Target 3.9: Reduce deaths from hazardous chemicals and pollution
By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination
Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
Why shareholder democracy is necessary
Outdoor air pollution caused about 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2019, 89 percent of them in low- and middle-income countries. WHO names industry, transport and energy among the sectors whose emissions must be cut. In richer markets these are largely listed utilities, oil and gas producers, automakers and heavy manufacturers. Chemical exposure runs through producers such as 3M, whose PFAS contamination led to a 10.3 billion dollar settlement with US water systems in 2023. As You Sow's report Pesticides in the Pantry graded 17 major food companies on pesticide transparency and risk management, citing estimates of 10,000 to 20,000 farmworker pesticide poisonings in the United States each year. Lobbying is a documented obstacle. InfluenceMap finds Bayer, BASF and the industry body Cefic seeking to weaken the EU's REACH chemicals law, its Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive and its limits on PFAS. It also finds them opposing US measures under the federal laws that govern industrial chemicals and pesticides. Owners can change emissions and product conduct and press companies to bring their lobbying into line. In the low- and middle-income countries where most deaths occur, however, state-owned power, household solid fuels, open burning and unmanaged sanitation drive exposure. Owners supply a necessary input and can lift a documented obstacle in the EU and US, yet governments must act to deliver most of the outcome.
How this was scoredNecessary
Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes. Others must also act.
We have not yet written down the two answers behind this rating. Recording them on every item, so a reader can check the reasoning and not only the conclusion, is work in progress.
Every rating is the higher of two answers, one for what companies do and one for what they spend to stop the outcome, because the same vote reaches both. See the full method.
Sources
- Ambient (outdoor) air pollution, World Health Organization, 2024-10-24
- The European Chemical Sector's Influence on Biodiversity Policy, InfluenceMap, 2026-04
- 3M's Historic $10 Billion 'Forever Chemical' Payout Is Just The Tip of the PFAS Iceberg, TIME, 2023-06-23
- 2021 Pesticides in the Pantry: Transparency & Risk in Food Supply Chains, As You Sow, 2021
What civil society organizations are helping owners on this
Files proposals asking food and agribusiness companies to disclose pesticide use reductions in their regenerative agriculture programs, and publishes the Pesticides in the Pantry benchmark used in those engagements.
28% of General Mills Shareholders Vote in Support of Pesticide Disclosure, As You Sow, 2025-10
Co-filed the 2025 General Mills pesticide disclosure proposal and engages Kraft Heinz, General Mills and PepsiCo on reducing synthetic pesticide use in their supply chains.
Investors advocate for pesticide-free supply chains, Mercy Investment Services, 2026-04
4 campaigns on record
Adopt reduction strategies and risk assessments for synthetic pesticide use in agricultural supply chains and disclose progress.
Result: not stated in source
Investors advocate for pesticide-free supply chains, Mercy Investment Services, 2026-04
Issue a report disclosing if and how the company can incorporate pesticide use data in its regenerative agriculture program disclosures.
Result: Withdrawn after agreement
Issue a report disclosing if and how the company can incorporate pesticide use data in its regenerative agriculture program disclosures.
Result: Not approved; percentage not stated in source
Disclose the pesticide use reductions achieved through its regenerative agriculture program.
With Mercy Investment Services
Result: 28 percent in favor
28% of General Mills Shareholders Vote in Support of Pesticide Disclosure, As You Sow, 2025-10
Related subjects on other maps
How this rating was made
Every item on every one of our maps is read against one question: how far does this depend on the people who own companies voting their values? We answer it twice, once for what companies do and once for what they spend to stop the outcome, and take whichever answer is higher, since the same vote reaches both. The score carries its reasoning and its sources so that a reader can check it rather than take it.
- Pivotal. Owners voting their values can deliver most of the outcome.
- Necessary. Owners remove an obstacle nothing else removes, and others must also act.
- Helpful. Owners voting their values help, and others carry most of it.
- Independent. This moves without owners. Other levers carry it.
The advocacy record on this page holds only what a source we opened says happened. Where we searched and found nothing, the page says so rather than leaving a silence. Where a campaign names a filer the source does not name, it says that too. Ratings are ours; the list of subjects is UN Sustainable Development Goals's, and we link to their original.
How we score dependency, in full.