Monthly Archives: February 2024

DEI in an era of unrest: a few truths and a path forward

Faten Alqaseer and Lisa R. Davis are Senior Managing Directors, and Rose James is a Senior Associate at Teneo. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Alqaseer, Ms. Davis, and Ms. James, with contributions from Martha Carter, Matt Filosa, and Kensey Biggs. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite (discussed on the Forum here) by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, and David Weiss; and Duty and Diversity (discussed on the Forum here) by Chris Brummer and Leo E. Strine Jr.

Anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) activity is not new, but it is intensifying; emboldened by the Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action in higher education and the divisive nature of current politics and policy.

Corporations are navigating lawsuits, retraction letters, calls for EEOC investigations, and considering what a possible second Trump Administration could mean for their DEI initiatives. Even so, Teneo research found that half of U.S. CEOs are continuing or accelerating their DEI programs. Fifteen percent are scaling back their programs and the remaining companies—over one-third—are taking time to re-evaluate. Below is an analysis of the landscape with three critical considerations for businesses as they navigate and review DEI policies and practices.

READ MORE »

2024 Proxy Advisor Guidelines: What Companies Need to Know Heading into the 2024 Proxy Season

Elizabeth K. Bieber and Sarah Ghulamhussain are Partners, and Peter Liddle is a Law Clerk at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP. This post is based on their Freshfields memorandum.

The two most influential proxy advisor firms, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis & Co. (Glass Lewis), updated their annual voting policies for annual shareholder meetings in 2024. Both proxy advisory firms’ voting guidelines are currently in effect, with ISS’ effective for shareholder meetings on or after February 1, 2024, and Glass Lewis’ effective for shareholder meetings on or after January 1, 2024. In a departure from prior years, ISS had minimal changes to its voting policies this year with updates only to executive compensation related matters. Glass Lewis, by comparison, took a substantially more expansive approach, focusing on revisions related to executive compensation, cybersecurity considerations and climate and ESG oversight issues for 2024.

READ MORE »

2024 Proxy Season Preview

Mike Tae is Co-President of Investor Communication Services, and Chuck Callan is SVP of Regulatory Affairs at Broadridge.

Overview

Looking Back: Recent proxy seasons[1] were characterized by greater numbers of shareholder proposals along with declining levels of shareholder support for them.[2] As a category, support for environmental and social proposals declined to a five-year low from a highwater mark in 2021. Moreover, a greater number of directors and say-on-pay proposals failed to attain majority support last season than at any time in the past five seasons.[3] Technology innovations opened additional avenues for participation in corporate governance. Virtual shareholder meetings continued as the venue of choice for many companies despite return-to-work policies, end-to-end vote confirmation was (and continues to be) provided for most routine shareholder meetings, and proxy voting “apps” were launched for retail shareholders.

Looking Ahead: Technology innovations and the SEC’s new rules for Universal Proxy will further democratize corporate governance in the 2024 proxy season, adding ways to inform and engage investors. Electronic voting platforms and processing for Universal Proxy contests are up and running, making it easier and clearer for shareholders to pick and choose directors from competing slates. Pass-through voting “pilots” are going mainstream as the largest asset managers provide investors with a voice on how shares of portfolio companies are voted. Based on recent data over the past 8 months and the first 6 weeks of 2024, the trend of increasing numbers of environmental and social proposals, along with declining shareholder support for them, could continue this proxy season. The SEC’s final action on climate disclosure is overdue and new rules are expected to be voted on soon.

READ MORE »

Technology Advances Facilitate Pass-Through Voting

Elizabeth Kantrowitz is Head of Client Success for Investor Solutions, and Meghan Orifici is Regional Head of Client Success at Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Kantrowitz and Ms. Orifici.

As a growing number of investment managers commit to investment stewardship initiatives to facilitate greater shareholder democracy, these fund complexes require a solution that will allow underlying clients, most notably asset owners, to direct their votes in a manner they choose.

READ MORE »

Additional Proxy Vote Disclosure is Coming for the 2024 Proxy Season

Nichol Garzon-Mitchell is Chief Legal Officer and Senior Vice President of Corporate Development at Glass, Lewis & Co. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Garzon-Mitchell.

As this year’s U.S. proxy season gets underway, attention turns, as always, to the proxy contests and shareholder proposals that will draw business press headlines over the coming months. Behind the headlines, however, this season will be notable for a different reason. For institutional investors, the 2024 season will usher in a new level of transparency for their proxy voting. The reason – SEC changes to Form N-PX, the little-known form that U.S. funds have used to report their proxy votes since 2003.

In late 2022, in one of the first completed rule initiatives of Chair Gensler’s tenure, a divided SEC passed the most significant changes to Form N-PX in 20 years. By the end of this summer, the new requirements will have gone into effect and the first round of filings on the enhanced form will have been made, providing a new window into how both funds and a range of other institutional investors voted during the 2024 season.

READ MORE »

DEI on the Corporate Ballot: Strive’s Predictions for 2024

Justin Danhof is Executive Vice President, Head of Corporate Governance at Strive Asset Management. This post was prepared for the Forum by Mr. Danhof. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Perils and Questionable Promise of ESG-Based Compensation (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita; Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite (discussed on the Forum here) by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, and David Weiss; and Will Nasdaq’s Diversity Rules Harm Investors? (discussed on the Forum here) by Jesse M. Fried.

After nearly a decade of virtually unchallenged support for diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives, 2023 saw the first significant criticism of the movement among investors, policymakers and the American public. It also brought increased scrutiny of the ESG movement and stakeholder capitalism more broadly. As a result, the 2024 proxy voting season will likely provide a test case for shareholder activists, asset managers, and companies alike. Strive’s analysis of the proxy voting landscape and expectations for this year’s voting season—including how we got here and what we see ahead—are laid out below. 

READ MORE »

Weekly Roundup: February 16-22, 2024


More from:

This roundup contains a collection of the posts published on the Forum during the week of February 16-22, 2024

Approaching Shareholder Engagement in 2024


S&P 500 CEO Compensation Increase Trends


Compensation Design Calls for Radical Simplification


Securities Law: Year in Review


A Theory of the REIT


CCEOs Should Address 7 Questions When Considering a Human Rights Policy


7 Ways Companies’ Cyber-Related Governance Disclosures Will Evolve Post-SEC Rule Change


Common Venture Capital Investors and Startup Growth



Chancery Invalidates Elon Musk’s $55.8 Billion Equity Compensation Package


Incorporating Responsibility


ESG Preparedness of Boards for 2024



Hacking Corporate Reputations



Chamber of Commerce v. California Air Resources Board: Complaint

This post provides the text of the complaint filed on January 30, 2024 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against California over the state’s new corporate climate disclosure laws.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUSINESS FEDERATION, CENTRAL VALLEY BUSINESS FEDERATION,

and WESTERN GROWERS ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD,

LIANE M. RANDOLPH, in her official capacity as Chair of the California Air Resources Board,

and STEVEN S. CLIFF, in his official capacity as the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board.

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit challenges two novel California laws that unlawfully attempt to regulate speech related to climate change. Senate Bills 253 and 261 impermissibly compel thousands of businesses to make costly, burdensome, and politically fraught statements about “their operations, not just in California, but around the world,” Assembly Comm. on Nat’l Res., Analysis of SB. 261 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) July 7, 2023 at 6, in order to stigmatize those companies and shape their behavior. Both laws unconstitutionally compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and seek to regulate an area that is outside California’s jurisdiction and subject to exclusive federal control by virtue of the Clean Air Act and the federalism principles embodied in our federal Constitution. These laws stand in conflict with existing federal law and the Constitution’s delegation to Congress of the power to regulate interstate commerce. This Court should enjoin the Defendants from carrying out the State’s plan.

READ MORE »

Hacking Corporate Reputations

Pat Akey is an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto and Visiting Professor at INSEAD. This post is based on a working paper by Professor Akey, Stefan Lewellan, Inessa Liskovich, and Christoph Schiller. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides? (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Robert J. Jackson Jr.; The Untenable Case for Keeping Investors in the Dark (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson, Jr., James Nelson, and Roberto Tallarita; and The Politics of CEOs (discussed on the Forum here) by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, Roberto Tallarita, and David Weiss.

How do firms respond to the destruction of intangible capital?  Recent research has highlighted the importance of intangible capital in the economy (e.g., Corrado and Hulten, 2010; Belo et al., 2014; Crouzet and Eberly, 2018; Corhay et al., 2020; Belo et al., 2022), but there is little work on how firms respond to the destruction of intangible capital. Indeed, in The Oxford Handbook on Reputation Jonathan Karpoff lists “how and when do firms rebuild damaged reputations?” as one of six questions deserving further research attention, writing “other than … anecdotes, we do not know whether firms tend to reinvest in reputation following a reputational loss, under what conditions they do so, and whether the reinvestment is successful.”

Our research aims to fill this gap in the literature.  We ask three different questions related to the loss and potential repair of corporate reputations. First, which stakeholders respond to events that impair a firm’s reputation?  Second, which actions might a firm take to repair its reputation?  Third, do firms tailor their responses in particular situations or to cater to stakeholders that are particularly important?

READ MORE »

The California climate disclosure laws, SEC’s proposed climate-related disclosure rule and the CSRD: What U.S. companies need to do now to comply

Loyti Cheng and David A. Zilberberg are Counsel at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. This post was prepared for the Forum by Ms. Cheng and Mr. Zilberberg. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance (discussed on the Forum here) by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita; For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain (discussed on the Forum here) and Stakeholder Capitalism in the Time of COVID (discussed on the Forum here) both by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita; and Restoration: The Role Stakeholder Governance Must Play in Recreating a Fair and Sustainable American Economy – A Reply to Professor Rock (discussed on the Forum here) by Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Mandatory climate disclosure for U.S. companies is here. In several key jurisdictions, companies will be required to disclose climate-related information within the next few years. Companies need to take action now to (1) determine what disclosure rules will apply to them and (2) put into place the necessary infrastructure to be in a position to develop, collect and report the information called for by applicable requirements. This post will focus on three legal regimes with particular salience for U.S. companies: California’s S.B. 253 and 261, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposed climate-related disclosure rule and the European Union’s (EU) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).[1]

As discussed below, there is a certain core set of disclosure requirements common to these disclosure regimes, including those relating to the material risks that climate change poses to the company based on the Task Force for Climate Financial Disclosures (TCFD). However, the disclosure burdens posed by the CSRD are significantly greater due to the fundamentally different way it defines materiality and the CSRD’s broad coverage of subject areas far beyond climate. Accordingly, a key threshold question facing U.S companies is whether or not they are within the scope of the CSRD.

READ MORE »

Page 2 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7