库克不应插手苹果董事会改组

    Mac电脑制造商苹果是否会赞成董事会改组？

    《华尔街日报》（ Wall Street Journal）上周发表的一篇文章称，苹果（Apple）首席执行官提姆•库克正在物色新的董事会成员。如果这篇报道是真的， 那么库克的做法便是在效仿史蒂夫•乔布斯钦点苹果董事会成员的老路子，而由此组建的董事会对于库克来说可能只有名义上的监管权。但是首席执行官选择董事会成员候选人是公司治理的大忌，因为首席执行官得向董事会汇报，而且首席执行官的任用和离职也是董事会说了算。

    的确，苹果董事会也该变一变了。Intuit董事长比尔•肯贝尔自从1997年以来就一直在担任苹果的董事。在今年苹果同意和解的工资补缴案的相关文件中，坎贝尔成为了重要人物。与这起案件相关的证词还涉及苹果董事长亚瑟•莱文森，他于2000年开始就一直是苹果董事会成员。由于反垄断的原因，莱文森于2009年退出了谷歌（Google）董事会。但去年9月，他成为了Calico首席执行官。对于苹果董事来说，Calico是一个极具争议的怪胎，因为它的投资人是谷歌。

    另两位任期最长的苹果董事是：J. Crew首席执行官麦琪•德勒克斯勒，他于1999年加入董事会；以及美国前副总统阿尔•戈尔，他加入董事会的时间是2003年。德勒克斯勒和戈尔并非以公司治理而著称。2010年，德勒克斯勒摆脱了一场舆论危机。据称，造成这个危机的原因在于，他曾就潜在的公司出售事宜与其他方面进行过深入探讨，但他在7周后才将此事告知J. Crew董事会。戈尔曾领导了苹果股票期权追溯案件的内部调查，并发布了一篇被一些人认为是用来掩盖真相的调查报告。

    很多董事会认为，重新审视提名和治理委员会的委员构成非常重要，这样有利于董事的离任并寻找最合适的候选人。一旦不擅长治理的人或长时间位居董事一职的人掌控了这些委员会，董事会可能会陷入重重的困境。对于技术公司来说，拥有一成不变的董事会是个大忌，因为快速变化的策略需要新的思维作为支撑。

    苹果的董事会缺乏多样性，而且在客户群方面也不具有代表性。这个组合似乎跟不上最近公司新聘高管的步伐，包括博柏利（Burberry）前任首席执行官安吉娜•阿伦德斯。董事会目前只有一位女性成员，而且苹果所有独立董事的年龄都超过了55岁。苹果并未对置评要求做出回应。

    自从2003年以来，苹果公司的董事会提名和治理工作一直是由坎贝尔或莱文森以及德勒克斯勒和戈尔负责。（苹果2011到2014年的代理委托书显示，董事会提名和治理委员会一直由坎贝尔这位任职时间最长的董事担任主席，其他成员包括德勒克斯勒和戈尔。2003-2010年的代理委托书显示委员会由莱文森、德勒克斯勒和戈尔组成。）

    在今年的年度股东大会上，苹果股东否决了代理参与权议案。依据这份提案，股东董事会提名将由苹果股东投票产生。不管怎么样，提名委员会应该征求股东的意见。

    因此，这对库克来说意味着什么？如果这位苹果首席执行官希望增加新的董事会成员，有两条路可以走。他可以获得董事会支持，让提名委员会开始行动；或者他也可以建议董事会考虑改组委员会，打破老格局，从而让新上任的独立董事在提名过程中发挥更大的作用。

    不论在什么情况下，库克作为向董事会汇报的首席执行官，都不应该插手董事会的组建工作。否则就属于治理不善，可能会给未来埋下祸患。而且库克可能因此而被扣上属于惠普（HP）前任董事长雷•莱恩的帽子。雷曾违反董事会的治理章程，掌控了董事会的提名。

    乔布斯的时代已经结束。对于苹果和库克来说，这意味着开展完善的公司治理的时机到了。除此之外，说不定公司还会因此而获得一些新理念。

    艾琳诺•布洛克斯海姆（Eleanor Bloxham）是The Value Alliance和Corporate Governance Alliance的首席执行官。（财富中文网）

    Is the maker of Macs in for a board reboot?

    According to a Wall Street Journal article published on Monday, Apple CEO Tim Cook is looking for new board members. If the report is true, Cook’s search is reminiscent of Steve Jobs’ handpicking of an Apple board that would, perhaps in name only, oversee him. But CEO selection of board candidates is a governance no-no because CEOs report to—and are hired and fired by—the board.

    To be sure, the Apple AAPL 0.04% board is certainly ripe for an overhaul. Bill Campbell, the chair of Intuit INTU -0.11% , has served on Apple’s board since 1997. Campbell figured prominently in documents filed in the wage fixing case that Apple agreed to settle this year. The testimony related to that case also referred to Apple Chair Art Levinson, who has been an Apple board member since 2000. Amid antitrust concerns, Levinson stepped down from Google’s board in 2009. But in September of last year, he became CEO of Calico, a controversial gig for an Apple director since Calico is funded by Google GOOG 0.87% .

    The two other longest serving Apple directors are Mickey Drexler, CEO of J. Crew, who has been on the board since 1999, and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, a director since 2003. Drexler and Gore are not known as champions of good governance. Drexler survived a controversy in 2010 when he allegedly waited seven weeks to inform the J. Crew board of in-depth discussions he was holding related to the potential sale of the company. Gore led Apple’s internal investigation into stock options backdating allegations, issuing a report that some considered awhitewash.

    Many boards find it vital to reconsider the people who sit on their nominating and governance committees in order to facilitate director exits and find the best candidates. When the least governance-minded or longest-serving directors control those committees, boards can run into serious roadblocks. Tech firms have a heightened need to avoid stagnant board membership because fast-moving strategies require fresh thinking.

    Apple’s board is not diverse and not reflective of its customer base. The composition seems out of step with the company’s recent new hires, including Angela Ahrendts, former CEO of Burberry. The board currently has only one female member—and not a single independent Apple director is under 55. Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

    At Apple, Campbell or Levinson, along with Drexler and Gore, have been responsible for board nominations and governance since 2003. (Apple’s 2011 to 2014 proxy filings show the board’s nominating and governance committee has been chaired by Campbell, the board’s longest serving director, with members Drexler and Gore. The 2003 to 2010 filings show the committee composed of Levinson, Drexler, and Gore.)

    At this year’s annual meeting, Apple stockholders did not approve a proxy access proposal that would have allowed shareholder board nominations to appear on Apple’s ballot. Nevertheless, the nominating committee should be seeking shareholder input.

    So, where does this leave Tim Cook? If the Apple CEO wants new board members, he has a couple of options. He can garner board support to get the nominating committee moving—or he can suggest that the board consider reconstituting its committees to shake things up and give newer independent members a bigger role in the nominations process.

    Under no circumstance should Cook, who as CEO reports to the board, be creating the slate. It’s bad governance that could backfire down the road. And it could tarnish Cook with the same brush that painted former HP HPQ 0.45% Chair Ray Lane when he took control of board nominations, contrary to that board’s governance charter.

    The era of Jobs is over. For Apple and Cook, that means it’s time for mature corporate governance. Along with it, perhaps the company will gain some fresh ideas as well.

    Eleanor Bloxham is CEO of The Value Alliance and Corporate Governance Alliance.