In his last letter to boards as CEO of State Street Global Advisors, Cyrus Taraporevala (who has announced his planned retirement this year) writes that we are at a "moment of significant transition," facing many challenges, including a pandemic, climate change and gender, racial and ethnic inequities, that have led to economic disruption and even political instability.  How should companies address these challenges?  SSGA expects its portfolio companies to manage "these threats and opportunities by transitioning their strategies and operations—enhancing efforts to decarbonize and embracing new ways of recruiting and retaining talent—as the world moves toward a low-carbon and more diverse and inclusive future."  Accordingly,  SSGA's "main focus in 2022 will be to support the acceleration of the systemic transformations underway in climate change and the diversity of boards and workforces."

SSGA views issues of climate, diversity and human capital management to be "matters of value, not values—opportunities for companies to mitigate downside risk, innovate, and differentiate themselves from competitors." 

BlackRock CEO Laurence Fink's letter to CEOs this year had a similar theme. "Stakeholder capitalism," he maintained,

"is not about politics. It is not a social or ideological agenda. It is not 'woke.' It is capitalism, driven by mutually beneficial relationships between you and the employees, customers, suppliers, and communities your company relies on to prosper. This is the power of capitalism.  In today's globally interconnected world, a company must create value for and be valued by its full range of stakeholders in order to deliver long-term value for its shareholders. It is through effective stakeholder capitalism that capital is efficiently allocated, companies achieve durable profitability, and value is created and sustained over the long-term. Make no mistake, the fair pursuit of profit is still what animates markets; and long-term profitability is the measure by which markets will ultimately determine your company's success."  (See this PubCo post.)

Climate. With regard to climate, Taraporevala observes that climate change and its systemic risks have been central to SSGA since 2014.  In the years following, investors and companies have become more knowledgeable and sophisticated, with more companies providing climate-related disclosure aligned with the TCFD (Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures) and other frameworks.  But much progress needs to be made on the "journey to net zero," and, although "more companies are making net-zero commitments, with over one-fifth of the world's 2,000 largest public companies having committed to meet a specific target, few have provided a clear roadmap to achieve these goals." [Emphasis added.] SSGA recognizes that, for many companies, the pathway may not be straightforward:  "in general we believe that the transition will be very hard and non-linear for most. We anticipate that many companies will likely need to adopt approaches that require experimentation, innovation, and ongoing adjustments along this unchartered journey."  At the end of the day, SSGA is looking to see company transition plans that reflect "pragmatic clarity around how and why a particular transition plan helps a company make meaningful progress" toward net-zero.

Taraporevala contends that the transition that is required will be "far more complex than 'brown' versus 'green' distinctions."  To be sure, nuance will be imperative: it's possible that a power source transition from "dark brown" (such as coal) to "light brown" (such as natural gas) could have more impact on emission reductions than a transition from "green" to a "darker shade of green," he asserts.  In the short-run, to drive the transition, companies may need to look to "light brown" fossil fuels, "rather than relying on an improbable immediate shift to renewables to solve the massive climate challenge." As a result, limiting perspective to only "brown" and "green" may "generate profound unintended consequences."

He also introduces the pejorative term "brown-spinning," which he uses to describe the practice of spinning-off (or selling) public companies' "highest-emitting assets to private equity or other actors at a discount. The end result reduces disclosure, shields polluters and allows the publicly-traded company to appear more 'green,' without any overall reduction in the level of emissions on the planet."  

This proxy season, SSGA will focus its attention on "broad climate action in the market across sectors" as well as targeted action aimed at high-emitting companies:

  • SSGA is promoting the use of the TCFD (see this PubCo post) and expects companies in major indices to disclose in alignment with the "four pillars" of the TCFD framework: Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets. More specifically, SSGA will be considering "whether the company discloses: (1) board oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities; (2) total direct and indirect GHG emissions ('Scope 1' and 'Scope 2' emissions); and (3) targets for reducing GHG emissions." According to SSGA, approximately one-third of the S&P 500 do not provide TCFD disclosures.  SSGA "will start taking voting action against directors across applicable indices should companies not meet these disclosure expectations."
  • For the most significant emitters, SSGA will use targeted engagement "to encourage disclosure aligned with [its] expectations for climate transition plans, which covers 10 areas including decarbonization strategy, capital allocation, climate governance, and climate policy. In 2023, [SSGA] will hold companies and directors accountable for failing to meet these expectations."

Diversity.  Taraporevala notes that SSGA began to champion board gender diversity in 2017, when it initiated its Fearless Girl Campaign on the eve of International Women's Day. The announcement included a photo of the statue of a young girl, as a symbol "of the need for action" and "the power of women in leadership," that State Street had placed right near the Wall Street "charging bull." That now-famous statue of a young girl has since been moved to the steps of the NYSE and has been given the name "Fearless Girl."  Taraporevala reports that, currently, 862 (approximately 58%) of the 1,486 companies SSGA previously identified with all-male boards have added one or more women directors, and last year, each company in the S&P 500 had at least one woman on its board.

In 2019, the WSJ reported that a new milestone had finally been reached for board gender diversity: there were no longer any companies in the S&P 500 with all-male boards! Reaching just that one milestone was not exactly easy or quick.  According to the WSJ, one in eight S&P 500 boards was all male in 2012.  (See this PubCo post.)

For this year, SSGA has enhanced its diversity policy:

  • This proxy season, SSGA expects each of  its portfolio companies—not just those on major indices—to have at least one woman on its board.
  • Beginning in the 2023 proxy season, for companies on major indices, SSGA expects their boards to be composed of at least 30% women directors, likely resulting in an average of three or four women directors on each board and about 3,000 to 4,000 additional women directors across covered indices. 

SSGA indicates that it is "prepared to vote against the Chair of the board's Nominating Committee or the board leader should a company fail to meet these expectations."  

In addition, SSGA has extended its emphasis on gender diversity to also concentrate on racial and ethnic diversity, including disclosure, board composition and board oversight of DEI more broadly. Taraporevala reports that, compared to 2020, more than twice as many companies in the S&P 500 disclose the racial and ethnic makeup of their boards and triple the number of companies in the S&P 100 now disclose their EEO-1 reports.   This proxy season, SSGA will take voting action against responsible directors if

  • "(1) companies in the S&P 500 and FTSE 100 do not have a person of color on their board,
  • (2) companies in the S&P 500 and FTSE 100 do not disclose the racial and ethnic diversity of their boards, and
  • (3) companies in the S&P 500 do not disclose their EEO-1 reports."

In 2021, Audit firm Deloitte and the Alliance for Board Diversity released the Missing Pieces Report: The Board Diversity Census of Women and Minorities on Fortune 500 Boards a study examining the representation of women and racial/ethnic minorities (including Black, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic persons) on public company boards among the Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies. The analysis of the Fortune 100 began in 2004 and the Fortune 500 in 2010, based on public filings reviewed through the end of June 2020.  The survey showed that:

  • Among the Fortune 100, 6.6% of directors were minority women, 14.0% were minority men, 21.6% were White women and 57.8 % were White men. By race/ethnicity in the Fortune 100, 4.4% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.7% were Hispanic, 11.4% were Black, 79.4% were White and 0.2% other. Among the Fortune 500, 5.7% of directors were minority women, 11.8% were minority men, 20.9 % were White women and 61.7 % were White men. By race/ethnicity in the Fortune 500, 4.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 4.1% were Hispanic, 8.7% were Black, 82.5 % were White and 0.1% other.
  • Women and racial/ethnic minorities represented 42.2% of directors on boards of Fortune 100 companies, but only 38% of directors on boards of Fortune 500 companies.  In addition, slightly more than 20% of board seats in the Fortune  100 were held by racial/ethnic minorities, while the percentage was only 18% among the Fortune  500. The rate of increase for racial/ethnic minorities in the 2018-to-2020 period was slightly below 0.5%, a rate that would not achieve a level of 40% representation of minorities until 2055.
  • Progress made on overall diversity has been due primarily to the increase in the number of White women on boards, a group that had the biggest increases: a gain of 34 seats (15%) in the Fortune  100 and 209 seats (21%) in the Fortune  500. Almost 90% of the gains for women on Fortune 100 boards between 2018 and 2020 were gains by White women. Among the Fortune 500, according to the Report, "for every board seat newly occupied by a minority woman, White women occupied nearly three new seats. While the laudable goal of gender diversity has made substantial progress, it appears to be coming at the expense of a broader set of minority boardroom candidates." There was little increase in the number of directors who were minority men among either the Fortune 100 or Fortune 500—below 0.5% annually in the Fortune 500 since 2010. According to the Report, Black men lost one seat in the Fortune  100 and five seats in the Fortune  500. (See this PubCo post.)

As he began, Taraporevala closes by highlighting the profound transitions that companies are facing. However, shareholders benefit, Taraporevala concludes, when "companies embrace transitions as opportunities for innovation and differentiation."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.