Palo Alto Networks really, really doesn’t want to share its workplace demographics.
When an investment firm asked the cybersecurity company to disclose its diversity numbers, Palo Alto Networks – which has 11 men and one woman on its management team – refused.
When the investment firm, Trillium Asset Management, put it to a shareholder vote, Palo Alto Networks’ board – made up of 10 men and one woman – officially opposed it.
Then, earlier this month, the tech company’s shareholders voted. There were more than 30 million votes in favor of disclosure, and just over 29 million votes against. It was a rare majority for a shareholder resolution facing company opposition.
But Palo Alto Networks didn’t see it that way. By counting nearly 2 million abstentions as votes against the proposal, the tech firm proclaimed that the resolution failed, with 49 percent in favor.
Palo Alto Networks didn’t respond to requests for comment. Susan Baker, Trillium’s vice president of shareholder advocacy, called the company’s approach short-sighted.
“Palo Alto Networks shareholders sent a strong message,” she said. “It’s time to stop making excuses.”
Tech firms are facing pressure to disclose the race and gender breakdown of their employees as a way of being held accountable for diversity efforts. All companies with 100 or more employees already provide the data to the government each year in what’s called an EEO-1 report.
This year, Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting surveyed 211 of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley, asking them to provide their EEO-1 reports. Only 23 released them.
Members of Congress such as Rep. Ro Khanna, whose district encompasses Palo Alto Networks’ headquarters, have called for tech companies to share the numbers.
Institutional Shareholder Services, which provides research and advice on shareholder resolutions to large investors, recommended a yes vote on Palo Alto Networks’ diversity proposal.
In an analysis provided to clients, the advisory firm wrote that Palo Alto Networks “does not provide information on any board or management level oversight of its diversity and inclusion practices.” Diversity, the analysis stated, “can have a positive effect on long-term value creation.”
“Increased disclosure of the type requested in this proposal could be of value to shareholders without causing undue burden to the company, given the fact that the company already collects the EEO-1 data that is being requested,” it said.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which held 162,677 shares in Palo Alto Networks as of Nov. 30, voted in favor of the diversity proposal.
Palo Alto Networks’ decision to count abstentions as votes against the resolution is a controversial practice. A 2013 survey found that 52 percent of companies in the Standard and Poor’s 500 index counted abstentions that way, while just under 48 percent did not.
Major investors, such as the New York City pension funds and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, oppose the practice. So does the California teachers’ pension fund.
“We believe abstentions should NOT be counted when calculating vote tallies,” a teachers’ pension fund spokeswoman wrote in an email.
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Republish Our Content
Thanks for your interest in republishing a story from Reveal. As a nonprofit newsroom, we want to share our work with as many people as possible. You are free to embed our audio and video content and republish any written story for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license and will indemnify our content as long as you strictly follow these guidelines:
-
Do not change the story. Do not edit our material, except only to reflect changes in time and location. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
-
Please credit us early in the coverage. Our reporter(s) must be bylined. We prefer the following format: By Will Evans, Reveal.
-
If republishing our stories, please also include this language at the end of the story: “This story was produced by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.”
-
Include all links from the story, and please link to us at https://www.revealnews.org.
PHOTOS
-
You can republish Reveal photos only if you run them in or alongside the stories with which they originally appeared and do not change them.
-
If you want to run a photo apart from that story, please request specific permission to license by contacting Digital Engagement Producer Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org. Reveal often uses photos we purchase from Getty and The Associated Press; those are not available for republication.
DATA
-
If you want to republish Reveal graphics or data, please contact Data Editor Soo Oh, soh@revealnews.org.
IN GENERAL
-
We do not compensate anyone who republishes our work. You also cannot sell our material separately or syndicate it.
-
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, please contact Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If you plan to republish our content, you must notify us republish@revealnews.org or email Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If we send you a request to remove our content from your website, you must agree to do so immediately.
-
Please note, we will not provide indemnification if you are located or publishing outside the United States, but you may contact us to obtain a license and indemnification on a case-by-case basis.
If you have any other questions, please contact us at republish@revealnews.org.