Click Here to Go Directly to the Story
Register/Subscribe
Home


 
 


U.S. EDITION
Full Table of Contents
Cover Story
Up Front
Readers Report
Corrections & Clarifications
Books
Technology & You
Economic Viewpoint
Economic Trends
Industry Insider
Business Outlook

News: Analysis & Commentary
In Business This Week
Washington Outlook
International Business
Industries
Developments to Watch
The Corporation
Government
Social Issues
Corporate Scoreboard

Legal Affairs
People
Finance
Industrial Management
BusinessWeek Lifestyle
BusinessWeek Investor
The Barker Portfolio
Inside Wall Street
Figures of the Week
Editorials


SMALL BIZ SUPPLEMENT May 21 Table of Contents


INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS
International -- Letter From Macedonia
International -- Spotlight on Brazil
International -- Readers Report
International -- International Outlook
International -- Asian Business
International -- European Business
International -- Latin America
International -- Finance
International -- Int'l Figures of the Week
International -- Editorials




MAY 21, 2001

NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
Back to Main Story

Apple and Gap: How Cozy Is Too Cozy?

 
  STORY TOOLS
Printer-Friendly Version
E-Mail This Story

Related Items Chart: Apple's Sales Slide


NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY

Recession: Is It Inevitable?

Commentary: A Handicapper's Guide to the New SEC Chief

Why Cisco's Comeback Plan Is a Long Shot

Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work

Bracing for Rupert's Satellite Attack

Congratulations, Grads--You're Bankrupt

It's one of the big no-no's of the corporate governance crowd: interlocking board memberships, in which directors from two companies sit on each other's boards. Why? Governance advocates worry that it can lead to cozy relationships in which directors look out more for each others' interests than those of shareholders. "Best practice is not to have cross-board memberships," says Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, a governance Web site. "There's kind of a closed loop."

CLOSE RELATIONSHIP? That's why some experts are bothered by what's been going on between Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL ) and Gap Inc. (GPS ) Back in May, 1999, Gap CEO Millard S. "Mickey" Drexler joined Apple's board. Four months later, Apple CEO Steven P. Jobs joined Gap's board. True, there are arguments for the appointments, given Apple's move into retailing and Gap's interest in Jobs's abilities as a consumer marketer. But given the potential for problems, governance folks argue that if Apple really needs a retail exec on its board, it should turn to someone with no company ties. "There's an obvious conflict," says Drew Hambly, senior analyst at Investor Responsibility Research Center in Washington. It creates "a `you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' perception."

Indeed, the relationship raises questions surrounding Apple's hiring of the retail contractor Fisher Development Inc. to build Apple stores. To procure sites for its new chain, Apple hired Gap's former head of real estate, George W. Blankenship. No problem there. But to actually build stores, Gap brought in Fisher. The contractor's chairman is 69-year-old Robert Fisher, brother of current Gap chairman and founder Donald G. Fisher, age 72. Fisher Development has long had a relationship with Gap. Over the past 25 years, the San Francisco builder--one of the nation's biggest--has overseen some $3 billion in projects for Gap, and it derives more than two-thirds of its revenue from the clothing retailer, according to the trade publication Shopping Center World. Although Fisher is a respected contractor, that relationship has long been scrutinized by governance experts because of the potential conflicts inherent in choosing the chairman's brother for such significant deals.

Jobs, Drexler, and Donald Fisher all declined to comment, and Robert Fisher could not be reached. And no one is suggesting that Apple, Gap, or Fisher have done anything illegal. But for corporate governance experts, the question is how Apple shareholders can be assured that Fisher won the contract because it offered the best deal rather than because it is owned by an associate of a director. "They need to hold the business relationship to a higher standard to avoid at least the perception of a sweetheart deal," says Ted White, director of corporate governance for pension fund giant California Public Employees' Retirement System, which owns both Gap and Apple stock.

At minimum, experts say, Apple should fully disclose details of the companies' dealings in forthcoming Securities and Exchange Commission filings. But they would be better off to end the relationship altogether.



By Douglas Robson in San Mateo, Calif.



Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.XML

Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed.

Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video.

To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here.

Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page

Back to Top

MAY
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


Media Kit | Special Sections | MarketPlace | Knowledge Centers
Bloomberg L.P.