Top 10 Topics for Directors in 2019: Board Diversity

Jan 14, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

For example, in 2018, BlackRock, Inc., among the world’s largest asset managers, added to its 2018 U.S. proxy voting guidelines an expectation to see at least two female directors on every board and wrote to the nearly 300 companies in the Russell 1000 with fewer than two female directors asking them to explain their board diversity efforts. BlackRock has also voted against directors over diversity concerns in recent years both in the United States and abroad, for example, by voting against directors of 52 companies in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) with male-only boards in the first half of 2017. Other stakeholders, including Vanguard, State Street Global Advisors, the New York City Pension Funds, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), have also engaged with companies, withheld votes from directors and/or taken similar steps to promote board diversity and accountability.

With respect to proxy advisory firms, Glass Lewis updated its U.S. board gender diversity policy in its proxy paper guidelines to take effect in January 2019. Under the new policy, Glass Lewis will generally recommend voting against the nominating committee chair of a board with no female members and may recommend voting against other nominating committee members depending on other factors. In 2018, Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) began highlighting boards with no gender diversity, but did not make adverse vote recommendations on director elections on that basis. However, ISS has published new Americas proxy voting guidelines for shareholder meetings of Russell 3000 and S&P 1500 companies held on or after February 1, 2020 (following a “grace period” in 2019). Under the new policy, ISS would generally recommend voting against, or withholding votes from, the chair of the nominating committee (and potentially other directors on a case-by-case basis) at companies with no female directors on the board.

Two of the main approaches taken by governments to promoting board diversity are quotas and disclosure. A number of countries in continental Europe follow the first approach with legislated board quotas, including France, Spain, Norway, Iceland, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. In addition, California passed a law in September 2018 (SB 826) requiring California-based public companies to have at least one female director by the end of 2019 and at least one, two or three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the size of the board.

By comparison, the United Kingdom and the United States (with the recent exception of California) follow the second approach, requiring companies to disclose certain information and allowing investors to evaluate the disclosure and underlying policies. In the United States, SEC rules (specifically, Item 407(c)(2)(vi) of Regulation S-K) require public companies to describe the nominating committee’s process for identifying and evaluating director nominees (including whether and how diversity is considered) and, if the company has a diversity policy for identifying nominees, how the policy is implemented and how the effectiveness of the policy is assessed.

Corporate governance groups, investors, regulators and other stakeholders continue to focus on board diversity. Externally, companies should review their applicable diversity-related obligations and investor preferences. Internally, companies should assess their diversity policies and the composition, refreshment and nomination processes for their boards.

In particular, companies may consider developing a framework to identify and recruit appropriately diverse candidates for the board. For example, Amazon recently joined Facebook, Uber and other high-profile companies by adopting a form of the “Rooney Rule” (a policy first established by the National Football League in 2003) to ensure that the initial candidate list for its board seats includes qualified women and minorities. Finally, although some directors may view board diversity as a “check-the-box” exercise, pressure to meaningfully improve board diversity has increased in recent years, and that trend appears likely to continue in 2019 and beyond.

View the full report here.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.