????Mac電腦制造商蘋果是否會贊成董事會改組？

????《華爾街日報》（ Wall Street Journal）上周發(fā)表的一篇文章稱，蘋果（Apple）首席執(zhí)行官提姆?庫克正在物色新的董事會成員。如果這篇報道是真的， 那么庫克的做法便是在效仿史蒂夫?喬布斯欽點蘋果董事會成員的老路子，而由此組建的董事會對于庫克來說可能只有名義上的監(jiān)管權(quán)。但是首席執(zhí)行官選擇董事會成員候選人是公司治理的大忌，因為首席執(zhí)行官得向董事會匯報，而且首席執(zhí)行官的任用和離職也是董事會說了算。

????的確，蘋果董事會也該變一變了。Intuit董事長比爾?肯貝爾自從1997年以來就一直在擔任蘋果的董事。在今年蘋果同意和解的工資補繳案的相關(guān)文件中，坎貝爾成為了重要人物。與這起案件相關(guān)的證詞還涉及蘋果董事長亞瑟?萊文森，他于2000年開始就一直是蘋果董事會成員。由于反壟斷的原因，萊文森于2009年退出了谷歌（Google）董事會。但去年9月，他成為了Calico首席執(zhí)行官。對于蘋果董事來說，Calico是一個極具爭議的怪胎，因為它的投資人是谷歌。

????另兩位任期最長的蘋果董事是：J. Crew首席執(zhí)行官麥琪?德勒克斯勒，他于1999年加入董事會；以及美國前副總統(tǒng)阿爾?戈爾，他加入董事會的時間是2003年。德勒克斯勒和戈爾并非以公司治理而著稱。2010年，德勒克斯勒擺脫了一場輿論危機。據(jù)稱，造成這個危機的原因在于，他曾就潛在的公司出售事宜與其他方面進行過深入探討，但他在7周后才將此事告知J. Crew董事會。戈爾曾領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了蘋果股票期權(quán)追溯案件的內(nèi)部調(diào)查，并發(fā)布了一篇被一些人認為是用來掩蓋真相的調(diào)查報告。

????很多董事會認為，重新審視提名和治理委員會的委員構(gòu)成非常重要，這樣有利于董事的離任并尋找最合適的候選人。一旦不擅長治理的人或長時間位居董事一職的人掌控了這些委員會，董事會可能會陷入重重的困境。對于技術(shù)公司來說，擁有一成不變的董事會是個大忌，因為快速變化的策略需要新的思維作為支撐。

????蘋果的董事會缺乏多樣性，而且在客戶群方面也不具有代表性。這個組合似乎跟不上最近公司新聘高管的步伐，包括博柏利（Burberry）前任首席執(zhí)行官安吉娜?阿倫德斯。董事會目前只有一位女性成員，而且蘋果所有獨立董事的年齡都超過了55歲。蘋果并未對置評要求做出回應(yīng)。

????自從2003年以來，蘋果公司的董事會提名和治理工作一直是由坎貝爾或萊文森以及德勒克斯勒和戈爾負責。（蘋果2011到2014年的代理委托書顯示，董事會提名和治理委員會一直由坎貝爾這位任職時間最長的董事?lián)沃飨?，其他成員包括德勒克斯勒和戈爾。2003-2010年的代理委托書顯示委員會由萊文森、德勒克斯勒和戈爾組成。）

????在今年的年度股東大會上，蘋果股東否決了代理參與權(quán)議案。依據(jù)這份提案，股東董事會提名將由蘋果股東投票產(chǎn)生。不管怎么樣，提名委員會應(yīng)該征求股東的意見。

????因此，這對庫克來說意味著什么？如果這位蘋果首席執(zhí)行官希望增加新的董事會成員，有兩條路可以走。他可以獲得董事會支持，讓提名委員會開始行動；或者他也可以建議董事會考慮改組委員會，打破老格局，從而讓新上任的獨立董事在提名過程中發(fā)揮更大的作用。

????不論在什么情況下，庫克作為向董事會匯報的首席執(zhí)行官，都不應(yīng)該插手董事會的組建工作。否則就屬于治理不善，可能會給未來埋下禍患。而且?guī)炜丝赡芤虼硕豢凵蠈儆诨萜眨℉P）前任董事長雷?萊恩的帽子。雷曾違反董事會的治理章程，掌控了董事會的提名。

????喬布斯的時代已經(jīng)結(jié)束。對于蘋果和庫克來說，這意味著開展完善的公司治理的時機到了。除此之外，說不定公司還會因此而獲得一些新理念。

????艾琳諾?布洛克斯海姆（Eleanor Bloxham）是The Value Alliance和Corporate Governance Alliance的首席執(zhí)行官。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????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.