Apple shareholders again reject proposal to diversify senior management
For the second year in a row, Apple shareholders on Tuesday voted against a proposal that would force the company to actively recruit "people of color" to high-ranking management positions and its board of directors.
Touched on briefly during yesterday's shareholder meeting in Cupertino, the shareholder proposal sought to increase diversity among the company's upper echelons.
Apple requested shareholders reject the proposal on the grounds that its "holistic view of inclusion and diversity" generates opportunity for underrepresented minorities within the tech community. Shareholders apparently agreed, voting overwhelmingly to oppose the proposal, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing published Wednesday.
The final tally saw nearly 2.83 billion shares representing 95 percent of the vote cast against the diversity proposal. Only 146 million votes were cast in favor of its ratification, while 135 million abstained. Brokerage held shares, which do not have the power to vote on proxy proposals, were at 1.42 billion shares this year.
With the initiative only capturing 6 percent of the vote, Apple has grounds to block the inclusion of similar proposals in future proxy votes for three years.
Tony Maldonado and Zevin Asset Management, who first lodged the suggested action in 2015 and managed to persuade Apple to put it to vote last year, believe Apple's recommendation in opposition ultimately quashed its success.
"Apple basically duped the investors, to be quite honest," Maldonado said in an interview with The Verge. "They conned 'em to say, 'Look, we're on top of it. Don't worry about it. Everything's fine.' However, I believe that shareholders don't have all information as to the background of the issue."
For its part, Apple deems current efforts to diversify its workforce sufficient. As evidenced by the company's regular diversity reports, however, the initiative is slow going.
In its most recent EEO-1 report filed in November, 73 of Apple's top 107 executives and senior officials and management were white males. Perhaps more telling, Apple added one Hispanic or latino employee and two Asian members to its top ranks over the trailing 12-month period. The report noted only three black or African American executives.
Apple believes the required government statistics are inferior to its own internal metrics on diversity.
"The EEO-1 has not kept pace with changes in industry or the American workforce over the past half century," the company notes on a webpage dedicated to workplace diversity. "We believe the information we report elsewhere on this site is a far more accurate reflection of our progress toward diversity."
Moving forward, Maldonado is looking to work around the three-year proviso, perhaps by incorporating specifics about a comprehensive diversity plan. Whether or not he will be successful in finding a loophole is unclear. More importantly, Maldonado needs to reach the vast majority of shareholders who voted against the measure twice in as many years.
"For some strange reason, I would say that shareholders have the belief that by accepting this proposal, the company would be forced to establish reverse discrimination policies," he said. "We just have to probably expand on the campaign on educating all shareholders, including institution shareholders, that this is more beneficial and at the end of the long run it will help us to improve our bottom line."
Touched on briefly during yesterday's shareholder meeting in Cupertino, the shareholder proposal sought to increase diversity among the company's upper echelons.
Apple requested shareholders reject the proposal on the grounds that its "holistic view of inclusion and diversity" generates opportunity for underrepresented minorities within the tech community. Shareholders apparently agreed, voting overwhelmingly to oppose the proposal, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing published Wednesday.
The final tally saw nearly 2.83 billion shares representing 95 percent of the vote cast against the diversity proposal. Only 146 million votes were cast in favor of its ratification, while 135 million abstained. Brokerage held shares, which do not have the power to vote on proxy proposals, were at 1.42 billion shares this year.
With the initiative only capturing 6 percent of the vote, Apple has grounds to block the inclusion of similar proposals in future proxy votes for three years.
Tony Maldonado and Zevin Asset Management, who first lodged the suggested action in 2015 and managed to persuade Apple to put it to vote last year, believe Apple's recommendation in opposition ultimately quashed its success.
"Apple basically duped the investors, to be quite honest," Maldonado said in an interview with The Verge. "They conned 'em to say, 'Look, we're on top of it. Don't worry about it. Everything's fine.' However, I believe that shareholders don't have all information as to the background of the issue."
For its part, Apple deems current efforts to diversify its workforce sufficient. As evidenced by the company's regular diversity reports, however, the initiative is slow going.
In its most recent EEO-1 report filed in November, 73 of Apple's top 107 executives and senior officials and management were white males. Perhaps more telling, Apple added one Hispanic or latino employee and two Asian members to its top ranks over the trailing 12-month period. The report noted only three black or African American executives.
Apple believes the required government statistics are inferior to its own internal metrics on diversity.
"The EEO-1 has not kept pace with changes in industry or the American workforce over the past half century," the company notes on a webpage dedicated to workplace diversity. "We believe the information we report elsewhere on this site is a far more accurate reflection of our progress toward diversity."
Moving forward, Maldonado is looking to work around the three-year proviso, perhaps by incorporating specifics about a comprehensive diversity plan. Whether or not he will be successful in finding a loophole is unclear. More importantly, Maldonado needs to reach the vast majority of shareholders who voted against the measure twice in as many years.
"For some strange reason, I would say that shareholders have the belief that by accepting this proposal, the company would be forced to establish reverse discrimination policies," he said. "We just have to probably expand on the campaign on educating all shareholders, including institution shareholders, that this is more beneficial and at the end of the long run it will help us to improve our bottom line."
Comments
*from a person of color.
Your view of this matter is so short sighted, narrow, and ignorant, I can't even begin to put it into a coherent sentence...
HR: Let's see... You're all equally qualified, so I'll check our March Diversity Quota. Talk amongst yourselves."
Seeking diversity (code for non-white guys) is a good thing if it means looking for the best and the brightest, and good fit for the organization in cultures not found in the stereotypical Old Boys Clubs etc. But at the end of the day the best and the brightest from all 'walks of life' still have to be the best and the brightest of all the candidates.
If a company has an infrastructure to support recruiting and cultivating second-place candidates in addition to first-place hires and wants to do so, great.
If not, sorry.
Now I know that Apple Retail is different from Apple Corporate, but if you look at Apple Retail, they hire all kinds of people, including ones that are disabled, or someone who has a defect, or even someone who has piercings, colored hair and tattoos galore! I think thats great! Let a person be who they are and as long as they're capable of performing their duties, then what does it matter. Corporate should be no different....
If Apple is denying access or opportunity because of someone's skin color, that would be, of course, a huge problem. Not to mention, against the law. Are you seriously suggesting that is the case? C'mon.