A forum on the role of shareholder proposals and engagement: strengthening capital markets and protecting retirees and retail investors, by enhancing corporate governance, disclosure, and performance.
For years, major technology companies like Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Alphabet (Google and YouTube), and Apple faced growing concerns about how their platforms exposed children to harmful content. Investors, including members of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) and other institutional investors, used shareholder proposals to push these companies to examine risks related to child mental health, online exploitation, and weak age-verification systems. These proposals encouraged companies to take a closer look at how their products affected young users and to strengthen internal safeguards. As a result, companies were pressed to be more transparent about risks and to improve policies designed to protect children online.
At large companies such as ExxonMobil and JPMorgan Chase, investors have long raised concerns about combining the roles of CEO and board chair. Shareholder proposals filed by institutional investors and pension funds argued that separating these roles improves accountability and reduces the risk of unchecked power. The concern was simple: when one person runs the company and oversees themselves, problems can go unnoticed until they become crises. These proposals encouraged boards to strengthen oversight, especially during times of controversy or leadership transition. Even when companies did not immediately change their structure, the proposals forced serious discussion about governance risks and long-term stability.
High drug prices have made it difficult for many Americans to afford life-saving medications. Investors working through groups such as ICCR raised concerns at pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, AbbVie, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Shareholder proposals asked these companies to explain their pricing strategies, executive compensation practices, and reliance on repeated price increases. Other proposals questioned patent practices that delayed generic competition. These efforts helped bring attention to how pricing decisions can create financial, legal, and reputational risks, while also harming patients. By raising these issues publicly, investors pushed companies to rethink practices that could lead to lawsuits, public backlash, or long-term damage to trust.