Apple got everything it wanted at the annual shareholder meeting
Apple's annual shareholders' meeting has concluded and despite controversies and disagreements, this time it won support for all of the positions it held on every proposal.
Apple Park
The annual shareholders' meeting is a legal requirement for Apple, and the details of what will be discussed are filed -- and disputed -- long in advance. In this year's case, Apple had already agreed to a shareholder demand that it audit its labor practices ahead of this meeting.
That left nine separate proposals, including ones from Apple and from the shareholders. Going in to the meeting, Apple was recommending that all of its proposals should be approved, and that none of the shareholders' ones should.
Similarly, Apple has previously used Ernst & Young as its auditor, and it successfully proposed retaining the company once more.
Potentially a little more controversial was the Frequency of Say on Pay Votes. Shareholders get to approve, or not, the details of how Apple's executives are paid.
It isn't that every pay raise or stock change gets debated by the full list of shareholders, though. Instead, it was previously done as an annual overall vote, and Apple successfully got it to stay like that.
Apple's view had been that there was no need for such an annual audit, given the company's existing approach to pay and diversity. A majority of the shareholders' meeting was persuaded, and there will be no such audit.
Apple is unlikely to ever entirely cease working with China. But Apple successfully argued that it already provides exactly this information in its voluntary reporting, as well as its Securities & Exchange Commission filings.
Apple wanted this proposal rejected because it would place too prescribed limitations, and therefore potentially detract from the Board's functioning. Apple won this argument too.
Apple persuaded a majority of shareholders at the meeting that it already reports sufficiently adequately on pay, inclusion, and diversity.
Apple pointed out ahead of the meeting that no shareholders sought changes to the existing rules last year, and so it wanted to reject the proposal.
The company won that section of the meeting, too.
Read on AppleInsider
Apple Park
The annual shareholders' meeting is a legal requirement for Apple, and the details of what will be discussed are filed -- and disputed -- long in advance. In this year's case, Apple had already agreed to a shareholder demand that it audit its labor practices ahead of this meeting.
That left nine separate proposals, including ones from Apple and from the shareholders. Going in to the meeting, Apple was recommending that all of its proposals should be approved, and that none of the shareholders' ones should.
General business practices
The first two proposals, all by Apple, were regular business requirements and were even perfunctory. They were regarding the election of directors, and all nine nominated were already on Apple's board.Similarly, Apple has previously used Ernst & Young as its auditor, and it successfully proposed retaining the company once more.
Compensation
The third and fourth proposals were both made by Apple, and both regarded pay. Apple asked shareholders to approve its Executive Compensation plan, which was fundamentally the same as in previous years.Potentially a little more controversial was the Frequency of Say on Pay Votes. Shareholders get to approve, or not, the details of how Apple's executives are paid.
It isn't that every pay raise or stock change gets debated by the full list of shareholders, though. Instead, it was previously done as an annual overall vote, and Apple successfully got it to stay like that.
Civil rights
The fifth proposal discussed was the first to be posed by shareholders. All of the follIt is a Civil Rights and Non-Discrimination Audit Proposal, and at least some shareholders wanted an annual examination of Apple's impact on these issues.Apple's view had been that there was no need for such an annual audit, given the company's existing approach to pay and diversity. A majority of the shareholders' meeting was persuaded, and there will be no such audit.
Communist China Audit
A sixth proposal was also tabled by shareholders, and this one related to Apple's connections with China. Specifically, a number of shareholders wanted an annual audit that specifically reported on how much -- and in what ways -- Apple remains dependent on China.Apple is unlikely to ever entirely cease working with China. But Apple successfully argued that it already provides exactly this information in its voluntary reporting, as well as its Securities & Exchange Commission filings.
Greater communication with shareholders
The seventh proposal saw shareholders seeking a change in Board Policy. It regarded how -- and how often -- Apple board members may communicate with shareholders.Apple wanted this proposal rejected because it would place too prescribed limitations, and therefore potentially detract from the Board's functioning. Apple won this argument too.
Pay gaps
Separately to the executive compensation issues, shareholders also tabled a proposal regarding Racial and Gender Pay Gaps. Shareholder and activist investor Arjuna Capital claims that Apple's reporting ignores "structural bias" against women and minorities.Apple persuaded a majority of shareholders at the meeting that it already reports sufficiently adequately on pay, inclusion, and diversity.
Proxy access
The final proposal in the meeting regarded Shareholder Proxy Access Amendments. Proxy access concerns the right for shareholders of a company to propose candidates for board director, and in this case the proposal was that they should be able to nominate more than one candidate.Apple pointed out ahead of the meeting that no shareholders sought changes to the existing rules last year, and so it wanted to reject the proposal.
The company won that section of the meeting, too.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Wasn’t there one to oust Tim Cook as Chairman of the Board?
I do find it interesting how left-leaning Apple has always been (and Steve Jobs, and his wife currently), and yet most of the shareholder proposals are further left than Apple, prompting the board to not recommend shareholding voters go that far. Funny because that basically says, "We're touchy feely liberal so can like us, but not so liberal it harms our business." I once can truthfully say it is skin deep liberalism.
https://web.archive.org/web/20070929122118/http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/Old/s1067_89_gore_hpc.bill
We're very close to "I am sorry, I can't do that, Dave". And once that happens Apple will be losing a huge amount of business.
Imagine they got their will and Apple pays their employees primarily on the basis on diversity, and places competency second. I've been in the workplace long enough to know that that means all competent people - since they're not being valued - will take off. An incumbent like Apple already has a hard time retaining talent, as the best of the best prefer exciting startups with huge upside potential. This would be the end of Apple. Apple is also paying less than Google and Facebook, which IMO is a huge mistake. It's tradition from back when Apple was this cool upstart, pirate flag, renegade challenger to IBM, but now that Apple is IBM, that's no longer appropriate. They need to hand out the big checks now.
Do you want roads, working hospitals with safe medicine, airplanes that don’t fall from the sky, safe food, clean air and water? That’s not what out of control capitalism brings. A perfect example is the price of insulin, a perfectly easy and inexpensive drug to produce that has seen its price artificially inflated IN THE US ONLY to the point some people died because they could no longer afford it.
Sorry for the rant, please don’t post stupid things, thanks.