This isn't a PR exercise. Context is needed as below:
1. Shareholders have a "say-on-pay" vote, this is non-binding, but gives the board an idea of shareholder attitudes.
2. Institutional Shareholder Services raised concerns with their clients about Tim Cook's pay and requested that they vote against Tim's proposed package.
3. The approval vote dropped to 64% (usually around 95%).
4. Members of the compensation team engaged shareholders for an idea about where to set compensation. Tim then requested that.
1. Shareholders have a "say-on-pay" vote, this is non-binding, but gives the board an idea of shareholder attitudes.
2. Institutional Shareholder Services raised concerns with their clients about Tim Cook's pay and requested that they vote against Tim's proposed package.
3. The approval vote dropped to 64% (usually around 95%).
4. Members of the compensation team engaged shareholders for an idea about where to set compensation. Tim then requested that.