Coca-Cola Shareholders Reject Proposal to Stop Selling Products in Pro-Life States

Life News ^ | May 1, 2023 | Steven Ertelt

[Morgana]

Upset that over a dozen pro-life states are actively protecting babies from abortions, a pro-abortion group tried to get Coca-Cola shareholders to agree with a measure to have the huge beverage company stop selling protects in those states.

But shareholders rejected the radical measure so overwhelmingly that 87% of owners of Coke stock voted to reject the resolution.

The measure would have pressured the company to oppose, and perhaps divest from, states that offer legal protection to the unborn. The proposal came from investors, not from the company itself, as shareholders have the right to make such policy proposals at annual shareholder meetings and leftist groups like As You Sow, which was behind this measure, often try roget corporations to take liberal stances on contentious political issues.

Here’s more on the group’s failed efforts this past week:

And among the worst of their bad ideas this year is a spate of proposals of various forms used to promote abortion under the banner of risk management. Typically, these shareholder resolutions that appear on proxies (the corporate governance equivalent of ballots in political elections) call upon companies to study the risk of whatever the activists disapprove of.

For example, the predictably left-wing group As You Sow asked Coca-Cola to issue a “Report on Risk Due to Restrictions on Reproductive Rights.”

This report would include “potential risks or costs to the company caused by … state policies severely restricting reproductive rights.” Note that only alleged risks or costs were mentioned, not benefits or advantages.

As You Sow has some suggestions for them. The companies should share “any decisions regarding closure or expansion of operations affected by the restrictive laws, and any strategies such as public policy advocacy by the company, related political contributions policies … or educational strategies.” So, companies are steered towards punishing pro-life states by divestment, toward defunding pro-life politicians who would otherwise have been seen as helpful to the company’s interest, and by educating the public about the benefits of abortion and the harm caused when it is prevented.

The abortion activists also proposed another measure that shareholders rejected as well.

There is also what is called a “congruency” report, which amounts to goading companies that have said something in favor of equality to extend that to blacklisting pro-life politicians. It also lost.

The vote came during the same week in which the City of San Francisco abandoned its boycott of pro-life states because the repercussions were so detrimental to the city.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors abandoned its boycott of pro-life states Tuesday after city leaders said the action backfired, costing the city money and creating additional red tape.

National Review reports the board voted 7-4 to repeal the boycott, which prohibited the city government from traveling to and doing business with 30 states that passed pro-life and other conservative policies.

“It’s not achieving the goal we want to achieve,” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said. “It is making our government less efficient.”

Initially, the boycott applied to conservative states that passed laws regarding LGBTQ issues, but San Francisco leaders expanded it in 2019 to also boycott states that passed pro-life laws to protect unborn babies from abortion.

However, an analysis of the boycott in February found that its results were disastrous for San Francisco. The city administrator’s office report found that the boycott was hurting the city financially and did not have any effect on persuading states to abandon their pro-life laws.

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” the report found.

[ansel12]

Staying out of it is the best defense for a corporation, it is relatively easy to stay silent against the push to go woke, but it is a blood bath once they sign up for it, from then on whatever they do will incur huge market costs.

Bud Light is seeing this, now whatever choices they make they are dealing with a huge and passionately angry mass that is activated against that choice.

Rather than face what the left does when you try to put the genie back in the bottle, it is better to just stonewall them at the very beginning and let their efforts and energy die down, the long-term damage will be less.

[cymbeline]

Any corporation that gets into politics deserves disrespect and purchasing avoidance. That applies to conservative as well as liberal politics.

[repentant_pundit]

A state that's pro-health might welcome the exit of coke from their state. At least the sugary kind of coke, which contributes to obesity, diabetes etc.

[edwinland]

Some Disney shareholders should try the same approach. I would buy some shares to support them ;)

[irishjuggler]

Over the long-term, does not Coca-Cola (like every other consumer products) benefit from more births rather than less? Every baby not aborted will be sitting in a McDonald’s a decade from now guzzling a Sprite.

[wally_bert]

I think of Rum and Coca Cola.

I don’t drink either beverage.

[MtnClimber]

Why not vote on mandatory late term abortions for Coca Cola shareholders and executives? I bet that many would vote for that without even thinking.

[arthurus]

If Coca Cola were to accede to those demands it would be bankrupt shortly. You cannot cut off a majority of your customer base suddenly and survive as a business.

[Fledermaus]

What’s with the mass corporate suicide?

[arthurus]

I hope they do and one of those companies accedes and pulls its products from those states and counties that are insufficiently woke. The rapid descent into bankruptcy will be an obvious lesson for others contemplating the move and I am sure such boycotting of customers is being considered in many woke boardrooms.

[arthurus]

Same here. I quit partaking of sweet drinks 23 years ago.

[zeugma]

too bad they didn’t do this.

[TalBlack]

This story shows the proportion of the real core loons 13%. Sounds about right.

[mumblypeg]

Risk management? As in, the “risk” that future coca-cola drinkers might not be ripped limb from limb?

[ro_dreaming]

Who’s the 13% that voted FOR this?

They should be removed from the board for corporate financial malfeasance.

[Albion Wilde]

This calls for a doubling down on boycotting all their products. Here are the brands U.S. consumers may be most familiar with:

Bacardi mixers
Barq's
Capri Sun
Coca-Cola, Coke variations
DANNON
Dasani – Bottled water, several variations
Dunkin' Donuts ready-to-drink coffee beverages
Fanta, several variations
Five Alive
Fresca
Fruitopia Tea
Full Throttle energy and coffee drinks
Fuze, Fuzetea
Glacéau – vitamin water, smart water
Gold Peak Tea
Hi-C, Hi-C Tea
Hires
Honest Tea
Minute Maid
Mr Pibb
Nestea
Odwalla – juice drinks and natural health beverages
Powerade – sports drink
Refresh Tea
Schweppes (Under license)
Seagram's
Simply Apple, Simply Lemonade, Simply Limeade, Simply Orange juices
Smart Water
Sport Cola
Sprite, many varieties
Surge