APPLE INC. | Civil Rights Audit

53.55% votes in favour
AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) urge the Board of Directors to oversee a third-party audit analyzing the adverse impact of Apple’s policies and practices on the civil rights of company stakeholders, above and beyond legal and regulatory matters, and to provide recommendations for improving the company’s civil rights impact. Input from civil rights organizations, employees, and customers should be considered in determining the specific matters to be analyzed. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential or proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on Apple’s website.
Supporting statement
Recently, the racial justice movement together with the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have focused the public’s and policy makers’ attention on civil rights and gender and racial equity issues. Apple lists diversity, inclusion, and accessibility among its key values. It committed $100 million to a new racial justice initiative following the racial justice protests in 2020. The company has also promoted its longstanding gender and racial pay equity policy.

Yet, it is unclear how Apple plans to address racial inequality in its workforce. The company states that the overall number of Hispanic and Black employees in leadership increased by 90% and 60%, respectively, from 2014-2020, but Apple currently has no Hispanics and only one Black member on its executive team. Further, Hispanic and Black tech employees only account for 8% and 4% of all tech employees, respectively.

Apple shut down three employee run surveys related to pay equity that focused on minorities and women. Nonetheless, achieving true racial and gender equity goes beyond just pay issues. In August 2021, Apple placed a female engineering programming manager on indefinite leave after she accused the company of sexism, harassment, and retaliation. Additionally, Apple hired Antonio García Martínez, who had a history of misogynistic and racist commentary, as an advertising platform engineer. While he was fired after a highly publicized employee petition, we believe that a civil rights audit could have identified the concerns raised by Apple’s employees far earlier.

Civil rights issues raised by Apple’s products and services are also concerning. Privacy experts, over 90 global policy organizations, and Apple’s own employees have raised concerns over the company’s newly developed child sexual abuse material technology, noting it could be subject to abuse and potential misuse by law enforcement. Further, targeted advertising has a history of racist and sexist impacts. Apple’s advertising business increased from $300 million in 2017 to $3 billion in 2021. Given the importance of advertising to Apple’s future profitability, we believe that it should be subject to rigorous third-party analysis of its racial and gender impacts.

A civil rights audit will help Apple identify, remedy, and avoid adverse impacts on its stakeholders. We urge Apple to assess its behavior through a civil rights lens to obtain a complete picture of how it contributes to social and economic inequality.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.