DEERE & CO

The proposal asks Deere’s Board to evaluate and publish a report, within one year and excluding confidential information, assessing the current and expected return on investment (ROI) of the company’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. The proponent requests the analysis account for potential litigation and reputational risks and criticizes Deere for not disclosing the dollar costs or ROI projections associated with recent GHG initiatives. The supporting statement cites examples of SEC enforcement in alleged greenwashing cases and argues a public ROI assessment would help investors evaluate financial impacts and regulatory risk. The proponent frames the requested report as necessary for investor valuation and to assess whether the GHG program aligns with shareholder interests.

This proposal asks Deere to permit shareholder action by written consent, enabling shareholders entitled to cast the minimum votes necessary to authorize an action at a meeting to instead take that action by written consent. The proponent argues this right is especially important because Deere’s bylaws require a 25% ownership threshold and a one‑year holding period to call a special meeting, which the proponent views as restrictive compared with typical 10% thresholds. The intent is to provide shareholders a more immediate mechanism to effect corporate actions and to incentivize management responsiveness. The proposal would remove the one‑year holding restriction and allow any appropriate corporate topic to be initiated by the requisite shareholders via written consent.

This proposal requests that Deere’s Board conduct an evaluation and publish a report, within one year, assessing the risks associated with not permitting faith‑based business resource groups (BRGs), excluding proprietary and confidential information. The supporting statement argues BRGs support religious inclusion, employee engagement, and talent attraction, and notes that many large companies lack faith‑based BRGs despite broad religiosity among the public. The proponent cites legal developments and guidance related to religious accommodation and expression as part of the rationale for evaluating legal and reputational risk. The requested report would examine reputational, human capital, operational, and legal risks and other relevant considerations connected to faith‑based BRGs.