No matter what business they engage in, the purpose of all corporations – their raison d’être – is to generate returns on their shareholders’ investment and to maximize shareholder value by achieving a rising price in the stock market, paying dividends to shareholders, and eventually perhaps engineering a profitable “exit” from the market by being taken over at a premium. This understanding is known as “shareholder primacy” and it is so central to good corporate governance that companies and regulators have developed a mechanism, the shareholder proposal, whereby anyone who holds stock in a corporation can petition its board of directors to examine some practice or other with an eye towards improving the company and its value.
But in the 21st century – especially in the last decade or so – activist groups have repurposed shareholder proposals into weapons used to pressure companies to adopt policies informed by the group’s ideological concerns. No sector in Canada has been targeted by ideologically driven agendas more than the oil and natural gas industry, a crucial branch of Canada’s economy that includes hundreds of producers, pipeline companies, refinery operators and service companies, many of which are publicly traded. Using shareholder proposals whose goal is the limitation and eventual elimination of Canada’s oil and natural gas production, activists who are shareholders-of-convenience are attempting to villainize one of the most productive, vital and longstanding pillars of our country’s economy.
Stand.earth, Investors for Paris Compliance, the BC General Employees’ Union, Environmental Defence Canada, the Shareholder Association for Research and Education and MÉDAC are just a few of the activist groups that over the past few years have presented anti-fossil-fuel shareholder proposals to Canada’s “Big Five” banks and to oil and natural gas companies. Last year, for example, Stand.earth demanded that the Royal Bank of Canada’s (RBC) “Board of Directors adopt a policy for a time-bound phase-out of the RBC’s lending and underwriting to projects and companies engaging in new fossil fuel exploration, development and transportation.” In other words, they were asking Canada’s biggest bank to stop supporting an industry that provides hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, pays tens of billions of dollars in taxes annually and forms the economic backbone of three Canadian provinces.
The demands of these groups are premised on convincing shareholders that eliminating one of our country’s most productive sectors will benefit Canada socially and environmentally and reduce global CO2 emissions, when the facts demonstrate that nothing Canada could do domestically could influence emissions on a global scale. The most recent Statistical Review of World Energy, for example, described 2023 as a “year of record highs in an energy hungry world”.
The world will continue to need crude oil and natural gas for decades to come – not only the energy these fuels provide, but the thousands of crucial products that are made from them. Canadian oil and natural gas companies, with their high environmental and safety standards and technical expertise, should be among the preferred suppliers of the energy that powers the world. Yet the activists driving these economically ruinous crusades, based on dogma and ideology, want shareholders, investors and Canadians at large to vote in favour of their proposals. How did we get here?
The Annual General Meeting as Town Hall Meeting
Historically, the annual general meeting (AGM) of a corporation (whether privately held or publicly traded) was called to present and discuss the previous year’s results as embodied in the audited annual financial statements, to elect any new directors that might be required, to announce the retirement of existing directors if applicable, to announce any major changes to the company’s executive team, and to discuss any other relevant business as the company’s leadership might deem necessary. These were often stodgy and boring events, especially if things were ticking along smoothly. And these are still the core matters to which the majority of AGMs are devoted among Canada’s approximately 3,500 publicly traded companies as well as the vastly more numerous privately held companies.
But since the Second World War, and especially over the past 30 or so years, AGMs have become more – much more. In the United States’, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Shareholder Proposal Rule (Rule 14-a8) came into force in 1942. In testifying before Congress on the then-new rule in 1943, SEC Commissioner Robert H. O’Brien explained that its motivation was to “approximate the widely attended town hall meeting type of forum characteristic of the days when nearly all corporations were closely held and geographically limited.”
The Town Hall analogy is a good one. In a 2022 speech entitled The Shareholder Proposal Rule: A Cornerstone of Corporate Democracy, former SEC Director Renee Jones laid out the role and the rights of the shareholder. “Shareholders, that is individuals or institutions that invest in a corporation, are purchasing a share of the company with the understanding that the board of directors and senior management team will use their investment wisely, making sound corporate decisions with the intent of increasing profits, to which [the shareholders] are entitled to a share. They are also entitled to certain governance rights including the right to elect directors, approve major corporate transactions and express their views on corporate governance matters and other fundamental issues related to the corporation’s business. Additionally, shareholders generally have the right to bring matters before other shareholders for a vote at a shareholder or ‘town hall’ meeting.”
In 1969 a group called the Medical Committee for Human Rights filed a shareholder proposal asking Dow Chemical Corporation to stop manufacturing napalm, an explosive chemical used with at-times horrifying effects in the Vietnam War.
The bulk of the foregoing paragraph is a good synopsis of a shareholder’s rights and roles as it has been understood for the past 200-300 years. But Jones packed a lot into the sentence following the word “Additionally”. What she mentioned has in fact happened – with a vengeance. Since the enactment of the U.S. Shareholder Proposal Rule and the U.S.-inspired Canada Business Corporations Act’s Shareholder Proposal Regime, the number of shareholder proposals being presented every year in each country has increased exponentially.
The mechanism allows for any shareholder to present a proposal to a corporation provided the shareholder meets certain technical requirements set out by the SEC or the Canada Business Corporations Act, as the case may be. The proposal is printed in the set of corporate documents sent to all stockholders prior to any AGM. At the AGM, the shareholder presents the proposal and there is a vote.
In the early years, most shareholder proposals concerned matters of corporate governance. It was not until the 1960s and 70s that the phenomenon took off, possibly reflecting the era’s increased social activism. For example, in 1969 a group called the Medical Committee for Human Rights filed a shareholder proposal asking Dow Chemical Corporation to stop manufacturing napalm, an explosive chemical used with at-times horrifying effects in the Vietnam War. In the 1970s and 1980s, the anti-Apartheid movement used the shareholder proposal process to pressure corporations to terminate their business dealings in South Africa.
Most such proposals did not tend to get very far, however; Boards of Directors typically recommended voting against them, and that tended to be the end of it. Most shareholders in publicly traded companies do not delve very deeply into the affairs of the often-numerous companies in which they might hold a position. A small business owner who is saving for retirement, for example, might well hold shares in several dozen companies via their RRSP portfolio; what they or their investment adviser monitor above all is whether dividends are being paid and share prices are doing well.
Accordingly, most shareholders take their cue from the Board of Directors and vote according to their recommendation, via so-called “proxy” forms, which also cover votes on standard matters like approving the financial statements and electing new directors. In this vein, proxy advisory firms have arisen, which institutional investors and large public pension funds rely upon to guide their voting. This is why it is very difficult to vote against a board and why most shareholder proposals fail at the AGM ballot.
Still, the number of shareholder proposals has grown dramatically and this increase has coincided with a rise in ideologically driven proposals. And none more than those associated with the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement. In even a cursory investigation into this issue, one is struck by the degree to which shareholder proposals and ESG have become inextricably linked. Many of the current definitions of shareholder proposals one comes across, in fact, claim that they are “an important corporate governance tool which allow[s] shareholders to engage with public companies with respect to environmental, social and corporate governance issues.” Effectively, the shareholder proposal mechanism has been hijacked and harnessed to one dominant purpose.
Shareholders vs. Stakeholders
The evolution away from shareholder primacy to what is known as stakeholder primacy in the purpose and governance of corporations has been closely aligned with the rise of ESG investing. Proponents of so-called “stakeholder capitalism” contend that corporations should care less about superficial concerns like profits for shareholders and instead focus on the good of all their “stakeholders”, by which they mean anyone who is affected by, depends on or makes use of a company: customers, employees, the communities in which a company operates, the environment, governments and society as a whole. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, is a prominent proponent of stakeholder capitalism, writing a book of that title.
Under the ESG or ‘responsible investing’ vision, society presumably no longer has much need for profitable companies whose earnings help build up the retirement accounts of tens of millions of future pensioners, but has become primarily focused on saving whales, fighting climate change or paying for free social housing.
The company’s actual investors, who make its work possible, should presumably get some consideration as well, but their good tends to get lost in the idealistic rhetoric which accompanies the ESG approach. The corporation’s original purpose as a profit-maximizing entity dedicated to serving its shareholders’ financial interests becomes subsumed by the deluge of social welfare-oriented activities (“giving back to the community”) and support for environmental causes. It is noteworthy that all of this is heavily skewed towards “progressive”, i.e., left-leaning, causes. In some cases, this has become self-destructive if not borderline suicidal, such as the BP CEO who some years ago infamously stated that the “B” in British Petroleum should be reimagined as “Beyond”.
An important and current statement of ESG principles can be found in the United Nations-supported Principles of Responsible Investing (PRI), which has been signed by over 3,500 asset managers pledging to further “environmental, social, and corporate governance” goals in order to “better align investors with broader objectives of society.” Under this vision, society presumably no longer has much need for profitable companies whose earnings help build up the retirement accounts of tens of millions of future pensioners, but has become primarily focused on saving whales, fighting climate change or paying for free social housing.
It is interesting to note that the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Investment Board is one of the PRI’s founding signatories. As a future beneficiary of Canada’s public pension system, I find myself worried by this fact. Like millions of other Canadians, my future wellbeing depends on the continued solvency of the CPP which, in turn, depends on the ongoing profitability of the companies in which it invests. The same can be said about dozens of other pension funds such as those for teachers, nurses and government employees.
The two most prominent concepts among ESG investing principles and in shareholder proposals meant to push ESG agendas are: (1) diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and (2) “sustainability”. DEI is a highly ideological, neo-Marxist doctrine with which C2C readers are by now amply familiar. Sustainability is a somewhat older term that refers to goals pursued by the environmentalist movement, which currently include “net zero”, so-called decarbonization and the divestment from, reduction or outright banning of fossil fuel production and consumption.
Most shareholder proposals focused on sustainability are sector-specific. Oil and natural gas companies and financial institutions received the largest number in the 2023 AGM season. In Canada, most proposals have been aimed either at pushing oil and natural gas companies to net zero and decarbonization goals or at pressuring the Big Five chartered banks to stop investing in oil and natural gas companies and projects.
In 2022, for instance, Investors for Paris Compliance (I4PC) asked Calgary-based pipeline and utilities giant Enbridge Inc. to “strengthen their net zero commitment such that the commitment is consistent with a science-based, net zero target.” I4PC defines net zero to mean “no new oil and gas fields are required beyond those already approved for development in conjunction with a historic investment surge in clean technologies.” So not only was I4PC demanding that Enbridge officially commit to long-term decline in its business (since all oil and natural gas fields deplete over time, requiring continuous reinvestment in new fields merely to maintain current production), but it was also prescribing a huge (“historic”) amount of investment in so-called “clean” technologies that are outside Enbridge’s core business (wind turbines do not require pipelines).
The Gathering Pushback in the United States
There are glimmerings of an awakening that the wave of activist shareholder proposals and ESG investing is materially impairing investment returns and could prove economically ruinous. Investors are, in effect, being defrauded by companies diverting capital, executive attention and employee talents towards expensive social goals that do not, say, develop new products or generate revenue.
In the U.S., pushback has been gathering from several directions. Warren Buffett, the famous “Sage of Omaha,” has openly expressed skepticism about ESG investing and things like corporate reporting on climate change efforts – although it is a sign of the ideology’s thorough penetration of the investment world that Buffett’s stance would be labelled “unconventional” in a business magazine.
More substantively, new asset management firms have been launched by entrepreneurs who concluded that the stakeholder primacy model just does not work. Strive Asset Management was founded in early 2022 explicitly to “live by a strict commitment to shareholder primacy – an unwavering mandate that the purpose of a for-profit corporation is to maximize long-run value to investors.” Its founders are private equity manager Anson Freriks and flamboyant commentator Vivek Ramaswamy, who was a candidate for the most recent Republican Presidential nomination, won by Donald Trump.
Strive believes that companies should do what they do best and not fall prey to other agendas. The fund was started specifically to “solve a problem,” as its website explains: “Large financial institutions, including the biggest asset managers, were using their clients’ money to advance social, cultural, environmental and political agendas in corporate America’s boardrooms. Asset managers and for-profit corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize value, and that duty had been neglected.”
Strive’s pitch clearly resonated with investors, as the firm soon became one of the fastest-growing asset managers in the U.S. And its position appears to be having an effect. The latest edition of Strive’s newsletter, The Fiduciary Focus, includes the following headlines: “The Financial Times Credits Strive for Pushing Companies to Drop ESG-Linked Compensation,” “John Deere Pulling Back on ESG,” and “Wall Street Cools on Sustainable Funds.”
There is also growing concern in the political arena that ESG investment and other socially motivated corporate activities pose a threat both to the financial integrity of public pension funds and a challenge to democratic governance. A number of U.S. states have taken formal steps to confront and counter the ESG investment behemoth. One such measure is the non-profit State Financial Officers Foundation (SFOF). According to its website, “SFOF’s mission is to drive fiscally sound public policy, by partnering with key stakeholders, and educating Americans on the role of responsible financial management in a free market economy.”
The organization and its members are firm and vocal defenders of shareholder primacy. Among their activities have been letter-writing campaigns to corporations and fund managers that urge them to scale back political activism and instead focus on the interests of their shareholders. They are putting teeth to their words: according to a recent Torys Report, 18 of the SFOF’s member states have enacted anti-ESG laws, including prohibiting fund managers from considering ESG factors in their investments and state entities from investing with asset managers deemed to be discriminating against or boycotting the fossil fuel industry.
ExxonMobil’s bolder, more confrontational tactic may be pointing the way, because in late June both activist groups not only dropped their proposals but promised not to bring forward similar demands in future; in return, ExxonMobil agreed to have its lawsuit dismissed.
Some of the SFOF member states have also put their money where their mouths are in pushing to restore shareholder primacy. The organization recently supported the State of Texas Permanent School Fund (a large investment fund with US$53 billion in assets that helps pay for the state’s school system) as it cancelled a US$8.5 billion investment with BlackRock, one of the world’s largest investment funds and a prominent proponent of ESG investing. As SFOF urged, “BlackRock should withdraw from international organizations seeking to orchestrate opposition to fossil fuel investment, abandon ‘decarbonization’ policies that are a form of boycotting fossil fuels, and stop using its proxy voting authority to promote an anti-fossil fuel agenda.”
Further pushback is coming from some of the recipients of activist shareholder proposals. It is perhaps not surprising that ExxonMobil is among the leaders here. The company has long been reviled by environmentalists for its insistence on keeping profitability, technical excellence and energy production central to its business. To some, it is the ugly face of “Big Oil”.
In January, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit to block a shareholder resolution put forward by the groups Follow This and Arjuna Capital, whose stated objective was to force the company to commit to precipitous cuts in CO2emissions, including with respect to the downstream effects from the combustion of its products by customers. Exxon argued that such a resolution would force the company to “change the nature of its ordinary business or to go out of business entirely.” Which is what these “shareholders” intend; Exxon’s lawsuit quotes Arjuna Capital’s contention that “Exxon should shrink” and Follow This’s statement that its goal is “to wind down the company’s business in oil and natural gas.”
As Follow This states on its website: “We buy shares in order to work on our mission to stop climate change.” And, it says, its shareholder proposal aims to make ExxonMobil “stop exploring for more oil and gas.” While this kind of agenda is no longer surprising, ExxonMobil’s response was. Corporations generally try to deal with motivated activists by adopting some version of their favoured policies in the hopes they’ll go away (not that they do). ExxonMobil’s bolder, more confrontational tactic may be pointing the way, because in late June both activist groups not only dropped their proposals but promised not to bring forward similar demands in future; in return, ExxonMobil agreed to have its lawsuit dismissed.
Still more pushback in the U.S. is coming from the small but growing number of advocacy organizations submitting anti-ESG shareholder proposals that call on corporations to refocus themselves on shareholder-centred capitalism. The National Center for Public Policy Research and the National Legal and Policy Center are two such organizations. According to a recent SquareWell Partners report entitled “What Do Shareholders Propose?” these kinds of proposals surged by 64 percent in 2023.
Now What About Canada?
This process is still at a much earlier stage in Canada. Last year the not-for-profit organization I lead, InvestNow, submitted and presented shareholder proposals to three Canadian banks asking for explicit commitments to continue to invest in and finance the Canadian oil and natural gas sector. These were the first proposals of this nature presented to Canadian banks and their shareholders. The overwhelming majority of the vote – 99.5 percent of it – was against InvestNow’s proposal. However, fellow shareholders and even some board members approached me after the meeting and thanked me for standing up to the banks and for advocating on behalf of Canadian oil and natural gas and everyday Canadians.
We were back again doing the same this year, presenting shareholder proposals at the AGMs of all five big chartered banks – BMO, CIBC, Scotiabank, RBC and TD – asking them to commission and issue reports qualifying and quantifying the impacts and costs of their net zero commitments. This time we received one percent support for our proposal, a 100 percent increase over last year.
Although InvestNow’s proposal was rejected by Suncor’s board, our hope is that we planted a seed in the directors’ minds about their duty of care and fiduciary obligations to the company’s shareholders and that they will soon find the courage and conviction to say ‘No’ to the activists and ‘Yes’ to shareholder proposals like ours.
This year InvestNow also submitted our first shareholder proposal to an energy company. We asked Suncor Energy Inc., one of Canada’s largest oil producers and refiners (with production this year estimated at approximately 800,000 barrels per day), to drop its pledge to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and rededicate the company to its core business of producing and refining crude oil. In our view, Suncor should be producing more oil and getting it out to more customers in Canada and around the world – not contributing to its own demise and that of its industry. And it should do this unapologetically. In the face of growing global demand and concerns over energy security, Suncor should increase Canada’s energy supply, thereby helping to reduce energy costs for Canadians and the world.
Like Exxon, Suncor has received many anti-fossil-fuel shareholder proposals over the years. Unlike Exxon, however, Suncor has not yet publicly pushed back. But why not? Suncor has worked concertedly to improve its “emissions intensity”, which is the volume of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of oil or natural gas produced, and has held its overall greenhouse gas emissions essentially flat, as the accompanying graph shows. [Editor’s note: the recent passage of the Liberals’ Bill C-59, which makes it illegal for energy companies and advocacy groups to defend themselves, on pain of criminal penalties, caused a vast amount of useful technical information to be abruptly removed from the internet.] Why commit to an arbitrary target like net zero, especially one that would necessitate massive declines in the use of oil and natural gas? Net zero wouldn’t increase shareholder value. Quite the opposite, since fossil fuels are Suncor’s main business.
Although InvestNow’s proposal was rejected by Suncor’s board, our hope is that we planted a seed in the directors’ minds about their duty of care and fiduciary obligations to the company’s shareholders and that they will soon find the courage and conviction to say “No” to the activists and “Yes” to shareholder proposals like ours.
Canada’s shareholder proposal regime was put in place as a response to the U.S.’s rule on shareholder proposals. Hopefully, the boards of directors at Canadian corporations and financial institutions, investors, customers and citizens at large will see what is happening south of the border and will add to the still-budding pushback movement in our own country. It’s time.
Gina Pappano is executive director of InvestNow and was formerly head of market intelligence at the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV).
Source of main image: Kenzie Todd, retrieved from History and Future of Divestment at St. Olaf.
