Investors will have the opportunity to vote for diversity, artificial intelligence, child safety and charitable contributions at Apple’s aapl The annual general meeting was held on February 26th, 2025. You can read the full text of the independent shareholder proposal With Apple’s proxy statement So are management proposals for director elections, ratification of independent auditors, and executive compensation.
Apple’s annual meeting is an unofficial kickoff for proxy voting season. The widely viewed proposal this year calls on Apple to stop its diversity, equity and inclusive initiatives. Costco Fee Shareholders It was rejected Anti-DEI shareholder proposal in January. President Donald Trump has issued executive orders to end the federal government’s DEI, and businesses are following along. Therefore, recently, Goldman Sachs GS Abandoned The companies it publishes have the requirement that they have at least two diverse board members. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ended its positive actions in university admissions. IS, a proxy voting advisor, said, “It will be stopped indefinitely Consider certain diversity factors when making voting recommendations for directors of US companies. (Morningstar Sustainalytics’ environmental, social and governance voting advisory services compete with the ISS and you can read that stance below.)
You can find more articles on anti-DEI movements here and here.
The vote comes as Apple’s stock has grown 35% over the past 12 months, resulting in a 24% increase in the Morningstar US Market Index and the company is tackling tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Morningstar analyst William Kerwin calls the stock “reflecting overly optimistic expectations about the impact of generator AI software on device sales.” Kerwin is seeing a combined annual growth of 5% of iPhone revenue by fiscal year 2029, with investors saying “double-digit iPhone revenue over the same period to justify Apple’s February 19 valuation.” We have to assume it’s close to growth.” Apple stock recently won $244 against Kerwin’s fair value estimate of $200.
Charitable donations to AI, Child Safety, DEI, and Apple’s proxy voting
Should Apple report on the risks presented by the “unethical” or inappropriate use of external data when developing and training AI?
The National Legal and Policy Center is concerned that Apple developers will extract data from personal information collected online, copyrighted works, and unique commercial information provided by users. Apple opposes the resolution, and the company has a strong track record in protecting user privacy, as reflected in the principles of responsible AI, and is robust to integrate ethical considerations into technology. They claim to have an approach. Apple has already provided all the information requested regarding AI data privacy practices, and specific criticism of the proposal relates to Openai, the developer of ChatGPT, and is not involved in other companies that do not involve Apple. He adds that he is quoting the controversy.
Ignacio Garcia Ginner, sustainality analyst at Morningstar, wrote: “By increasing transparency regarding the company’s use of AI, it strengthens its position as a responsible and sustainable leader in the industry, allowing investors to assess the management of related risks. It is rapidly developing It is an area, and we believe that the company is currently providing adequate response to the proponent’s concerns. Apple’s AI product development and training. In this regard, Apple’s response statement trains the basic model. It makes it clear that users will not use personal personal data or user interactions when using them.” Morningstar Sustainalytics’ ESG Voting Policy Advisory Group recommends investors to oppose the proposal.
Should Apple report on the costs and benefits of software that enables it to identify child sexual abuse materials?
The American Family Association, a shareholder supporter, represented by Bowyer Research, has expressed concerns about Apple’s privacy and safety. It reverses plans to implement NeuralHash, a program designed to scan child sexual abuse material or CSAM, and cites Apple criticism to recommend age-inappropriate content through the App Store. It’s there.
Apple opposes the resolution, demonstrating its commitment to helping children protect themselves in a changing online environment, claiming it has developed innovative technologies such as communication safety. Apple says current approaches to child safety are informed by interactions with child safety advocates, human rights groups, privacy technology, customers and other stakeholders. This is more appropriate than the universal surveillance described by the proposal, and affects the human and civil rights of Apple users.
Morningstar Sustainalytics ‘Giner writes: “Apple and other large technology companies with social media and cloud storage platforms are important to the safety of online content, especially child safety, especially child safety, as a growing number of jurisdictions around the world. It faces reputation and regulatory risks. Apple’s decision to abandon its plans to implement perceptual hash software to detect CSAM distribution and storage is controversial.”
At the same time, Zinner told Alphabet Goog and Meta Platform Meta We have introduced a unique, persistent hash approach to detect child sexual abuse materials. “We believe that the issue of CSAM online requires a wide range of measures to address, but criticism of existing measures has been the case that parents are able to set up family sharing and configure settings to make the functionality more effective. Note that we focus on engagement, placing responsibility on families to monitor and manage the use of children’s devices. Therefore, we support the additional transparency that this proposal requires. ”
Morningstar Sustainalytics recommends voting in favour of proposals.
Should Apple consider removing its inclusion and diversity program?
The proposal, made by the National Center for Public Policy Studies, raises important legal concerns about the corporate DEI program, leading to an increase in DEI-related litigation, with many large companies reducing or eliminating DEIs. He points out that he encouraged him to do so. Initiatives to mitigate litigation, reputation and financial risks. Apple’s program claims it could expose the company to substantial legal and financial liabilities.
Apple opposes the proposal, noting that it has a well-established compliance program and that it inappropriately attempts to limit its ability to manage its own business. Apple also states it is committed to conducting ethical business and compliance with applicable laws and regulations throughout its global operations.
Morningstar maintenance molecular agents recommend opposing the resolution as they contradict the principles of the “Morningstar Sustainalytics” ESG, which ends Apple’s DEI initiative. “The company’s efforts in inclusion and diversity management believe that initiatives to foster an inclusive culture are essential to business success. These initiatives are designed to provide a more innovative, productive and equitable workplace. and ultimately improve business performance by strengthening supplier-member relationships and increasing employee satisfaction. Furthermore, agrees with the company that this proposal is unnecessarily normative. Masu.”
Should Apple report on how its philanthropic contributions affect risks related to discrimination against individuals based on speech and religion?
Wayne Frantzen, a supporter represented by Inspire Investing, has singled out an organization that Apple has made previous contributions. Policies that limit freedom of speech and religious freedom and influence corporate decisions that undermine brand values.
Apple opposes the proposal is unnecessary and notes that there is an established corporate donation programme following a rigorous internal governance and approval process. Apple also argues that the proposals attempt to inappropriately limit their ability to manage their business.
Morningstar Sustainalityx recommends opposing this resolution. This “emphasizes partisan discords about the mission of these organizations rather than substantial concerns about potential risks to Apple’s business,” writes analyst Ferka.
