Xylem inc. | Eliminating Discrimination through Inclusive Hiring at Xylem Inc.

AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
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
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare a report, at reasonable cost, omitting proprietary information, and published publicly within one year from the annual meeting date, analyzing whether Xylem’s hiring practices related to people with arrest or incarceration records are aligned with publicly stated DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) statements and goals, and whether those practices may pose reputational or legal risk due to potential discrimination (including racial discrimination) claims.
Whereas clause
In recent decades, U.S. incarceration rates have skyrocketed, and Black and Brown people are incarcerated more often and for harsher sentences than White people.[1] People with arrest or incarceration records face enduring stigma that negatively impacts employment opportunities;
However, fair chance employment (actively recruiting people with criminal records) can benefit companies, communities, and the economy. The tight labor market means that employers must “not only rewrite the hiring and retention playbook” but also cast a wider net by diversifying the talent pool;
At the same time, companies strive to fulfill racial equity commitments. Given the disproportionately high incarceration rates of Black and Brown people in the U.S. and case study evidence that formerly incarcerated employees can have lower turnover and better attendance and disciplinary records compared to their peers without criminal records, recruiting fair chance employees can help ease labor market constraints while also advancing racial equity goals;
Fair chance employment best practices include:
Resolving technical barriers like algorithmic elimination of applicants with employment gaps;Creating internship and training programs with direct hire potential;Hosting job fairs targeting fair chance jobseekers;Removing blanket exclusions on specific crimes beyond legal requirements;Ensuring that reviewers are trained in properly reading criminal records and using best practice standards for individualized reviews;Partnering with advocacy organizations that specialize in job preparation, entrepreneurship, in-prison education, and/or career pathways for incarcerated people;Routinely examining anonymized data on fair chance hires to ensure racial and gender equity;Destigmatizing the issue of criminal records throughout the entire workforce;Creating employee support structures specifically for justice-involved individuals;Fair chance employers are not blind to criminal records – hiring managers still perform background checks and consider suitability – but these employers commit to fairer hiring practices that consider the effects of stigma and bias against people with criminal records;
Excluding qualified individuals because of criminal records could harm the company’s competitive advantage and reputation. Because people with criminal records are statistically more likely to be Black or Brown, there is an inherent risk that people’s status as formerly incarcerated may serve as a proxy for race and therefore pose a risk impermissible discrimination an if recruiting practices otherwise present as blind to race and ethnicity;
Shareholders believe that company value would be well-served by examining whether revisions to company practices related to recruiting formerly incarcerated individuals could decrease future risks related to discriminatory hiring.

[1] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/

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.