AMAZON.COM, INC. | Report on Competition Strategy and Risk at AMAZON.COM, INC.

Status
33.73% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
11
Resolution details
Company ticker
AMZN
Lead filer
Undisclosed filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Other
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Consumer Discretionary
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED that shareholders of Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) ask the board of directors to report to shareholders on how it oversees risks related to anticompetitive practices, including whether the full board or board committee has oversight responsibility, whether and how consideration of such risks is incorporated into board deliberations regarding strategy, and the board’s role in Amazon’s public policy activities related to such risks. The report should be prepared at reasonable expense and should omit confidential or proprietary information.
Supporting statement
Anticompetitive practices of big tech companies, including Amazon, are receiving increasing scrutiny. A September 2020 survey found that 58% of Americans are not “confident they are getting objective and unbiased search results when using an online platform to shop or search,” and 79% said big tech mergers and acquisitions “unfairly undermine competition.”1 Criticism has focused on Amazon’s use of data on third-party sellers to launch competing products, the preferential placement accorded its own products, and its favorable treatment of sellers who use its fulfillment services.2
The House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee began investigating competition in digital markets in 2019, focusing on Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. The Subcommittee reviewed over a million documents and held seven hearings, including one at which Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos testified. The Subcommittee’s staff report was scathing: It found the companies’ control over key distribution channels allows them to further entrench themselves and “pick winners and losers throughout our economy,” inhibiting innovation and reducing consumer choices. The report concluded that Amazon engages in “extensive anticompetitive conduct in its treatment of third-party sellers.”3 The Federal Trade Commission and the California and New York Attorneys General are investigating Amazon for its use of third-party seller data.
The European Commission charged Amazon in November 2020 with “systematically relying on non-public business data of independent sellers who sell on its marketplace, to the benefit of Amazon’s own retail business, which directly competes with those third party sellers.” The Commission opened a second investigation into “the possible preferential treatment of Amazon’s own retail offers and those of marketplace sellers that use Amazon’s logistics and delivery services.”4 Amazon’s treatment of third-party sellers is also the subject of an investigation by German and Italian regulators.5
Backlash against anticompetitive practices can harm a company’s public reputation, and increase pressure for new regulation. Sixty percent of Americans favor more regulation of online platforms.6 The European Union is considering adopting new regulations and/or a “new competition tool” to deal with structural competition problems not effectively addressed through current rules.7 The Antitrust Subcommittee report recommended a slew of changes aimed at ending the monopolies enjoyed by Amazon and other platforms.8
Given the widespread debate and rapidly changing environment, we believe that robust board oversight would improve Amazon’s management of risks related to anticompetitive practices and that shareholders would benefit from more information about the board’s role.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Universities Superannuation Scheme - USS For USS would support additional information on the Company's anticompetitive practice policies.

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.