Guidelines Introduction

Shareholders are playing an increasingly important role at many companies by engaging in meetings and discussions with the board and management. When this engagement is unsuccessful, shareholders may submit their own proposals at the companies’ annual meetings. While shareholder resolutions are relatively common in some countries like the United States, Japan and Canada, in other markets shareholder proposals are rare. Additionally, securities regulations in nearly all countries define and limit the nature and type of allowable shareholder proposals including submission ownership thresholds. For example, in the United States, shareholders currently need only own 1% or $2,000 of a company’s shares to submit a proposal for inclusion on a company’s ballot. However, American issuers are able to exclude shareholder proposals for many defined reasons, such as when the proposal relates to a company’s ordinary business operations. In other countries such as Japan, however, shareholder proposals are not bound by such content restrictions. Additionally, whereas in the U.S. and Canada the vast majority of shareholder proposals are precatory (i.e. requesting an action), such proposals are binding in most other countries. Binding votes in the U.S. are most often presented in the form of a bylaw amendment, thereby incorporating the proponent’s “ask” in the company’s governing documents.

Glass Lewis believes binding proposals should be subject to heightened scrutiny since they do not allow the board latitude in implementation to ensure consistency with existing corporate governance provisions. Nonetheless, Glass Lewis will recommend supporting well-crafted, binding shareholder proposals that increase shareholder value or protect and enhance important shareholder rights.

We recognize that shareholder initiatives are not just limited to shareholder proposals. For example, in some markets, shareholders may submit countermotions (e.g., Germany) and/or may solicit votes against management proposals, most commonly the ratification of board acts.

While the types and nature of shareholder initiatives vary significantly across markets, Glass Lewis approaches such initiatives in the same manner, regardless of a company’s domicile. Glass Lewis generally believes decisions regarding day-to-day management and policy decisions, including those related to social, environmental or political issues, are best left to management and the board as they in almost all cases have more and better information about company strategy and risk exposure. However, when there is a clear link between the subject of a shareholder proposal and value enhancement or risk mitigation, Glass Lewis will recommend in favor of such proposal where the company has inadequately addressed the issue. We strongly believe that shareholders should not attempt to micromanage a company, its businesses or its executives through the shareholder initiative process. Rather, we believe shareholders should use their influence to push for governance structures that protect shareholders and promote director accountability. Shareholders should then vote into place a trustworthy and qualified board of directors, who can make informed decisions that are in the best interests of the business and its owners. These directors can then be held accountable for management and policy decisions through board elections.

Glass Lewis evaluates all shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis. However, we generally recommend shareholders support proposals on certain issues such as those calling for the elimination or prior shareholder approval of antitakeover devices such as poison pills and classified boards. Additionally, we generally recommend shareholders support proposals that are likely to increase or protect shareholder value, those that promote the furtherance of shareholder rights, those that promote director accountability and those that seek to improve compensation practices, especially those promoting a closer link between compensation and performance as well as those that promote more and better disclosure of relevant risk factors where such disclosure is lacking or inadequate.

Summary of Changes for 2023

Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant sections of this document:

Board Accountability for Climate Related Issues

We have included a new discussion on director accountability for climate related issues. In particular, we believe that clear and comprehensive disclosure regarding climate risks, including how they are being mitigated and overseen, should be provided by those companies whose own GHG emissions represent a financially material risk, such as those companies identified by groups including Climate Action 100+.

Accordingly, for companies with material exposure to climate risk stemming from their own operations, we believe they should provide thorough climate-related disclosures in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (“TCFD”). We also believe the boards of these companies should have explicit and clearly defined oversight responsibilities for climate-related issues. As such, in instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.

Disclosure of Shareholder Proponents

We have included a new discussion regarding our approach to disclosure of shareholder proponents at U.S. companies. Given the growing number of and focus on shareholder-submitted proposals, we believe that companies should provide clear disclosure in their proxy statements concerning the identity of the proponent (or lead proponent if multiple proponents have submitted a proposal) of any shareholder resolutions that may be going to a vote. If such disclosure is not provided, we will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair.

Racial Equity Audits

We have codified our approach to proposals requesting that companies undertake racial equity or civil rights audits. When analyzing these resolutions, Glass Lewis will assess: (i) the nature of the company’s operations; (ii) the level of disclosure provided by the company and its peers on its internal and external stakeholder impacts and the steps it is taking to mitigate any attendant risks; and (iii) any relevant controversies, fines, or lawsuits. After taking into account these company-specific factors, we will generally recommend in favor of well-crafted proposals requesting that companies undertake a racial or civil rights-related audit when we believe that doing so could help the target company identify and mitigate potentially significant risks.

Retirement Benefits and Severance

We have updated our approach to proposals requesting that companies adopt a policy whereby shareholders must approve severance payments exceeding 2.99 times the amount of the executive’s base salary plus bonus. Although we are generally supportive of these policies, we have updated our guidelines to reflect that we may recommend shareholders vote against these proposals in instances where companies have adopted policies whereby they will seek shareholder approval for any cash severance payments exceeding 2.99 times the sum of an executives’ salary and bonus.

Link to the full report can be found here.