abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

23 Oct 2017

Author:
Anne Davies, Guardian (Australia)

Australia: BHP shareholder resolutions reflect growing pressure on companies to consider views on governance, environmental and ethical issues

"BHP expected to reject activists' push to give shareholders a greater voice", 19 October 2017

Attempts by corporate shareholder activists to have BHP accept advisory resolutions from shareholders look set for defeat but the momentum for companies to take greater account of shareholders’ views on matters of corporate governance, environmental sustainability and corporate ethics is mounting.

BHP shareholders in the UK...asked to approve two shareholder resolutions...seek to give shareholders a greater voice in the company’s affairs.

The second resolution, calling on BHP to reconsider its membership of mining lobby group the Minerals Council of Australia...received the most attention.

...the first resolution...potentially the more significant. It attempts to push the boundaries of shareholder democracy by proposing a change to BHP’s constitution to allow advisory resolutions from shareholders.

The resolutions...proposed by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, which has a small shareholding in BHP...

BHP is opposing both resolutions, arguing that to allow advisory resolutions would potentially interfere with directors’ duties to act in the best interests of company. On the MCA membership, it says this is a matter for the board and is under review...