APPLE INC. | Civil rights and non-discrimination audit proposal at APPLE INC.

Status
1.40% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
AAPL
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
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders of Apple Inc. (“the Company”) request that the Board of Directors commission an audit analyzing the Company’s impacts on civil rights and non-discrimination, and the impacts of those issues on the Company’s business. The audit may, in the Board’s discretion, be conducted by an independent and unbiased third party with input from civil rights organizations, public-interest litigation groups, employees and other stakeholders – of a wide spectrum of viewpoints and perspectives. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential or proprietary information, should be publicly disclosed on the Company’s website.
Supporting statement
Tremendous public attention has focused recently on workplace and employment practices. All agree that employee success should be fostered and that no employees should face discrimination, but there is much disagreement about what non-discrimination means.

Concern stretches across the ideological spectrum. Some have pressured companies to adopt “Inclusion & Diversity” programs that seek to establish “racial/social equity,” which appears to mean the distribution of pay and authority on the basis of race, sex, orientation and ethnic categories rather than by merit.(1) Where adopted, such programs raise significant objection, including concern that the programs themselves are deeply racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory.(2)

Many companies have been found to be sponsoring and promoting overtly and implicitly discriminatory employee-training and other employment and advancement programs, including Bank of America, American Express, Verizon, Pfizer, CVS and Apple itself.(3)

This disagreement and controversy create massive reputational, legal and financial risk. If the Company is, in the name of equity, diversity and inclusion, committing illegal or unconscionable discrimination against employees deemed “non-diverse,” then the Company will suffer in myriad ways — all of them both unforgivable and avoidable.

In developing the audit and report, the Company should consult civil-rights and public-interest law groups — but it must not compound error with bias by relying only on left-leaning organizations. Rather, it must consult groups across the spectrum of viewpoints. This includes right-leaning civil-rights groups representing people of color, such as the Woodson Center(4) and Project 21,(5) and groups that defend the rights and liberties of all Americans, not merely the ones that many companies label “diverse.” All Americans have civil rights; to behave otherwise is to invite disaster.

Similarly, when including employees in its audit, the Company must allow employees to speak freely without fear of reprisal or disfavor, and in confidential ways. Too many employers have established company stances that themselves chill contributions from employees who disagree with the company’s asserted positions, and then have pretended that the employees who have been empowered by the companies’ partisan positioning represent the true and only voice of all employees. This by itself creates a deeply hostile workplace for some groups of employees, and is both immoral and likely illegal.

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.