Apple's board gets the DEI and AI results it wanted at the annual shareholders meeting
The annual Apple shareholder meeting has ended for 2025, with owners Apple shares voting on a variety of proposals at the event. As usual, the results went Apple's way.
Apple Park
Apple holds an annual shareholder meeting to report back to shareholders on various topics about the company, and also to receive comments from the shareholders themselves. It is also the event where the voting results for various shareholder proposals are revealed.
Before the February 25 results, Apple issued its recommendations on the direction that shareholders should vote for some of the proposals. Apple typically gets its way most of the time, and 2025's event was no different.
Aside from proposals regarding board members, compensation, and other similar matters, Apple also has to field proposals submitted by outside parties. Those that are selected face shareholder votes.
Proposal 4: Report on Ethical AI Data Acquisition and Usage
The fourth proposal, concerning artificial intelligence, was submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center. With the potential for developers to extract data from copyrighted works, personal information shared online, and other proprietary commercial information, Apple has previously insisted it won't train models on private information and data sources in this way without permission.
However, since it has partnered with OpenAI, as well as apparently discussing a partnership with Meta and other companies in the AI field, there is supposedly a concern that inappropriate data sharing could be happening.
The proposal asked Apple to prepare an annual report to assess the risks to Apple's operation and finances, and to the greater public health, safety, and welfare. It should look into whether Apple has been unethical or improperly used external data in training AI models, and what steps Apple should take to mitigate against those risks.
In its proxy statement ahead of the shareholder meeting, Apple's board recommended shareholders voted against the measure, as Apple "already provides all the information requested regarding Apple's AI data privacy practices."
The board added that the proposal doesn't raise specific Apple Intelligence issues, but focused on OpenAI criticism instead.
Proposal 5: Report on Costs and Benefits of Child Sex Abuse Material-Identifying Software & User Privacy
The fifth proposal, from the American Family Association, demanded Apple prepare a transparency report on the costs and benefits of its decisions to create and use child sex abuse material (CSAM) identifying software. That report, once produced, should be publicly hosted on the Apple website.
The rationale behind the proposal were claims that Apple isn't doing enough to prevent the victimization of at-risk individuals. In one example cited in the proposal, Apple was named on the National Center on Sexual Exploitation's "Dirty Dozen" list for the second year in a row in early 2024.
A decision to reverse the implementation of NeuralHash, a program used to scan for CSAM while maintaining privacy, caused uproar among child safety watchdogs, and a lawsuit.
Separately, Apple was also accused of failing to block sexually-explicit content from being viewed or sent to users under the age of twelve, among other issues. This apparently goes against Apple's business model of being a "force for good."
The board recommended against the proposal, insisting Apple had "demonstrated its commitment to helping protect children in a changing online landscape and has developed innovative technologies like Communication Safety."
The board also believed that the current approach to child safety is "more appropriate than the universal surveillance suggested in the proposal, which could have serious implications for our users' human and civil rights globally."
Proposal 6: Request to Cease DEI Efforts
Garnering a lot of attention pre-event, the National Center for Public Policy Research requested that Apple considers abolishing its Inclusion & Diversity program, policies, department, and goals.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in SFFA V. Harvard that discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, there's a belief that the ruling could impact corporate Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.
With other firms scaling back or abandoning DEI, including Meta, it was claimed that Apple was still at financial risk, potentially to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.
The board recommended a vote against the proposal, as Apple already has a "well-established compliance program and the proposal inappropriately attempts to restrict Apple's ability to manage its own ordinary business operations, people and teams, and business strategies."
Proposal 7: Report on Charitable Giving
The seventh proposal, stemming from Wayne Franzten and represented by Inspire Investing, went after Apple's charitable activity. Its support for groups such as the Southern Property Law Center and the Center for American Progress, as well as the Human Rights Campaign, are being called out, due to their political work.
With accusations of being more interested in "bludgeoning mainstream politically conservative opponents" than upholding civil rights, the political actions are viewed in the proposal as being against Apple's claims it supports free speech and religious freedom.
It was asked that Apple report to shareholders annually with analysis on how the company's contributions impact its risks relating to "discrimination against people based on their speech or religious exercise."
Again, Apple's board advised a vote against the proposal, since its "well-established corporate donations program follows a strict internal governance and approval process." The proposal intended to "inappropriately restrict Apple's ability" to manage its operations in the field.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Nobody can please everyone all the time. It's within Mr. Frantzen's rights to voice his opinion as a shareholder; most adult Americans with a retirement account/pension plan are indirect shareholders of Apple anyhow. And it's within the rights of other Apple shareholders to vote down these type of proposals.
Mr. Frantzen is free to sell his AAPL shares and donate the net proceeds to whatever group he pleases. He is also free to donate his fully appreciated AAPL shares to most of the bigger charities (they all have stock donation programs since it's a tax break for donors) if he so chooses.
Since he attended the meeting, he is clearly a direct shareholder. There is no one holding a gun to his head saying he needs to own AAPL. A lot of these shareholder proposals really come from two-bit grandstanders who crave the limelight.
If you were building a deck on the back of your house and the ground under the deck was not level:
- Equity means you have to cut some of the deck posts to different lengths to compensate for the unequal ground.
- Equality means you cut all of the deck posts to the same length, resulting in a deck that is not level.
It's sad that some of the arguments that are being used to rescind DEI initiatives are based on the assumption that equity and equality are interchangeable.
If your brokerage firm balks, file a complaint with the SEC. Brokerages are required BY LAW to provide shareholders with proxy materials. And then find a new brokerage.
Best of luck.