Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is Footnoted.com and is the founder and editor
When Lululemon held its annual meeting earlier this month, there was a single shareholder proposal from a small group called Bowyer Research. It includes the Social Impact Center, which grants grants to various nonprofit organizations by questioning the Vancouver-based athlete company’s dedication to various awakening causes.
According to Bowyer’s proposal, filed in Lululemon’s representation statement on April 29, the company provided grants to a “not ban equality” campaign focusing on reproductive medical issues, including employee access to abortion. Bowyer wrote, “The choice to politicize the Lululemon brand, like diverse political and religious views, is likely to alienate employees and customers, increasingly likely to negatively affect shareholder returns.” In its response, the company wrote that Bowyer’s proposal was “not in the best interests and not necessary” of Lululemon and its shareholders.
At Lululemon’s annual meeting on June 11th, the proposal didn’t even win 1% of all votes. But it’s one of dozens of conservative-oriented groups, including Bowyer, sponsored this year by some of America’s biggest companies, including Alphabet, Goldman Sachs, Meta and Walmart stores.
The shareholder proposal has long been a left-leaning group state, challenging a range of issues ranging from excessive wages to human rights and environmental issues.
Now more conservative groups may be encouraged by wider political backlash against issues of diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as a wider political backlash against recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including students for Harvard, who found that racially-based positive action programs were discriminatory.
Among the top proposals this season include recommendations to set up executive pay using DEI goals and prevent suspected boycotts of certain right-sided websites, including sites previously known as Twitter.
None of these proposals were close to passing, but they are indications that conservative trend groups are seeking influence through corporate ballot boxes.
In my research, Pennsylvania-based Bowyer has made proposals in 2025 with 19 separate companies, including those sponsored by Lululemon in 2025. This was more than twice the number of proposals sponsored by various companies in 2024, a major jump from scratch in 2023. A similar group, the Center for Public Policy Research, sponsored proposals in 22 different companies over the past year, including some that Bowyear targeted. The third group (National Legal and Policy Center) sponsored shareholder proposals for nine companies.
All three groups submitted proposals at Deer & Co, a heavy machinery manufacturer based in the Midwest. None of the suggestions passed. Of course, these conservative groups exist only in this for a relatively short period of time. It can often take several years to begin generating traction with investors.
But time may also work against them and against the left or right proxy activists. Under the leadership of Paul Atkins, the new chairman of the well-known conservatives, the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to take a more control-friendly approach to regulations regarding the proxy voting process, making it easier for businesses to eliminate shareholder proposals. Reuters reported this week that the SEC is discussing changes that will make it difficult for activist shareholders with small interests to curb proxy contests and repeated proxy proposals from a small number of investors.
Recommended
That would be another blow to the role of the annual meeting explaining management and committees. Already, shareholder proposals are usually not binding for US companies. Therefore, no matter how many shareholders vote in favor of it, the committee does not need to make any changes in response to the proposal. Many AGMs are now effectively retained, asserting the directors from the pressure of questions raised from the floor.
Also, many companies actively fight against shareholder proposals as they reach a proxy statement in the first place. This month, Procter & Gamble filed a request with the Securities and Exchange Commission to maintain one such proposal from the National Law and Policy Center from its proxy. That decision is listed as pending.
I vote in all elections at the local, state and federal level in my hometown of California, but I am not always so enthusiastic when it comes to shareholder votes for the various individual shares I own. The democratic process works best when the votes are counted, whatever the political shade is.
