Investor pressure on Nike builds over garment workers' rights
Norway fund backs proposals on workers' rights, climate targets
Another supply chain proposal got 11.7% of votes last year
Investors frustrated with Nike over allegations of unpaid wages
By Helen Reid, Nicholas P. Brown and Simon Jessop
LONDON/NEW YORK, Sept 5 (Reuters) -Investor pressure on Nike NKE.N is building ahead of Tuesday's annual shareholder meeting, with Norway's sovereign wealth fund pledging to back a resolution demanding the company consider ways it can improve working conditions at garment factories.
Nike is struggling with sliding sales and also faces criticisms over its supply chain. Investment research firm MSCI downgraded its ESG (environmental, social and governance) rating for Nike in 2022 and 2023, and rates it as a "laggard" on supply chain labour standards.
The resolution proposed by a group of investors including Domini Impact Equity Fund says current approaches in the industry "often fail to identify and remedy persistent rights abuses such as wage theft, inadequate health and safety or gender-based violence".
Domini was among more than 60 investors last year to sign a joint letter to Nike urging it to pay $2.2 million in wages to workers at suppliers in Cambodia and Thailand whom rights groups said were denied severance pay owed to them after factory shutdowns during the pandemic. Reuters could not independently verify the allegations, and Nike has denied them.
In a statement, Nike said its corporate governance team had been in touch with all the co-filers of the resolution.
"We greatly value the opportunity to engage with and solicit feedback from our shareholders, and we believe that maintaining an open dialogue strengthens our approach to corporate governance practices and disclosures," it said.
The resolution reflects a push from some investors for Nike to create binding agreements with workers at factories and suppliers in countries where worker exploitation is a problem.
It asks Nike to consider whether binding agreements with workers would improve its ability to address human rights issues when sourcing from high-risk countries.
Nike sources from five factories in Pakistan, according to its own supply chain disclosures, yet it is not a signatory to the Pakistan Accord, a binding health and safety agreement between workers' unions and brands that peers including Adidas and Puma have signed.
'TOTAL SILENCE'
Several investors told Reuters that Nike's lack of response to the 2023 letter, and to requests for meetings, were concerning.
"The total silence is the thing that worries me," said Frank Wagemans, senior engagement specialist at Achmea Investment Management in the Netherlands. "We signed the joint investor letter last year, we also reached out to Nike ourselves and we didn't get a reply which was quite astonishing to me because supply chain is probably the key ESG topic for Nike."
The decision by Norway's fund, Nike's ninth biggest shareholder, went against recommendations by Nike's management for shareholders to reject the resolution.
Nike has also urged shareholders to reject a separate proposal from investor Tulipshare, which urges Nike to assess the effectiveness of its supply chain management.
Tulipshare made the same proposal at last year's shareholder meeting, where it won support from 11.7% of voters. Norway's fund has said it will not support the Tulipshare proposal.
Shareholder advisory firms Glass Lewis and ISS also recommended voting against both resolutions.
Frankfurt-based Union Investment said it would back both proposals.
"We would like to see concrete efforts to enhance Nike's understanding of gaps in its strategies to mitigate legal, reputational, and human rights risks," said Janina Bartkewitz, ESG expert and analyst at Union Investment.
"Protecting vulnerable workers is of paramount importance."
Marie Payne, responsible investment officer at Cardano in London, said new regulations like the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive increased the need for companies to strengthen supply chain practices and to report on their efforts.
If any of the proposals get 20% of votes or more, that would send a signal to Nike that these issues are important to shareholders, said Caroline Boden, director of shareholder advocacy at Mercy Investments.
"Part of the strategy is to get the attention of the company, but another part is to signal to other shareholders that there's a group of investors that perceives this issue as material, and which could pose further risk to the company," she said.
Nike vs large-cap peers Nike vs large-cap peers https://reut.rs/4e5cBLN
Reporting by Helen Reid and Simon Jessop in London, Nicholas Brown in New York; Editing by Mark Potter
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
