TARGET CORPORATION | Measuring Pesticide Use in Agricultural Supply Chains at TARGET CORPORATION

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
TGT
Resolution ask
Other ask
ESG theme
  • Environment
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Public health
  • Waste and pollution
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders of Target Corporation (“Target”) request that the board of directors issue a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, explaining if and how the company is measuring and curtailing pesticide use in its agricultural supply chains that cause harm to human health, pollinators, and the environment.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: While specific metrics are left to management’s discretion, shareholders recommend that Target disclose the following information:
Type and quantity of pesticides avoided annually through targeted strategies in prioritized crops;Prioritization of pesticides for reduction or elimination aligned with classifications set by authoritative scientific bodies, including the World Health Organization and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;[1]Company targets and timelines, if any, for pesticide reduction.WHEREAS: A third of the food we eat is dependent on pollinators; but pollinator species are declining at alarming rates in significant part due to the use of toxic pesticides on farms.[2] Further, a recent study shows pesticide toxicity has more than doubled since 2005 for many invertebrates that are critical to soil health.[3],[4]
Pesticide exposure is associated with serious health effects in humans from increased risk of cancers to developmental defects in infants and children.[5],[6] Health advocates have cautioned consumers about residues of glyphosate in food products[7] and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology cites linkage between health harms and exposures to toxic pesticides.[8]
Target offers minimal disclosures on its approach to managing pesticide pollution. In 2021, Target implemented a pollinator health policy encouraging suppliers to limit non-essential use of pesticides to all produce, live plant, and flower supply chains. Yet, absent timebound or measurable targets, investors and other stakeholders cannot assess its effectiveness.
Target, while steadily growing food and beverage revenues from 19% in 2019 to 21% in 2022[9] has fallen behind peers who have set timebound measurable commitments:[10]
Walmart set a goal to source 100 percent of fresh produce and floral from suppliers that adopt integrated pest management (IPM) practices, as verified by a third party, by 2025.Giant Eagle requires produce suppliers to eliminate use of nitroguanidine neonicotinoids, adopt IPM practices by 2025, and tracks progress via third-party certification.Costco reports annually on the percent of live good suppliers that have eliminated use of neonicotinoids, chlorpyrifos, organophosphates, and glyphosate. Seventeen suppliers are certified through the Equitable Food Initiative on implementing IPM practices and ensuring farmworker health and safety. Ten U.S. states have restricted neonicotinoid use[11] and the landmark Global Biodiversity Framework calls for the reduction of the overall risk from pesticides by at least half by 2030.[12]
In a competitive marketplace increasingly demanding sustainable food and reduced stakeholder and environmental harm, understanding and tracking supplier use of pesticides can help reduce risk for shareholders and our company.
[1]See PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides: http://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN_HHP_List.pdf
[2] https://xerces.org/pesticides/risks-pesticides-pollinators
[3] Applied pesticide toxicity shifts toward plants and invertebrates, even in GM crops | Science
[4] Frontiers | Pesticides and Soil Invertebrates: A Hazard Assessment (frontiersin.org)
[5] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123020#_i34
[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2009.01092.x
[7] https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-weed-killer-found-all-kids-cereals-sampled
[8] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP358
[9] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0000027419/000002741923000015/tgt-20230128.htm
[10] https://foe.org/retailer-report-card/
[11] https://www.xerces.org/blog/states-make-way-for-pesticide-reforms#:~:text=New%20Jersey%2C%20Maine%2C%20and%20now,Connecticut%20would%20do%20the%20same.
[12] https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022

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.