SVB FINANCIAL GROUP | Racial equity audit

Status
Omitted
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
7
Resolution details
Company ticker
SIVB
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
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Resolved: Shareholders of SVB Financial Group (“SVB”) urge the board of directors to oversee a third-party audit (within a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost) which assesses and produces recommendations for improving the racial impacts of its policies, practices, products, and services, above and beyond legal and regulatory matters, outside of the Access to Innovation program. Input from stakeholders, including civil rights organizations, employees, and customers, should be considered in determining the specific matters to be assessed. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential/proprietary information, should be published on SVB’s website.
Supporting statement
"Racial gaps cost the United States economy an estimated $16 trillion over the past twenty years.1 Racial equity audits engage companies in a process that internal actions may not replicate, potentially unlocking value, uncovering blind spots, and examining the external impact a company has on communities of color. State Street, BlackRock, Citi, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo have committed to such audits.
SVB publicly committed to a racial equity audit limited to its Access to Innovation program in 2022. We believe the company would benefit from expanding the scope to parts of the business that have more financial and operational impact.
SVB has set diversity goals for 2025, but it is unclear how it plans on mitigating bias in business processes until then. The leadership teams of SVB Capital (its venture fund investments arm) and portfolio companies appear to significantly lack representation from underrepresented communities. With only 2.6 percent of funding going to Black and Latino founders in 2020, racial bias in investment decisions may be present through the value chain.2 Given SVB Capital accounted for nearly a quarter of SVB’s 2021 net income, we believe it is important to rigorously assess the potential impact of this business line.3
Moreover, there appear to be zero named executive officers and only one director on the board who are people of color.4 Multiethnic perspectives reportedly reduce groupthink, which is correlated with better decision-making and risk management.5
Furthermore, an audit of the investment due diligence process and political activities may help ensure SVB does not advance products or legislation that cause racial harm. For example, venture-backed startups have faced scrutiny for racial insensitivity and reinforcement of racial hierarchies.6 SVB is also a member of the Securities Industry Financial Markets Association, which lobbied most frequently against the Wall Street Tax Act of 2019.7 Supporters argue that the revenue raised through the tax could fund measures such as student loan forgiveness and the Green New Deal, which could mitigate impacts of systemic racism.8
We urge the company to conduct a full racial equity audit to examine its total impact and help dismantle systemic racism.
1 https://ir.citi.com/NvIUklHPilz14Hwd3oxqZBLMn1_XPqo5FrxsZD0x6hhil84ZxaxEuJUWmak51UHvYk75VKeHCMI%3D2 http://about.crunchbase.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/2020_crunchbase_diversity_report.pdf3 https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000719739/4b031df0-621a-429e-95ec-1ba5f88b029d.pdf4 https://s201.q4cdn.com/589201576/files/doc_downloads/2022/SVB-2021-Form-DEF14A-(1).pdf5 https://illinoistreasurergovprod.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/twocms/media/doc/il%20treasurer%20white%20paper%20- %20the%20investment%20case%20for%20board%20diversity%20(oct%202020).pdf6 https://thenextweb.com/news/bodega-problem-disruption, https://www.insider.com/ai-startup-sanas-accent-translation-technology-call-center- racism-2022-97 https://my.sifma.org/Directory/Member-Directory, https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs//summary?id=D0000002298 https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/463361-a-wall-street-tax-can-help-pay-for-bold-policy-solutions/; https://www.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2019/05/bernie-sanders-introduces-plans-for-wall-street-speculation-tax/, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-have-a-degree-but-who-do-you-know-why-student-debt-is-a-racial-justice-issue-2020-06-15; https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/green-new-deal-climate-justice.php"

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.