SEC’s Mixed Guidance on Apple Environmental and Human Rights Shareholder Proposals Provides Clarification on CSR Proposals

by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

[co-author: Thor Petersen, Law Clerk]

Recent, seemingly disparate action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to two shareholder proposals may leave companies and shareholders confused as to whether companies may exclude shareholder proposals related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) from proxy materials. Upon closer inspection, however, the SEC’s actions appear consistent with its recently issued Staff Legal Bulletin 41I (SLB). The SLB, issued on November 1, 2017, articulates a framework for companies to apply to determine whether they may exclude shareholder proposals, including CSR-related proposals, from proxy materials under the “ordinary business” exception (Rule 14a-8(i)(7)) (the “Framework”).  (For more on this bulletin, see Akin Gump’s Deal Diary).

In its first opportunity to apply the Framework, the SEC considered two shareholder proposals to Apple and concluded, in one instance, that the shareholder proposal could be excluded from proxy materials and, in the other, that the shareholder proposal must be included. 

Legal Bulletin 14I In its discussion of the “ordinary business” exception, the SLB describes that the purpose of the exception is “to confine the resolution of ordinary business problems to management and the board of directors, since it is impracticable for shareholders to decide how to solve such problems at an annual shareholder’s meeting.” 

In considering whether a proposal may be excluded under this exception, the SEC describes that it takes into account two factors: (1) the substance of the proposal and (2) whether the proposal seeks to “micromanage” the company. With respect to the first factor, a proposal that deals with the “ordinary business” of a company may, nonetheless, be ineligible for the exception if the “proposal focuses on policy issues that are sufficiently significant because they transcend ordinary business and would be appropriate for a shareholder vote” (emphasis added). In determining whether a proposal is “sufficiently significant,” the SEC considers the connection between the policy issue and the company’s operations. The SLB goes on to state that such determinations can “raise difficult judgment calls” that are often resolved appropriately by the company. The SLB advises that companies, in their no-action requests, should “include a discussion that reflects the board’s analysis of the particular policy issue raised and its significance.”

We interpret the SEC analysis in the SLB as creating the Framework as follows:

Response to the Apple No-Action Letters On December 21, 2017, the SEC issued guidance, referencing the SLB, to Apple regarding whether the company could exclude two CSR-related shareholder proposals from its proxy materials. In each instance, Apple argued that the proposal could be excluded under the “ordinary business” exception. In one letter, the SEC informed Apple that it could exclude a proposal on greenhouse gas emissions (the “GHG proposal”), and, in a second letter issued the same day, the SEC advised that Apple should include a proposal on human rights (the “Human Rights proposal”).

So, what was the difference between the proposals and the Company’s response? And does it make sense that the SEC reached different conclusions with respect to the two proposals?

In short, the decisions reflect that the SEC applied the Framework described above. In doing so, the SEC found that the GHG proposal, while related to a sufficiently significant policy issue, sought to micromanage the company. Conversely, with respect to the Human Rights proposal, the SEC found that Apple did not adequately describe how the policy issue raised by the proposal was not “sufficiently significant” to the company’s operations. Each decision is discussed in more detail below.

The GHG Proposal In a no-action request to the SEC related to the GHG proposal, Apple urged the SEC to confirm that it would not recommend enforcement against the company if it excluded a proposal by Jantz Management LLC, on behalf of Christine Jantz, to include the following in the Company’s 2018 Proxy Materials:

Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors to [sic] prepare a report to shareholders by December 31, 2019 that evaluates the potential for the Company to achieve, by a fixed date, "net-zero" emissions of greenhouse gases relative to operations directly owned by the Company and major suppliers. The report should be done at reasonable expense and may exclude confidential information.

In a lengthy letter to the SEC, Apple argued that the proposal should be excluded because “the Proposal relates to the Company's ordinary business operations by requiring the Company to develop complex processes, policies, and technologies for the purpose of assessing the extent to which they would allow the Company (together with its major suppliers) to satisfy specific quantitative targets.” The SEC ultimately agreed with the company, finding that “the Proposal seeks to micromanage the company by probing too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders, as a group, would not be in a position to make an informed judgment.”

The Human Rights Proposal In a similar no-action request submitted on November 20, 2017, Apple argued that a proposal submitted by Jing Zhao on human rights could be excluded under the “ordinary business” exception. Zhao proposed to include the following in the company’s Proxy:

Resolved: Shareholders recommend that Apple Inc. establish a Human Rights Committee to review, assess, disclose, and make recommendations to enhance Apple’s policy and practice on human rights. The board of directors is recommended, in its discretion and consistent with applicable laws to: (1) adopt Apple Human Rights Principles, (2) designate the members of the committee, including outside independent human rights experts as advisors, (3) provide the committee with sufficient funds for operating expenses, (4) adopt a charter to specify the functions of the committee, (5) empower the committee to solicit public input and to issue periodic reports to shareholders and the public on the committee’s activities, findings and recommendations, and (6) adopt any other measures.

In its no-action request to the SEC, Apple contended that “human rights are an integral component of the Company’s business operations,” and, therefore, the proposal “does not transcend the Company’s ordinary business or its day-to-day operations.” Apple did not argue that the proposal sought to micromanage the company’s operations. 

Given Apple’s own attention to human rights issues and the description of its human rights-related commitments, the SEC advised that it was unable to conclude that “this particular proposal is not sufficiently significant to the Company’s business operations such that exclusion would be appropriate.”  Having not argued that the proposal sought to micromanage the company’s operations, the SEC did not comment on that potential reason for excluding the shareholder proposal.

Takeaway The SEC’s seemingly divergent responses are therefore not unexpected under the Framework described above and may help both companies and shareholders formulate more effective proposals and no-action letters. 

For shareholders, proposals must focus on policy issues that are sufficiently significant to the company and not request action that is too specific. The SEC may find that such proposals address issues that transcend day-to-day business matters without seeking to micromanage the company’s operations and therefore that they may not be excluded from proxy materials under the “ordinary business” exception. 

On the flip side, in order to exclude a CSR-related shareholder proposal under the “ordinary business” exception, companies must demonstrate either that the issue is not “sufficiently significant” in light of their operations and/or that the proposal seeks to micromanage their day-to-day operations.  As illustrated by the Human Rights proposal discussed above, the company’s analysis should likely evaluate both prongs in order to provide the SEC with more than one option for determining that the proposal may be excluded.

It remains to be seen whether activist shareholders are encouraged by the SEC’s guidance to file more CSR-related proposals.  Companies should be prepared to consider these proposals in light of the Framework discussed here.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.