Behar says the goal of his organization, and others like it, is to help improve the companies with which it works, while it also improves environmental conditions. For instance, if a company reduces the amount of packaging it uses in basic operations, both the environment and the company's bottom line benefit, along with the firm's image among consumers. "Companies are waking up to this," he says.

That's not to say that all companies view shareholder proposals positively, of course. Some energy companies, especially, have been resistant to such a shareholder approach, Behar says.

Indeed, some experts, along with companies, question whether shareholder resolutions that focus on social goals have any value at all. "If they (the groups behind the proposals) want to get something done, they should engage in the political environment," advises Aneel Karnani, associate professor of strategy at the University of Michigan. "Get a law passed."

The resolutions that come forward often are vaguely worded and non-binding; what's more, often just a handful of companies are targeted. As a result, they are of limited effectiveness, he adds. "It's better to use government intervention to achieve social goals."

Karnani does support the use of shareholder resolutions for such issues as executive compensation, things tied directly to issues of corporate governance. In fact, shareholders should become even more active on these matters, he suggests. Still, he adds, "environmental issues are more effectively handled in the political arena."