TARGET CORPORATION | Set Compensation Policy that Optimizes Portfolio Value for Company Shareholders at TARGET CORPORATION

AGM passed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Adopt or amend a policy
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Decent work
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
BE IT RESOLVED, shareholders ask that the board and management exercise their discretion to establish Company wage policies that are consistent with fiduciary duties and reasonably designed to provide workers with the minimum earnings necessary to meet a family’s basic needs, because Company compensation practices that fail to provide a living wage are harmful to the economy and therefore to the returns of diversified shareholders.1
Supporting statement
Target increased its minimum hourly wage to $15 in 2020, and announced a new “starting wage range” of $15-$24 in 2022.2 While that is good progress, the living wage in 2022 was $25.02 per hour per worker annually for a family of four (two working adults).3 The highest wages in Target’s range are reportedly reserved for high-cost markets such as New York City,4 but the living wage there was $30.79 in 2022. Target’s CEO, meanwhile, makes 680 times more than the Company’s median employee. While people of color compose 54 percent of Target’s U.S. workforce, they account for only 29 percent of leadership team roles,5 indicating they make up a disproportionate number of employees not earning a living wage.
Such inequality and disparity harm the entire economy. For example, closing the living wage gap worldwide could generate an additional $4.56 trillion annually through increased productivity and spending,6 translating to a more than 4 percent increase in annual GDP. A 2020 report found that had four key racial gaps for Black Americans—wages, education, housing, and investment—been closed in 2000,
$16 trillion could have been added to the U.S. economy. Closing those gaps in 2020 could have added $5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the ensuing five years.7
By paying so many of its employees below a living wage, Target may believe it will increase margins and thus financial performance. But gain in Company profit that comes at the expense of society and the economy is a bad trade for Company shareholders who are diversified and rely on broad economic growth to achieve their financial objectives. The costs and risks created by low wages and inequality will directly reduce long-term diversified portfolio returns because a drag on GDP directly reduces returns on diversified portfolios.8
This proposal asks the Board to set a Company compensation policy of paying a living wage to prevent contributing to inequality and racial/gender disparity. Target could achieve this Proposal’s objective by securing Living Wage for US Employer certification.9 Additionally, MIT has an online living wage calculator, or Target can work within frameworks promulgated by organizations such as IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative or The Living Wage Network. Target should use such frameworks in a manner that allows shareholders to gauge compliance and progress, while providing Target with discretion as to how to achieve the living-wage goal.
Please vote for: Set compensation policy that optimizes portfolio value for Company shareholders –
Proposal 4*
4 increase/#:~:text=Workers%20at%20Target%20could%20start,competitive%20markets%20like%20New%20York.
5 inclusion-report
7 M=

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Rothschild & co Asset Management For
Kutxabank Gestion SGIIC SAU. For
Anima Sgr For Investors would benefit from more disclosure regarding the company's pay equity process and goals.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.