The shareholders requested “a comprehensive report by a committee of independent directors of the Board on how [the company] is monitoring herbicide utilization and grower compliance with best practices and adherence to ‘technology use agreements’ (TUAs) with its seed products.”

The ACSR and CCSR took note of the concern that the company’s current level of disclosure regarding weed management systems combining herbicides and genetically engineered crops is inadequate, and of the effect a similar proposal at another company had in encouraging that company to publicly disclose more regarding grower compliance. The committee also did not see the proposal as posing an undue burden to the company, as it already collects this information.

The CCSR voted in favor of the proposal, following the ACSR's recommendation.

The proposal asked a company to: “report to shareholders via quantitative indicators on all shale plays where it is operating, by September 30, 2015, and annually thereafter, the results of company policies and practices, above and beyond regulatory requirements, to minimize the adverse water resource and community impacts from the company's hydraulic fracturing operations associated with shale formations...report annually to shareholders, using quantitative indicators."

In considering these proposals, the ACSR and CCSR considered factors such as company lobbying activity against disclosure about fracking, current company disclosure on its fracking operations, the lack of company information about chemical additives used in the injection process, health and regulatory scrutiny of those additives, and the possibility of long-term regulatory and litigation risks. The committees also noted the company’s current disclosure practices, and voiced support for encouraging the company to approach fracking with a strong emphasis on promoting safety and avoiding reputational risk.

The CCSR voted for the proposal, in keeping with the ACSR's recommendation.

The proposal called for the company's Board of Directors to issue an annual public report regarding the company's efforts to limit the impact of its palm oil supply chain on deforestation and human rights.

The ACSR and CCSR noted that the company has made commitments to deforestation and good labor practices with regard to palm oil, but has nevertheless faced criticism.  The CCSR determined that the proposal would prompt the company to continue mitigating the impacts of its palm oil supply chain, and might help protect its reputation.

The CCSR voted in favor of the proposal, following the ACSR's recommendation.

The committees considered 19 proposals calling on companies to authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing: "(1) Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications; (2) Payments by [Company] used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient; (3) [Company]’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation; (4) Description of management’s and the Board’s decision-making process and oversight for making payments described in sections 2 and 3 above." 

The ACSR and CCSR considered this resolution in regard to 19 companies, noting their strong past precedent of support in recent years for identical and very similar proposals and the emerging view that such disclosure is increasingly considered a best practice. The committees also cited concerns about campaign financing raised by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Court declared unconstitutional certain limitations on the funding by corporations and unions of political advertisements and other forms of political lobbying. The committees also remarked upon the value of disclosure to help shareholders determine whether a corporation’s use of assets on political contributions is in shareholders’ best interests, and the support by some companies of trade organizations whose public positions on issues are at odds with publicly stated company positions on the same issues.  

The CCSR voted in favor of the proposals, following the ACSR's recommendations.

The proposal requested that a company adopt absolute, quantitative, and time-bound goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and report to shareholders regarding the same.

The CCSR noted that the company seemed to be lagging behind its peers regarding setting greenhouse gas reduction goals, according to an assessment by Ceres, a well-known non-profit that advocates for sustainability leadership.  The CCSR also looked at its precedent, in which it considered whether the companies had been forthcoming regarding greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals.

The CCSR voted in favor of the proposal, following the ACSR's recommendation.