Two years ago NLPC sponsored at least two dozen shareholder proposals at major U.S.-based corporations, nearly all of which were neutral-sounding fare that addressed governance issues, like transparency in companies’ charitable contributions and lobbying expenditures, or seeking to separate powers in leadership between the Chairman and CEO.
Ruth Saldanha/IMAGE: YouTube
But because we were new on the scene (at least regarding our sudden burst of many proposals), the investment media establishment seemed caught by surprise. When they dug in to see who these interlopers (us) were, they were aghast to learn that NLPC was — eek — conservative! Swinging immediately into action, investment research firm Morningstar decided to have one of its ESG cheerleaders, Ruth Saldanha, take a hatchet to our proposals by characterizing them as “anti-ESG,” even though multiple pro-ESG investors had brought identical proposals in the past. We complained to the investment analysis firm and requested a correction, which they denied, so we issued a press release that demolished Saldanha’s reporting and moved on.
We haven’t seen Ruth since, even though she’s still with the firm. And Morningstar had nothing to say about NLPC during the 2023 proxy season, despite us having at least as many proposals in number, with theoretically more controversial — if not “anti-ESG” — subject matter addressed in them.
But now Proxy Season 2024 is about to get started with Apple‘s shareholder meeting on Wednesday — and Morningstar is back! This time it’s the “editorial director for sustainability” covering us, Leslie Norton (pictured at top of page) and predictably her characterization of our Apple proposal (and those of two other conservative groups) is “anti-ESG:”
-
The National Center for Public Policy Research asks Apple to report on potential risks associated with omitting the words “viewpoint” and “ideology” from its written equal employment opportunity policy. Apple recommends voting against the proposal, saying that a report on the potential risks of omitting the words “viewpoint” and “ideology” would not “provide material additional information to shareholders.”
-
The American Family Association asks Apple to evaluate the standards and procedures Apple uses to curate app content on its various platforms and how Apple manages disputes between government interests and user rights. Apple recommends voting against the proposal, saying that it already provides information about apps and government orders.
-
The National Legal and Policy Center asks Apple to report on the congruency of its privacy and human rights policy positions, especially in war zones and under oppressive regimes. Apple recommends voting against the proposal, saying that it is “transparent about our approach to complex situations and prioritizing engagement; and our robust policies and disclosures are publicly available.”
The three proposals are “anti-ESG,” which are typically opposed to sustainability measures by companies. Often, these proposals “look very similar” to pro-sustainability ballot items, says Morningstar’s [Jackie] Cook.
So let me get this straight:
- NCPPR’s proposal opposing discrimination based on employee “viewpoint” and “ideology” is “anti-ESG;”
- AFA’s proposal opposing censorship initiated by government agencies against Apple’s customers is “anti-ESG;”
- NLPC’s proposal making Apple accountable for its human rights inconsistencies is “anti-ESG.”
Got it. Looks like Morningstar’s capability to analyze and explain shareholder proposals is only skin (color) deep, determined only by whose team you’re on.
And investors pay for this crap?
