Apple 2023 AGM: Five votes you should know about
Social and governance concerns to take centre stage at Apple’s upcoming AGM.
Five shareholder proposals are on the agenda at Apple’s upcoming AGM in March.
At the tech company’s previous AGM, two out of the six submitted shareholder proposals were passed, eventually setting in motion a civil rights audit and the removal of the company’s controversial employee concealment clauses.
This week, the vote roundup explores what’s at the core of this year’s shareholder proposals — from business ties with China, to the company’s proxy access rules.
Are Apple’s civil rights and non-discrimination efforts… discriminatory?
A proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCCPR) has asked Apple to audit its impact on civil rights and non-discrimination, and explore how these could affect Apple’s business.
Advising Apple against relying only on input from left-leaning organisations, NCCPR warns that inclusion and diversity programmes could actually discriminate against “non-diverse” employees.
Apple responded by saying that it is already undergoing a civil rights audit, and “does not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind”. The company highlighted existing safeguards, such as employee unconscious-bias training, and directed shareholders to resources such as its 2022 Environmental, Social, Governance Report.
Apple’s business relations with China questioned
In light of issues like China’s alleged human rights violations and its stance on the independence of Taiwan, the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is questioning Apple’s business ties with the country.
So, it is asking Apple to report annually on the nature and extent of its operational dependence on China.
In its response, Apple insisted that it already discloses data on its relationships with China, and reiterated that it does not tolerate forced labour. It also confirmed that none of its suppliers are based in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where China has been accused of committing genocide.
Apple directors should be more available, says Nia Impact Capital
In its proposal, Nia Impact Capital is asking Apple to adopt a policy that will require a Board member(s) be made available for discussion when a shareholder proposal is passed by a majority of non-insider shares.
The proposal follows Nia’s alleged unfruitful attempts at getting a meeting with a director, after its proposal on concealment clauses was approved by 50.4% of Apple shareholders last year.
Apple criticised the proposal for being too prescriptive, and stressed the importance of retaining the power to choose when, where, and who it sends to represent the company in these sessions.
Highlighting pay gap concerns
In its latest resolution, shareholder activist Arjuna Capital is asking Apple to report on median pay gaps across race and gender; including any risks that arise out of the gaps. Arjuna draws special attention to intersectionality, highlighting the disparate pay levels of women of colour.
Apple had a lot to say in response, leading with the fact that it already achieved gender pay equity globally in 2017. The company then expanded on its diversity reporting disclosures, inclusive workplace culture, CSR efforts, and Board oversight on inclusion and diversity.
Should Apple’s proxy access rules “be better”?
In practice, Apple’s proxy access rules only allow shareholders to nominate one candidate to the Board — something that Apple shareholder, James McRitchie, is not happy about. In his proposal, he says the practise deviates from Apple’s peers, and asserted that “Apple should be better”.
In his proposal, McRitchie put forward a bylaw amendment which would allow shareholders to nominate at least two directors under the proxy access rules.
In response, Apple highlighted that the newly-introduced universal proxy cards would allow shareholders to nominate as many directors as there are on the Board; negating the need for James’ proposal.
View the resolutions above in full on Apple’s proxy notice.
