With U.S. companies trailing international competitors on emissions disclosure and reduction, stockholders are ratcheting up the pressure. At the close of the 2007 season of shareholder meetings, more than 40 shareholder-submitted proposals related to climate change have been introduced at U.S. companies, up from last year and nearly twice the number filed five years ago.

Shareholder resolutions, often introduced by socially responsible investment funds, religious groups, pension funds and non-profits, can be voted on by all stockholders but are non-binding. Yet they can still send a strong message to management and draw public attention, and companies often take action after vote totals become significant, or to avoid a showdown.

This year, 19 climate change resolutions were voluntarily withdrawn before coming to a vote, based on agreements between corporate management and the filers. One of them was at ConocoPhillips:

[I]nvestors including Trillium Asset Management Corp. and North Carolina Retirement Systems withdrew a proxy resolution calling for the oil and gas titan to explain how it will develop renewable energy sources. The move - which headed off a clash between shareholders and the Houston-headquartered behemoth - came in response to the company's announcement that it would support a mandatory national framework to address greenhouse gas emissions, and that it joined a business-environmental group [the U.S. Climate Action Partnership] dedicated to new laws curbing emissions. The investors pulled their ballot measure the same day the company made the announcement. - Market Watch

Other resolutions were withdrawn at Prudential Financial and The Hartford Financial Services group:

Preempting proxy votes, the Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. became the latest insurers to commit to fully responding to a questionnaire about climate risk each year. The questionnaire is sent to companies by the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is composed of institutional investors. The insurers will also disclose their assessment of the business impacts of climate change. - Market Watch

Seventeen climate change resolutions were voted on by shareholders in 2007, and a record five of these resolutions drew more than 30% support. A resolution at notorious climate change denier ExxonMobil, calling for the company to set goals to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, got 31% support. Institutional Shareholder Services notes that "most social and environmental proposals historically have received less than 15 percent support, so this year's results suggest that investors are becoming more concerned about companies' ongoing environmental footprint."

And the content of the resolutions is changing, too:

"The terms of the climate debate have changed quickly for companies in carbon-intensive sectors - from whether climate change is occurring and requires disclosure, to whether or not a company's awareness is translating into concrete actions - and this year's proxy season illustrates that," said Michael Pryce-Jones, Senior Social Research Analyst for PROXY Governance. "For example in 2005, less than 6% of GM shares were cast in favor of a proposal calling for more climate-related disclosure. This year, a proposal asking management to publicly adopt GHG reduction goals received 29% support.... Proponents are pushing the climate debate higher." - Social Funds

Do you hold stock in any of these companies? Do you know how your shares were voted? If you hold stock directly, you should get a ballot in the mail (or notification about online voting) every winter or spring; if your stock is in a mutual fund (or is held in your pension) the administrators vote for you. Mutual funds focusing on socially responsible investing (SRI) usually vote to support the environment - and often are the ones filing the resolutions and pushing companies to make agreements. But mainstream mutual funds are much less likely to do so; a recent analysis found that on average they supported only 13.8% of resolutions on environmental and social responsibility in 2006, and big fund families like Fidelity and Vanguard support virtually none of them. Does your mutual fund vote the way you would?