Boston Common Asset Management follow-up to Cisco re human rights commitment
On 10 Jan 2011, Boston Common Asset Management issued this statement:
“Weak Commitment to Human Rights Factors into Boston Common’s Decision to Divest of Cisco Systems; Manipulative Vote Tallying Further Isolates Cisco”
Cisco sent a response to Business & Human Rights Resource Centre:
[DOC] Cisco response re Boston Common Asset Management divestment, 10 Jan 2011
Boston Common Asset Management then sent this follow-up statement:
19 Jan 2011
Cisco states it has “various policies, practices and procedures in place relating to human rights around the world”. Investors are highly interested in such practices, as they may help protect the company from the types of human rights related controversies affecting other producers of standardized technology equipment globally. As a result, investors would like to learn more about such practices and procedures implemented by Cisco—a level of detail which the company is unable or unwilling to provide.
We are pleased to see Cisco announce here that Boston Common’s shareholder proposal received 33% support, as opposed to the 19% announced at the November 18, 2010 annual meeting of shareholders. Cisco’s statement that it disclosed the voting results using consistent methodology based on percentage of shares voted is misleading. In the case of votes favoring shareholder sponsored proposals, results were announced based on all outstanding shares, a method which significantly dilutes the appearance of support and that was not used in relation to management sponsored proposals. Cisco was therefore selective, not consistent, and in a way that disadvantaged perceived support of shareholder proposals.
Boston Common Asset Management and the investor coalition it led representing over 20 million shares of Cisco Systems stock has made extraordinary efforts to engage Cisco in meaningful dialogue on human rights over the course of six years, consistently emphasizing a strong desire to communicate directly with management on issues of concern. This included, among other outreach efforts, a September 2009 letter to Executive Management, an October 2009 letter to the full Board of Directors, a September 2010 letter to an independent board member, and a direct request made personally at the November 18, 2010 annual meeting of shareholders. Cisco responded to zero of these inquiries, all requesting the opportunity to discuss the company’s human rights policies and procedures. While Cisco expresses disappointment at Boston Common’s public critique, it must acknowledge the significant role it played in this decision as it was unwilling to engage directly and in a meaningful capacity.