BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Facebook Shareholders Reject Proposals To Limit Mark Zuckerberg's Power

This article is more than 4 years old.

Topline: A group of activist Facebook shareholders tried and failed to curb CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s power over the company at its annual shareholder meeting Thursday, as shareholders overall voted down two measures that would have shaken up Facebook’s corporate structure and limited Zuckerberg’s control.

  • A group of activist shareholders proposed two measures: One would have replaced Zuckerberg as chairman of the board of directors and the other would have reduced his voting power.

  • Both proposals failed.


  • Zuckerberg dodged questions from shareholders who directly asked whether he would be willing to relinquish some of his voting power.

What exactly do shareholders want? After years of scandal from everything to data leaks and privacy to the spread of misinformation on the platform, a small group of activist shareholders led by hedge fund Trillium Asset Management say that Zuckerberg hasn’t been held accountable.

“Given the company’s massive size and recent record of mistakes, responsibility for change can’t be left to him alone,” wrote Rashad Robinson, the president of nonprofit Color of Change, in a Fast Company op-ed.

When asked if he’d be willing to cede some of his power over Facebook, Zuckerberg instead talked about government regulation, avoiding the question, according to Business Insider.

What were shareholders proposing? One measure would have replaced Zuckerberg with an independent chair of the company’s board of directors. The activists pushing the measure say as both CEO and chairman, Zuckerberg has little oversight.

The other proposal would have dramatically changed the company’s share structure. Currently, each share Zuckerberg holds represents ten votes. Shareholders wanted each of Zuckerberg’s shares to count for one vote.

In practice, this means that Zuckerberg has the most power over which investor proposals get adopted. Since the CEO himself voted against both proposals, they had no chance of passing.


Follow me on TwitterSend me a secure tip