Yesterday over one-quarter of Coca-Cola shareholders voted for a resolution that requested the beverage giant to address consumers’ concerns over bisphenol A, or BPA. That is the good news. The bad news for supporters of the shareholder resolution is that 74% of Coke’s shareholders voted against the resolution. Nevertheless, the percentage of shareholders who voted to pressure Coke to issue a written report on BPA has increased since last year’s “yes” vote of 22%.
Passing shareholder resolutions is a challenge for activist shareholders that try to use shareholder votes to influence a company to change its business practices. First, a resolution must meet the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) guidelines in order for it to appear on a company’s annual proxy, or shareholder meeting notice. Then there are the institutional investors and the company’s board of directors and executives, who generally own a huge chunk of those shares. The good news is that a 10% “yes” vote often pressures a company to either acquiesce or find an acceptable solution to a resolution. In Coke’s case, however, the company will not budge.
The jury is out on BPA, which companies use to line food and beverage cans. Most regulatory agencies around the globe, from Canada to Australia, have not designated BPA as a health risk. Nevertheless, plenty of studies indicate that BPA could cause everything from hormonal imbalance to weakened immunity to cancer. If Coca-Cola, however, really feared a class action lawsuit and a public relations nightmare, they would have followed the lead of other companies including Heinz and Eden Organics that have disclosed the risks or pledge to find alternatives. Note Coca-Cola’s wording of exploring alternatives to BPA:
We continuously look for alternatives to improve our packaging, while maintaining its safety and quality, to address consumers' preferences and needs or to enhance the performance of the packaging. We are working with third-parties that produce can liners to explore possibilities that include alternatives to liners with BPA. Currently, the only commercially viable lining systems for the mass production of aluminum beverage cans contain BPA. We take our consumers' concerns seriously, and we want them to know we are confident in the safety of all of our beverages' packaging. At The Coca-Cola Company, we monitor new scientific studies and consider the entire body of evidence regarding the safety of our packaging. We look to regulators for their guidance, and follow local regulations wherever we operate.
We'll see if BPA is either the next tobacco or saccharine. If you are dead set against BPA, there are two things you can do:
Leon Kaye drinks only filtered water, tea, and coffee, and is the Editor of GreenGoPost.com and contributes to The Guardian Sustainable Business, where he recently discussed green IT and energy efficiency. You can follow him on Twitter.
Leon Kaye has written for 3p since 2010 and become executive editor in 2018. His previous work includes writing for the Guardian as well as other online and print publications. In addition, he's worked in sales executive roles within technology and financial research companies, as well as for a public relations firm, for which he consulted with one of the globe’s leading sustainability initiatives. Currently living in Central California, he’s traveled to 70-plus countries and has lived and worked in South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay.
Leon’s an alum of Fresno State, the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and the University of Southern California's Marshall Business School. He enjoys traveling abroad as well as exploring California’s Central Coast and the Sierra Nevadas.
We're compiling all data!