Stephen Withers
Friday, 09 January 2009 08:20
Opinion and Analysis
Page 3 of 4
The penultimate proposal is backed by more substantial shareholdings. While it is being made on behalf of an individual that owns just 84 shares, it is co-sponsored by the New York City Office of the Comptroller (over 2 million shares) and the Green Century Equity Fund (7950 shares).
It seeks a sustainability report from directors "describing corporate strategies regarding climate change, specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and addressing other environmental and social impacts such as toxics and recycling, as well as employee and product safety."
The board asserts that this is unnecessary as "The Company’s commitment to increased transparency regarding its social and environmental practices is evidenced by the reports and other data available on the Company’s website".
It's interesting to note that while the directors pointed to assertions that Apple was on track to eliminate PVC and brominated flame retardants (BFR) from products by the end of 2008, the company has been taken to task by Greenpeace for failing to meet that goal in the 17 in MacBook Pro, the first hardware release of 2009.
Apparently the MacBook Pro itself is both PVC and BFR free, both substances are still present in external items such as the charger and cables.
And finally there's a proposal from the AFSCME Employees Pension Plan (owner of over 21,000 shares) for a UK (or Australian) style shareholders' advisory vote on executive compensation.
(The AFSCME is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the country's largest public employee and health care workers union.)
"We believe that existing U.S. corporate governance arrangements... do not provide shareholders with sufficient mechanisms for providing input to boards on senior executive compensation," says the proposal.
A widespread criticism of the processes generally used to set executive compensation is that they typically involve comparisons with similar companies, and then the argument is made that compensation should be above average to reflect the presumed above average performance of the company's own executives.
Which companies does Apple consider to be its peers when it comes to executive compensation? Please
read on.
