VISA INC. | Requesting a Report on Policy on Merchant Category Codes

Status
Filed
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
V
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Conflict and/or violence
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board issue a public report, omitting proprietary and privileged information, disclosing its oversight of management’s decision-making regarding the potential use of a targeted MCC for standalone gun and ammunition stores. This report should cover the Company’s MCC policies, the neutral principles underlying them, the components and results of a cost/benefit analysis and other material considerations informing the unavoidable decision in question.
Supporting statement
In an effort to appease opponents of Second Amendment rights, Visa began to implement a policy to track firearms purchases through the use of Merchant Category Codes (MCC) that would have separately categorized sales at firearms stores that are currently labelled "general merchandise” sales. (1)
In the year since the Company adopted and then (in early 2023) abandoned this plan, (2) 19 states approved legislation regulating MCCs specifically targeting firearms stores for disparate treatment. Sixteen states have enacted laws prohibiting the use of MCCs that separate gun retailers for unequal treatment, and conversely, three
states have passed bills to mandate such treatment.
(3)
In hindsight, it’s now pretty certain that Visa made the right decision to abandon its short-lived MCC plans and excuse itself from this divisive political battle playing out on the state level. Obvious, current and directly relevant litigational, financial and reputational risk considerations suggest that Visa’s shareholder value-protection, open
communication and objective management obligations require it to disclose its intended policy for the remaining
31 states where Visa’s MCC policy must be dictated by fiduciary duty rather than state decree.
The report we seek should provide that disclosure (which is likely already required due to fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty, prompt and honest disclosure, and so forth). Optimally, it should include a cost/benefit analysis of what
MCC-adoption in those 31 states would assertedly accomplish, and whether those claimed benefits are based on
objective, sound analysis that has taken into account all material considerations – including, for instance, a
University of Pittsburgh study which found that lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes.
(4)
The
review should also evaluate the potential costs of MCC-adoption, including the various risks posed to the
Company and its shareholders were Visa to publicly place itself squarely in the crossfire of a divisive political
battle on a hot-button issue.
Given that the original initiative to track firearm purchases was paused, and that MCC legislation has already been
passed in many states and is likely to be passed in others, shareholders would benefit from transparency
regarding the Board’s oversight of the Company’s position on MCCs, and whether the Company is appropriately
considering all the risks inherent in its decisions on this matter. Failure to do so may expose the Company to
regulatory, reputational and litigation risks that may threaten long-term shareholder value.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation nameDeclared voting intentionsRationale
Anima SgrAgainstThe company appears to be taking appropriate action to mitigate risks associated with the potential implementation of merchant category code for standalone gun and ammunition stores. In addition, at this point in time, under intricate state-by-state legal developments, the requested report would interfere with
management's purview regarding the operation of its payment systems and compliance with legal responsibilities.

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.