Two Letters on
Corporate Social Responsibility
=======================================================
The Sisters of St. Francis of
Our Lady of Angels Convent--Glen Riddle
(phone numbers removed)
April 18, 1996
Mr. Pierre Lamond
Chairman of the Board
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
Dear Mr. Lamond
The Sisters of St. Francis of
1000 women, is the beneficial owner of 7,000 shares of stock
in
Semiconductor Corporation.
We believe that a company is best represented by a Board of qualified Directors
reflecting the equality of the sexes, races and ethnic groups. As women and
minorities continue to move into upper level management positions of economic,
educational and cultural institutions, the number of qualified Board candidates also
increases. Therefore our policy is to withhold authority to vote for nominees of a
Board of Directors that does not include women and minorities.
It appears from the proxy statement which does not include
pictures that
Semiconductor Corporation has no women or minority Directors. We have voted our
proxy accordingly, and we urge you to enrich the Board by seeking qualified women
and members of racial minorities as nominees.
Sincerely,
/Doris Gormley OSF
Doris Gormley OSF
Director, Corporate Social Responsibility
SDG:sma
=============================================================
May 23, 1996
Doris Gormley, OSF
Director, Corporate Social Responsibility
The Sisters of St. Francis of
Our Lady of Angels Convent--Glen Riddle
Dear Sister Gormley:
Thank you for your letter criticizing the lack of racial and gender diversity of
reiterate the management arguments opposing your position. Then I will provide
the philosophical basis behind our rejection of the operating principles espoused in
your letter, which we believe to be not only unsound, but even immoral, by a
definition of that term I will present.
The semiconductor business is a tough one with significant competition from the
Japanese, Taiwanese, and Koreans. There have been more corporate casualties than
survivors. For the reason, our Board of Directors is not a ceremonial watchdog, but a
critical management function. The
essential criteria for
are as follows:
* Experience as a CEO of an important technology company.
* Direct expertise in the semiconductor business based on education and
management experience.
* Direct experience in the management of a company that buys from the
semiconductor industry.
A search based on these criteria usually yields a male who is 50-plus years old, has a
Masters degree in an engineering science, and has moved up the managerial ladder
to the top spot in one or more corporations. Unfortunately, there are currently few
minorities and almost no women who chose to be engineering graduate students 30
years ago. (That picture will be dramatically different in 10 years, due to the greater
diversification of graduate students in the '80s.) Bluntly stated, a "woman's view" on
how to run our semiconductor company does not help us, unless that woman has an
advanced technical degree and experience as a CEO. I do realize there are other
industries in which the last statement does not hold true. We would quickly embrace
the opportunity to include any woman or minority person who could help us as a
director, because we pursue talent--and we don't care in what package that talent
comes.
I believe that placing arbitrary racial or gender quotas on corporate boards is
fundamentally wrong. Therefore, not
only does
for boardroom diversification, but we are unlikely to, because it is very difficult to
find qualified directors, let alone directors that also meet investors' racial and
gender preferences.
I infer that your concept of corporate "morality" contains in it the requirement to
appoint a Board of Directors with, in your words, "equality of sexes, races, and ethnic
groups." I am unaware of any Christian requirements for corporate boards; your
views seem more accurately described as "politically correct," than "Christian."
My views aside, your requirements are--in effect--immoral. By "immoral," I mean
"causing harm to people," a fundamental wrong. Here's why:
* I presume you believe your organization does good work and that the people who
spend their careers in its service deserve to retire with the necessities of life
assured. If your investment in
that each of the retired Sisters of St. Francis would suffer if I were forced to run
other people also depend on
directly by investors or through mutual funds, pension funds, 401k programs, and
insurance companies. Any choice I would make to jeopardize retirees and other
investors from achieving their lifetime goals would be fundamentally wrong.
* Consider charitable donations. When the
available to charity shrink faster, including those dollars earmarked for the Sisters
of St. Francis. If all companies in
the
arbitrary social agenda, rather than for profit, all American companies would
operate at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors, all Americans would become
less well off (some laid off), and charitable giving would decline precipitously.
Making Americans poorer and reducing charitable giving in order to force
companies to follow an arbitrary social agenda is fundamentally wrong.
* A final point with which you will undoubtedly disagree: Electing people to
corporate boards based on racial preferences is demeaning to the very board
members placed under such conditions, and unfair to people who are qualified. A
prominent friend of mine hired a partner who is a brilliant, black Ph.D. from
because of preferences; the system that creates that institutionalized insult is
fundamentally wrong.
Finally, you ought to get down from your moral high horse. Your form letter signed
with a stamped signature does not allow for the possibility that a CEO could run a
company morally and disagree with your position. You have voted against me and
the other directors of the company, which is your right as a shareholder. But here is
a synopsis of what you voted against:
* Employee ownership. Every employee of
employee of
every year, a policy that sets us
apart even from other
* Excellent pay. Our employees in
1995. (That figure excludes my salary and that of
"the workers" really get.)
* A significant boost to our economy. In 1995, our company paid out $150 million to
its employees. That money did a lot of good: it bought a lot of houses, cars, movie
tickets, eyeglasses, and college educations.
* A flexible health-care program. A Cypress-paid health-care budget is granted to
all employees to secure the health-care options they want, including medical, dental,
and eye-care, as well as different life insurance policies.
* Personal computers.
employees.
* Employee education. We pay for our employees to go back to school, and we offer
dozens of internal courses.
* Paid time off. In addition to vacation and holidays, each
schedule paid time off for personal reasons.
* Profit sharing.
sharing added up to $5,000 per employee, given in equal shares, regardless of rank
or salary. That was a 22% bonus for an employee earning $22,932 per year, the
taxable salary of our lowest-paid
* Charitable Work.
Food Bank (food for the poor), the largest
food bank in the
chairman of the 1993 food drive,
and
years running. (Last year, we were credited with 354,131 pounds of food, or 454
pounds per employee, a record.) We
also give to the
Clara-based public hospital, which accepts all patients without a "VISA check."
Those are some of the policies of the Board of Directors you voted against. I believe
you should support management teams that hold our values and have the courage to
put them into practice. So, that's my reply. Choosing a Board of Directors based on
race and gender is a lousy way to
run a company.
Furthermore, we will never be pressured into it, because bowing to well-meaning,
special-interest groups is an immoral way to run a company, given all the people it
would hurt. We simply cannot allow arbitrary rules to be forced on us by
organizations that lack business expertise. I would rather be labeled as a person who
is unkind to religious groups than as a coward who harms his employees and
investors by mindlessly following high-sounding, but false, standards of right and
wrong.
In conclusion, please consider these two points: First,
carefully considered moral principles, which rightly include making a profit as a
primary objective. Second, there is a fundamental difference between your
organization's right to vote its conscience and the use of coercion by the federal
government to force arbitrary
"corporate responsibilities" on
and shareholders.
a position irrevocably in opposition to the immoral attempt by coercive utopians to
mandate even more government
control over
our shareholders who exercise their right to vote according to a social agenda, we
suggest that they reconsider whether or not their strategy will do net good--after all
of the real costs are considered.
Sincerely,
/T.J. Rodgers
T.J. Rodgers
President CEO
TJR/cxs
(This text has been slightly abbreviated, but the content is unchanged.)
==========================================================
Debate question: With whom would you side in this dispute
and why? Obviously President Rogers put a lot of thought into his response, but
are reasons appropriate and reasonable? Are the "essential criteria for