Members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility announced they had filed 60 shareholder proposals for the 2025 proxy season calling for increased disclosures and strengthened oversight of corporate political activities at a diverse set of companies and sectors. These proposals included 32 resolutions on lobbying, 23 on political election spending, and five asking companies to assess if their lobbying on climate issues is consistent with their stated climate goals and objectives. You can read more about these proposals in ICCR’s 2025 Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide.
The vast majority of companies engage in various forms of public policy advocacy to influence legislative and regulatory decisions, primarily through lobbying and campaign contributions. This advocacy takes place at all levels of government, ranging from municipal and state levels to federal legislative and regulatory processes. Open Secrets reported that total annual corporate lobbying expenditures surpassed $5.5 billion in 2024 and $6.2 billion in 2023, with the pharmaceutical, tech, financial services, and oil & gas sectors among the top spenders, either through direct lobbying or indirectly via third-party organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber). Additionally, the Chamber alone invested $823 million in lobbying activities from 2015 to 2024.
Through their memberships in trade associations like the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and their donations to Super PACs, 527 committees, “social welfare” organizations, and model legislation groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), corporations wield considerable influence on many issues.
“Companies exercise considerable power in their direct lobbying and indirectly through trade associations,” said Matthew Illian, Director of Responsible Investing for the United Church Funds, which held successful dialogues with four companies leading to the withdrawal of their proposals. “Investors are urging full transparency as well as careful evaluation of whether corporate lobbying activities align with a company’s stated values and priorities, as any misalignment may create reputational risk. We are pleased to see a number of companies responding positively to these appeals, resulting in withdrawal agreements and improved corporate responsibility.”
One such company responding positively to investor engagement is AbbVie. “Over the years AbbVie has incrementally added to its lobbying spending disclosure and also did not renew membership in four trade associations. We believe these actions help to address some of the risks, which is our goal as investors, and this year we were pleased to come to a productive agreement and withdrew the resolution,” said Zevin’s Marcela Pinilla, Director of Sustainable Investing.
Said Tim Smith, ICCR’s Sr. Policy Advisor, “Some corporations have significant influence over public policy issues and must evaluate if this advocacy is truly in the public interest. This is particularly true for climate lobbying,” Smith added. “Companies that lobby against sensible climate policy are engaging in short-sighted behavior that delays urgently needed action. Any delay in enacting climate-forward policies will exacerbate its negative impacts and increase the cost to address them.”
“In this political environment where changes in climate policies are coming fast and furious, it’s critical for companies to clearly articulate their climate public policy priorities and harmonize their lobbying activities with protecting those priorities,” said Andrea Ranger, Director of Shareholder Advocacy for Trillium Asset Management. “If they are not doing so, they may be letting trade associations, for example, advocate against the progressive climate laws, regulations, and programs they need to meet their decarbonization goals.”
ICCR members first filed proposals questioning corporate political activity in 1974, and since 2011, investors have submitted approximately 600 proposals seeking expanded lobbying reporting. These proposals generally receive strong shareholder support. This year, investors filed 32 lobbying proposals; however, early in the season, Air Products challenged its resolution at the SEC. Breaking from past practice, the SEC sided with the company and allowed the resolution to be omitted. This decision resulted in a surge of over 13 additional successful challenges by companies citing similar arguments.
However, many companies continued constructive lobbying discussions with shareholder proponents, which led to expanded disclosure and the successful withdrawal of resolutions at eight companies. Moreover, the proposals will appear on the proxy ballots of six companies to be voted on at annual meetings this spring.
Investors have also engaged portfolio companies around their donations to political candidates, citing the danger of corporate capture of government policy- and regulation-making with the potential to favor corporate activities over the interests of the voting public. This year, investors filed 23 proposals seeking increased disclosures around corporate political donations.
“Companies need to pay attention to the impact and risks of their political spending,” said Bruce Freed, President of the Center for Political Accountability (CPA). “CPA has several resources to help guide companies and their investors including its Corporate Underwriters report which examines how company political spending has reshaped state politics and created serious risks for companies, shareholders, and our democracy, and our Guide to Corporate Political Spending and Guide to Becoming a Model Code Company which give management and directors a framework for approaching, governing and assessing political spending to safeguard companies.”
Added Smith, “ICCR members and other responsible investors have long petitioned companies to expand disclosure and oversight and to adopt standards guiding their corporate political activities to ensure they are responsible. As long as companies participate in lobbying and political spending activities, we expect shareholder proposals on these topics will continue to be filed.”
About the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR)
The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a broad coalition of more than 300 institutional investors collectively representing over $4 trillion in invested capital. ICCR members, a cross-section of faith-based investors, asset managers, pension funds, foundations, and other long-term institutional investors, have over 50 years of experience engaging with companies on environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues that are critical to long-term value creation. ICCR members engage hundreds of corporations annually in an effort to foster greater corporate accountability. Visit our website www.iccr.org and follow us on LinkedIn, Bsky and X.
The post Investors File 60 Proposals Calling for Transparency Around Corporate Political Activity first appeared on Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility.