Print
E-MailEric Shostal is Senior Vice President of Research and Engagement at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post is based on a Glass Lewis memorandum by Mr. Shostal, Kern McPherson, Courteney Keatinge, and Brianna Castro.
Summary of Changes for 2022
Glass Lewis evaluates these guidelines on an ongoing basis and formally updates them on an annual basis. This year we’ve made noteworthy revisions in the following areas, which are summarized below but discussed in greater detail in the relevant section of this document:
Board Gender Diversity
We have expanded our policy on board gender diversity. Beginning in 2022, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the nominating committee of a board with fewer than two gender diverse directors, or the entire nominating committee of a board with no gender diverse directors, at companies within the Russell 3000 index. For companies outside of the Russell 3000 index, and all boards with six or fewer total directors, our existing policy requiring a minimum of one gender diverse director will remain in place.
Our voting recommendations in 2022 will be based on the above requirements for the number of gender diverse board members. However, beginning with shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2023, we will transition from a fixed numerical approach to a percentage-based approach and will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board that is not at least 30 percent gender diverse at companies within the Russell 3000 index.
Additionally, when making these voting recommendations, we will carefully review a company’s disclosure of its diversity considerations and may refrain from recommending that shareholders vote against directors of companies when boards have provided a sufficient rationale or plan to address the lack of diversity on the board.
We have also replaced references in our guidelines to female directors with “gender diverse directors,” defined as women and directors that identify with a gender other than male or female.
State Laws on Gender Diversity
We have revised our discussion regarding state laws on diversity to include two sections regarding state laws on gender diversity and state laws on underrepresented community diversity. In addition to our standard policy on board diversity, we will recommend in accordance with mandated board composition requirements set forth in applicable state laws when they come into effect. We have removed references to any state’s individual laws. We will generally refrain from recommending against directors when applicable state laws do not mandate board composition requirements, are non-binding, or solely impose disclosure or reporting requirements in filings made with each respective state annually.
State Laws on Underrepresented Community Diversity
We have included a new section discussing state laws on underrepresented community diversity. In addition to board gender diversity, several states have also begun to encourage board diversity beyond gender through legislation. We will generally recommend in line with applicable state laws mandating board composition requirements for underrepresented community diversity or other diversity measures beyond gender when they come into effect.
Stock Exchange Diversity Disclosure Requirements
We have included a new section regarding our approach to a recent disclosure rule adopted by the Nasdaq stock exchange. On August 6, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure for Nasdaq-listed companies. Beginning in 2022, companies listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange will be required to disclose certain board diversity statistics annually in a standardized format in the proxy statement or on the company’s website. Nasdaq-listed companies are required to provide this disclosure by the later of (i) August 8, 2022, or (ii) the date the company files its proxy statement for its 2022 annual meeting. Accordingly, for annual meetings held after August 8, 2022, of applicable Nasdaq-listed companies, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee when the required disclosure has not been provided.
Disclosure of Director Diversity and Skills
We have revised our discussion on disclosure of director diversity and skills in company proxy statements. Beginning in 2022, for companies in the S&P 500 index with particularly poor disclosure (i.e., those failing to provide any disclosure in each of the tracked categories), we may recommend voting against the chair of the nominating and/or governance committee. Beginning in 2023, when companies in the S&P 500 index have not provided any disclosure of individual or aggregate racial/ethnic minority demographic information, we will generally recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee.
Environmental and Social Risk Oversight
We have updated our guidelines with respect to board-level oversight of environmental and social (E&S) issues. Beginning in 2022, Glass Lewis will note as a concern when boards of companies in the Russell 1000 index do not provide clear disclosure concerning the board-level oversight afforded to environmental and/or social issues. For shareholder meetings held after January 1, 2022, we will generally recommend voting against the governance committee chair of a company in the S&P 500 index who fails to provide explicit disclosure concerning the board’s role in overseeing these issues. While we believe that it is important that these issues are overseen at the board level and that shareholders are afforded meaningful disclosure of these oversight responsibilities, we believe that companies should determine the best structure for this oversight. In our view, this oversight can be effectively conducted by specific directors, the entire board, a separate committee, or combined with the responsibilities of a key committee.
The Role of a Committee Chair
We have revised our approach to the role of a committee chair in cases where there is a designated committee chair and the recommendation is to vote against the committee chair, but the chair is not up for election because the board is staggered. Beginning in 2022, in cases where the committee chair is not up for election due to a staggered board, and where we have identified multiple concerns, we will generally recommend voting against other members of the committee who are up for election, on a case-by-case basis.
Multi-Class Share Structures with Unequal Voting Rights
We have updated our approach to companies that have multi-class share structures with unequal voting rights. Beginning in 2022, we will recommend voting against the chair of the governance committee at companies with a multi-class share structure and unequal voting rights when the company does not provide for a reasonable sunset of the multi-class share structure (generally seven years or less).
Governance Following a Business Combination with a Special Purpose Acquisition Company
We have included a new section to address governance concerns at companies following a business combination with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC). We believe that the business combination of a private company with a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company facilitates the private entity becoming a publicly traded corporation. Thus, the business combination represents the private company’s defacto IPO. We believe that some cases warrant shareholder action against the board of a company that has completed a business combination with a SPAC within the past year.
In cases where Glass Lewis determines that the company has adopted overly restrictive governing documents, where, preceding the company becoming publicly traded, the board adopts a multi-class share structure where voting rights are not aligned with economic interest, or an anti-takeover provision, such as a poison pill or classified board, we will generally recommend voting against all members of the board who served at the time of the company becoming publicly traded if the board: (i) did not also submit these provisions to a shareholder vote on an advisory basis at the prior meeting where shareholders voted on the business combination; (ii) did not also commit to submitting these provisions to a shareholder vote at the company’s first shareholder meeting following the company becoming publicly traded; or (iii) did not provide for a reasonable sunset of these provisions (generally three to five years in the case of a classified board or poison pill; or seven years or less in the case of a multi-class share structure).
Director Commitments of SPAC Executives
We have included a new discussion of our approach to director commitments for directors when their only executive role is at a special purpose acquisition company. We believe the primary role of executive officers at SPACs is identifying acquisition targets for the SPAC and consummating a business combination. Given the nature of these executive roles and the limited business operations of SPACs, when a directors’ only executive role is at a SPAC, we will generally apply our higher limit for company directorships. As a result, we generally recommend that shareholders vote against a director who serves in an executive role only at a SPAC while serving on more than five public company boards.
Waiver of Age and Tenure Policies
We have revised our approach to boards waiving self-imposed age and/or tenure policies. Beginning in 2022, in cases where the board has waived its term/age limits for two or more consecutive years, Glass Lewis will generally recommend shareholders vote against the nominating and or governance committee chair, unless a compelling rationale is provided for why the board is proposing to waive this rule, such as consummation of a corporate transaction.
Clarifying Amendments
The following clarifications of our existing policies are included this year:
Overall Approach to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
We have expanded our discussion of environmental, social & governance initiatives in a new section titled Glass Lewis’ Overall Approach to ESG. Here we provide additional details of our considerations when evaluating these topics. To summarize, Glass Lewis evaluates all environmental and social issues through the lens of long-term shareholder value. We believe that companies should be considering material environmental and social factors in all aspects of their operations and that companies should provide shareholders with disclosures that allow them to understand how these factors are being considered and how attendant risks are being mitigated.
For a detailed review of our policies concerning compensation, environmental, social, and governance shareholder proposals, please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives, available at www.glasslewis.com/voting-policies-current/.
Shareholder Proposals
In the section titled Governance Structure and the Shareholder Franchise, we have added a sub-section titled Shareholder Proposals, summarizing our existing approach to analyzing these proposals. Specifically, we evaluate all shareholder proposals on a case-by-case basis with a view to promoting long-term shareholder value. While we are generally supportive of those that promote board accountability, shareholder rights, and transparency, we consider all proposals in the context of a company’s unique operations and risk profile.
Please refer to our comprehensive Proxy Paper Guidelines for Environmental, Social & Governance Initiatives for additional detail.
Linking Executive Pay to Environmental and Social Criteria
We have outlined our current approach to the use of E&S metrics in the variable incentive programs for named executive officers. Glass Lewis highlights the use of E&S metrics in our analysis of the advisory vote on executive compensation. However, Glass Lewis does not maintain a policy on the inclusion of such metrics or whether these metrics should be used in either a company’s short- or long-term incentive program. As with other types of metrics, where E&S metrics are included, as determined by the company, we expect robust disclosure on the metrics selected, the rigor of performance targets, and the determination of corresponding payout opportunities. For qualitative E&S metrics, the company should provide shareholders with a thorough understanding of how these metrics will be or were assessed.
Short- and Long-Term Incentives
Our guidance related to Glass Lewis’ analysis of the short-term incentive awards has been clarified to note that Glass Lewis will consider adjustments to GAAP financial results in its assessment of the incentive’s effectiveness at tying executive pay to performance. As with the short-term incentive awards, our analysis of long-term incentive grants also considers the basis for any adjustments to metrics or results. Thus, clear disclosure from companies is equally important for long-term incentive awards.
Grants of Front-Loaded Awards
We have clarified our guidance related to Glass Lewis’ analysis of so-called front-loaded incentive awards. Specifically, while we continue to examine the quantum of award on an annualized basis for the full vesting period of the awards, Glass Lewis also considers the impact of the overall size of awards on dilution of shareholder wealth.
Authorizations/Increases in Authorized Preferred Stock
With regard to authorizations of requested increases in authorized preferred stock, we have clarified that we will generally recommend voting against preferred stock authorizations or increases, unless the company discloses a commitment to not use such shares as an anti-takeover defense or in a shareholder rights plan, or discloses a commitment to submit any shareholder rights plan to a shareholder vote prior to its adoption.
Federal Forum Provisions
We have clarified our approach to companies that have adopted federal exclusive forum provisions designating federal courts as the sole jurisdiction for matters arising under the Securities Act of 1933. When boards have adopted federal exclusive forum provisions without seeking shareholder approval, we will generally take the same approach as when boards have adopted exclusive forum provisions designating state courts as exclusive jurisdiction for certain matters and will generally recommend voting against chairs of governance committees.
Governance Following an IPO, Spin-off or Direct Listing
We have clarified our approach to director recommendations on the basis of post-IPO corporate governance concerns to include references to companies that have gone public by way of direct listing. When evaluating governance following a direct listing, we will apply the same approach as our existing policy on IPOs and spinoffs.
The complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.
