Badger Meter, inc. | Achieving Racial Equity on the Board of Directors

Status
25.13% votes in favour
AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Company ticker
BMI:US
Resolution ask
Set targets or plans
ESG theme
  • Social
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Industrials
Company HQ country
United States
Supporting materials
Resolved clause
RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors report to shareholders within six months after the Company’s annual meeting, at reasonable expense excluding confidential information, with action steps to foster greater racial equity on the board.
Whereas clause
WHEREAS:

In the U.S., the lack of diversity on corporate boards of directors has become a significant concern for investors and companies. Though a focus on racial equity was fueled by country-wide racial justice protests in 2020, progress on boardroom diversity remains slow;

The Proponent has engaged Badger Meter (“the Company”) on persistent board diversity concerns and the potential negative effect on long-term share value since fall 2016. After a similar proposal garnered 85% of the shareholder vote at the 2021 annual meeting, the company added one racially diverse board member. While this is an important step forward, 89% of the expanded board still self-identifies as non-diverse by race or ethnicity and, to the Proponent’s knowledge, the Company has not set in place actionable plans to achieve greater board diversity;

Research has shown that diverse teams are beneficial in many ways, including a higher likelihood to “radically innovate and anticipate shifts in consumer needs and consumption patterns—helping their companies to gain a competitive edge” and likeliness to outperform industry peers on profitability over time. Importantly, it has also been found that the level of diversity matters, with a 48% performance differential between most and least diverse companies ;

Research has also demonstrated that the “critical mass” for diversity on boards is three or more. At this level, the diverse members can “cause a fundamental change in the boardroom and enhance corporate governance.” While this study focused on gender diversity on boards, the Proponent asserts its applicability to people of color as well and notes that the Company’s board has not met this critical mass level for gender diversity either;

The Proponent believes that committing to concrete, actionable steps to further diversify the board of directors would serve the long-term value of shareholders and the company.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

The Proponent suggests that among the strategies the Company could explore include, at board and management discretion, are: engaging a search firm for each board search, board diversity goals, requiring at least two candidates of color in each candidate pool, considering a board refreshment policy, examining the potential limits to increases in diversity from using current board member networks for recruitment, and other strategies that balance candidate qualifications and diversity. In defining “racial equity,” the Proponent suggests the Company use comparative statistics on either the general U.S. population diversity or other logical comparison such as the Company’s headquartering city, Milwaukee, WI.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Tareno AG For

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.