Coca-Cola Caution: No ‘No Action’ Requests Filed for First Time Since 2020

18 March 2026

---

By Jack Grogan-Fenn

The Coca-Cola Company appears to have filed no ‘no action’ requests for the first time since 2020 despite changes from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) giving companies greater power to exclude shareholder proposals.

The beverage giant’s 2026 proxy statement released this week has confirmed that five shareholder proposals will be voted on at its 28 April AGM on topics spanning DEI, ingredients risks, sustainability and plastics packaging policy. This places Coca‑Cola among a small group of large US issuers that appear to be prioritising legal caution over the expanded discretion offered by the SEC revised ‘no action’ request approach. Several peers have already faced lawsuits this season after excluding proposals under the new rules.

Coca‑Cola’s approach stands out not only because of the absence of exclusion requests, but because the proposals span a familiar but increasingly contested mix of sustainability, DEI and anti‑ESG themes. While the company has recommended that shareholders vote against all five resolutions, its decision to let them proceed suggests an effort to manage legal and reputational risk in an unsettled regulatory environment.

Taken together, the absence of ‘no action’ requests and the breadth of proposals on the ballot positions Coca‑Cola as a useful case study in how large US issuers are recalibrating their approach to shareholder scrutiny amid regulatory uncertainty and rising legal risk.

No ‘No Action’ Requests

Coca-Cola had filed at least one ‘no action’ request with the SEC every year since 2020, including two during the 2025 proxy season. The SEC’s controversial shift in stance towards ‘no action’ requests for the full 2026 proxy season announced late last year means companies can block proposals without review from the Commission’s staff. The move risks hands unprecedented discretion to corporate management and threatens to sideline investor voices on key environmental and social issues.

The change was anticipated to heighten the litigation risk facing companies, something which has become a reality. AT&T, Axon, Chubb and PepsiCo are among the companies to have faced lawsuits after excluding proposals so far, with AT&T and PepsiCo having reversed course to let shareholders vote on the proposals in question and mitigate legal risk. Across the Atlantic, oil and gas giant BP could be set to face a lawsuit from shareholder Follow This for excluding a resolution

Some companies have opted to err on the side of caution regarding shareholder proposals in the light of the SEC’s ‘no action’ request shift, deciding to include resolutions in their proxy statements which they have previously looked to exclude. By doing this, firms do not expose themselves to any heightened litigation risk.

The SEC’s ‘no action’ request shift had also been forecast exacerbate the decline in the overall number of US shareholder proposals during the 2026 proxy season. The number of US resolutions had notably dropped last year, as showcased in Minerva Analytics’ recently published 2026 Proxy Season Preview. This prediction has already been proved right at some companies so far this year. However, the number of resolutions at Coca-Cola only slightly declined with the firm’s 2026 AGM set to have the joint-second highest number of proposals voted on in the past decade according to Minerva Analytics data.

Plastics Proposal

One of the proposals set for Coca-Cola’s 2026 AGM comes from anti-ESG proponent the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) which requests a report evaluating the company’s plastics packaging policies. The resolution states that initiatives undertaken by the company to reduce plastics pollution are “driven by an alleged ‘plastics pollution crisis’”. Plastics pollution is broadly considered a significant problem and worries about microplastics have especially increased in recent years.

The proposal makes three demands of the company. These are that it:
comprehensively analyses the environmental impact of plastics versus alternatives, including lifecycle emissions, energy usage, and recyclability; assesses the economic costs of replacing single-use plastics with higher-cost or heavier materials with recycled content inputs, and the implications for Coca-Cola’s supply chain and shareholders; and examines whether corporate policy targets the true pollution culprit – poor waste management – rather than demonizing plastics as a material.

Last May, the NLPC launched a similar campaign which questioned Colgate-Palmolive and Walmart on their plastic packaging policies. It claimed that recent increases in resolutions focusing on reducing waste in plastics packaging are “attacks on the hydrocarbons industry” and “fake environmentalism”, like the allegations levied in its Coca-Cola shareholder proposal.

Plastic pollution could well prove to be a topic which companies are keen to avoid scrutiny from shareholders on during the 2026 proxy season. For instance, Amazon is set to exclude a proposal focused on flexible plastic packaging from As You Sow following revised SEC rules being introduced last year which increased the support required to resubmit resolutions. The company intends to exclude at least six further proposals on topics including AI, DEI and lobbying.

DEI, Sustainability Scrutiny

Three of the other proposals are focused on ESG topics in DEI and sustainability. Pro-ESG proponent As You Sow has requested a report on the extent of the company’s DEI efforts, while there is one sustainability with a pro-ESG objective and another from an anti-ESG proponent. Green Century Equity Fund has requested a report on the company’s plans to increase sustainability disclosure that better demonstrate the effectiveness of the Company’s strategies in mitigating priority sustainability risks such as packaging, water stewardship and climate change. Meanwhile, noted anti-ESG proponent National Center for Public Policy Research has lodged a resolution requesting a sustainability committee by-law amendment a sustainability committee by-law amendment.

DEI has become an increasingly targeted by US policymakers and politicians, but anti-DEI proposals have so far secured little shareholder support as discussed in Minerva Analytics’ “Diversity Divergence” briefing released last month. A resolution from the NLPC at Coca-Cola’s 2025 AGM which requested the Board of Directors’ Talent and Compensation Committee to revisit its incentive guidelines for executive pay, to identify and consider eliminating discriminatory DEI goals from compensation inducements received just 1.1% of votes in favour from shareholders.

Sustainability disclosure is also a key issue for Coca-Cola’s shareholders, especially given that the company has previously faced a lawsuit that its campaigns to promote its sustainability efforts and goals amounted to greenwashing. It appears that this case is still yet to be resolved.

The combination of plastics, DEI and sustainability proposals set for Coca‑Cola’s 2026 AGM shows that the company is attempting to navigate rising legal risk and increasingly contested environmental and social scrutiny. For shareholders, provides an example that some companies are still willing to let their voices be heard amid an increasingly unsettled regulatory environment.

You can read more of our articles by clicking here.

Last Updated: 18 March 2026