Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#2A call which was made by bcc spamming all the internal amazon mailing lists asking people to sign the petition.
Source: I know a guy who got spammed.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#3> In an emailed statement, Amazon outlined its sustainability initiatives and said, "Amazon’s sustainability team is using a science-based approach to develop data and strategies to ensure a rigorous approach to our sustainability work." The company also said, "We have a long term commitment to powering our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy."
In my experience, "using a science-based approach" translates to "maximizing shareholder value" with plausible deniability.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#4This headline is misleading.
The vast majority of shareholder resolutions fail to achieve a majority (>50%) support. In fact, most shareholder resolutions are considered a 'success' anytime they garner any substantial amount of vote (>10%), and the company will usually take preemptive actions to address the issue when resolutions reach that level[0].
One thing most people don't realize is these votes are all non-binding. Companies have no legal obligation to do anything based on shareholder resolutions. Essentially they're a big survey.
Companies want to serve their shareholders -- that's the whole point. If the past is any indication, this effort will drive Amazon to substantially improve its sustainability practices.
_____
[0] From one of my working papers:
Proposals that do not achieve majority vote can still have impact by opening up a dialogue. Glac (2010) presents an example of a proposal asking Amoco to adopt the Valdez environmental principles which only got 8.6% approval, but Amoco began to shift environmental policies. A similar proposal the next year was withdrawn because of Amoco’s policy shift. Sometimes, the media impact of a failed vote can lead to future progress. For example, Guay et al. (2004) argue that the media impact of a resolution filed with Talisman on operations in Sudan led the company to withdraw a year later.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#5Majority Shareholders are practically our Modern Feudal Lords. The only difference is that there is a government which was paid in blood as result from past revolutions and uprisings. A government that is also being taken over by Modern Aristocrats.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#6This headline is misleading. The vast majority of shareholder resolutions fail to achieve a majority (>50%) support. In fact, most shareholder resolutions are considered a 'success' anytime they garner any substantial amount of vote (>10%), and the company will usually take preemptive actions to address the issue when resolutions reach that level[0]. One thing most people don't realize is these votes are all non-bind…
If you own amazon stock and want to build support for when they re-file next year, you can add your shares to support of this online petition: https://www.yourstake.org/ask/amazoncom-inc-amazon-reduce-fo...
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#7Majority Shareholders are practically our Modern Feudal Lords. The only difference is that there is a government which was paid in blood as result from past revolutions and uprisings. A government that is also being taken over by Modern Aristocrats.
Amazon doesn't have a majority shareholder. Most of these huge companies don't. Gates doesn't own a majority of Microsoft, Page and Brin even together don't own a majority of Google, etc. These companies are owned by everybody's retirement fund.
It's actually becoming rather a problem because you have these gigantic containers of wealth but there is no one captaining the ship who can do anything bold with it, because that requires shareholder approval but the underlying shareholders don't even know what companies they own much less have any idea what comes up for a vote. Meanwhile the fund managers are the most conservative people imaginable and are far more interested in stable returns than making the world a better place, so the entities that have the resources for moonshots don't have the stones to actually attempt them.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#8> In an emailed statement, Amazon outlined its sustainability initiatives and said, "Amazon’s sustainability team is using a science-based approach to develop data and strategies to ensure a rigorous approach to our sustainability work." The company also said, "We have a long term commitment to powering our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy." In my experience, "using a science-based approach" translat…
Is that supposed to be a problem?
Large data centers are strong candidates for renewable energy conversions because they need backup power regardless. If the "backup power" is supplied by renewables then that becomes the primary generation source and the power grid becomes the backup. Doing it that way is sustainable and profitable.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#9> In an emailed statement, Amazon outlined its sustainability initiatives and said, "Amazon’s sustainability team is using a science-based approach to develop data and strategies to ensure a rigorous approach to our sustainability work." The company also said, "We have a long term commitment to powering our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy." In my experience, "using a science-based approach" translat…
Is that supposed to be a problem? Large data centers are strong candidates for renewable energy conversions because they need backup power regardless. If the "backup power" is supplied by renewables then that becomes the primary generation source and the power grid becomes the backup. Doing it that way is sustainable and profitable.
I'm not sure what you mean.
It's arguably a problem when short-term profit seeking causes long-term damage.
Re: Amazon Shareholders Rejected Employees' Call to Respond to Climate Change
#10> In an emailed statement, Amazon outlined its sustainability initiatives and said, "Amazon’s sustainability team is using a science-based approach to develop data and strategies to ensure a rigorous approach to our sustainability work." The company also said, "We have a long term commitment to powering our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy." In my experience, "using a science-based approach" translat…
Is that supposed to be a problem? Large data centers are strong candidates for renewable energy conversions because they need backup power regardless. If the "backup power" is supplied by renewables then that becomes the primary generation source and the power grid becomes the backup. Doing it that way is sustainable and profitable.
Yes, but it doesn’t take long for people to start arguing that coal is clean and that diesel is green.