Right now we're in the middle of what is often called the UK's 'AGM season' - the spring months in which many of the largest multinational companies in the world hold their Annual General Meetings here in London.

AGMs are a place for shareholders to engage with the business of the company in which they hold shares. It is also an opportunity for them to hold the company board to account for the way they have managed their investments during the year.

AGMs have also long been a forum for a company’s environmental and social impacts to be raised with the board, providing an opportunity for those affected or concerned to raise awareness among shareholders of the activities and impacts of the company.

There is a long history of this work, particularly at the AGMs of mining or extractive companies; this year has been no different.  As well as the great success of the FairPensions-coordinated shareholder resolutions at the BP and Shell AGMs (more information can be found here, with an update provided on the outcome at BP here), the great work of many long-standing activist groups has continued – coordinating and facilitating the visits of people who have been negatively affected by company activities, so that they can make representations to that company.

Rio Tinto

At the Rio Tinto AGM last week, London Mining Network reports that several environmental and social issues were raised with the company board. 

Among the issues discussed was the treatment of employees in the United States, raised by a representation made by Mr Dave Irish, on behalf of over 500 Rio Tinto employees in Boron, California. Mr Irish challenged the board about new contract demands made of long-term, committed Rio Tinto employees by the company in negotiations.  It has been reported that Rio Tinto sought to agree new contracts which would, amongst other things, reduce job stability for long-term employees; require miners in dangerous occupations to work overtime; place restrictions on union membership amongst certain employees; and require workers to pay legal penalties, fines and damages for company violations of state and federal labour laws. Details of the alleged demands made by Rio Tinto can be seen here.

You can see Mr Irish's representation to the AGM, and the board's response to it, below:

Anglo American

Anglo American's AGM takes place this Thursday, where a major issue is expected to be the Pebble gold and copper mine in Alaska, and its impact on the local environment and indigenous communities.  A delegation from the Nunamta Aulukestai, a group representing eight local villages, is planning to attend on Thursday to raise serious concerns regarding the impact of the mine on local fish population and water in the area, and the effects that this will have on local communities and their lifestyles.

Large businesses in the UK and elsewhere are backing these concerned groups and individuals – six UK jewellers, including Goldsmiths and Beaverbrooks, have joined eight US retailers, led by Tiffany & Co, which have pledged not to source gold from the proposed mine. It’s clear that as well as being a serious problem in environmental terms, environmental impact at the Pebble mine has a direct bearing on the business of Anglo American at this project, in determining the available market for the mine’s product, as well as of course affecting the company’s reputation with retailers, governments and the public.

It's not just about business, but it is about business

On the one hand, this is about environmental and social justice – giving people who have been affected by a company's activities an opportunity to sidestep the barriers that often stand between them and the company at the highest level of decision-making, and have their voices heard by the company, by both directors and shareholders.

But this is also about the business of a company. Most companies now explicitly acknowledge the significant implications that environmental and social matters can have for their business.  Many companies provide extensive information detailing various of their activities and approaches to environmental and social concerns. This information is supposed to allow shareholders to make judgements about how adequately the company is addressing and managing these issues.

What the information and perspective provided to shareholders often lacks is balance. Where operations take place in geographically remote locations, company management has a high degree of control over the information that shareholders get about the company’s approach. Considerable barriers stand between shareholders and a fair view of how the company is approaching a given situation or issue on the ground, and the opportunity to see beyond the picture presented by the company is not always easy to find.

The representations made at AGMs by affected people provide an important opportunity for this monopoly on information to be challenged, and for a different view of reality to be presented to company shareholders.  The board have an opportunity to address and dispel these concerns raised by individuals. Shareholders can then make up their minds about the confidence they have that management is carrying out business on their behalf in a way with which they are satisfied, and whether they are making the right decisions to secure the interests of the company. This increased transparency can only be good for corporate governance and democracy within companies.