NLPC presented a shareholder proposal today at Colgate-Palmolive Company‘s 2025 annual meeting of shareholders that asked the company to revisit its plastics packaging policies, to implement serious scientific and economic analyses instead of following liberal agenda priorities.
The company’s board of directors opposed our proposal, as explained on page 68 of its proxy statement.
NLPC’s response to the board’s opposition statement was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last month. Presenting the proposal at the meeting was Paul Chesser, director of NLPC’s Corporate Integrity Project. An audio recording of his presentation can be found here, and a transcript of his three-minute remarks follows:
Good morning.
Proposal 5 questions the justification for Colgate-Palmolive’s plastics policies.
In the proxy statement, Colgate attributes its commitment to the so-called “circular economy” on plastics to its pledge with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Who is Ellen MacArthur (pictured above), you may ask?
Ellen MacArthur, yacht racer/PHOTO: Ellen MacArthur Foundation
Ellen MacArthur an accomplished yacht racer who has sailed around the globe a few times, so good for her.
But by her own admission, she could not get into college because her grades weren’t good enough.
So this boat-racer, without any formal education about environmental science, chemistry, economics, or any other science- or statistics-based expertise, has been upheld as the authority on what multi-billion dollar corporations like Colgate decide is the best way to manufacture and package their products.
Let’s address some facts on plastics.
The Company’s pride right now is its new, recyclable toothpaste tube.
That doesn’t mean that it gets recycled.
No recycling facilities will take it, so it goes to the landfill or to the incinerator.
Colgate is now being sued for this false claim.
But how about a case study of something that is actually recycled?
Using a Colgate-backed online evaluation tool, we compared the life cycle analysis of a “hard to recycle” fully virgin plastic container versus a “recycle ready” version that contains 25-percent post-consumer recycled content.
Due to the density differences between the “recycle-ready” versus the “hard-to-recycle” material, this substitution produces several negative environmental outcomes.
For the recycle-friendly version, while eight percent of the packaging could be recycled again, the additional pollution result by weight was far worse than the “hard-to-recycle” option.
According to Colgate’s own favored plastics analytical tool, the recycle-friendly version of the packaging created 77 percent more pollution than the virgin plastic container.
41 percent more of the recycle-ready packaging, by weight, would end up at landfills.
34 percent more of the recycle-ready packaging, by weight, would end up being incinerated.
And greenhouse-gas emissions showed an INCREASE for the “recycle friendly” option, due to its extra weight.
As you can see, the costs to the company for shifting to this type of production are significantly higher for recycle-ready packaging.
You can be certain these kinds of costs and outcomes apply to other types of plastics packaging.
Thus Colgate pays significantly more for feel-good measures that accomplish no benefit for the environment.
The Company must undertake serious scientific and economic analysis of its plastics policies, instead of following a fact-free, activist-driven agenda.
Please vote FOR Proposal 5.
Read NLPC’s shareholder proposal for the Colgate-Palmolive annual meeting here.
Listen to Paul Chesser’s presentation of the proposal at the meeting here.
Read NLPC’s response, filed with the SEC, to the company’s opposition to our shareholder proposal, here.
