is one of several ‘active ownership’ strategies promoted by those who believe foundations should harness all their assets to support their mission.

Expert Insight from:

Jon Scott, President, Singing Field Foundation
Jon Scott is President and Director of the Singing Field Foundation, a small foundation that issues grants to environmental, health, animal welfare and arts/culture organizations. The foundation practices mission-related investing: “active ownership,” including proxy voting, participation in shareholder initiatives and investments screened for values alignment.

• Learn more: A Funder's Journey to Shareholder Advocacy and Active Ownership