According to a global survey of 1,300 companies by Korn/Ferry, though 98 percent of companies believe a CEO succession plan to be important, only 35 percent currently have one in place. And 49 percent haven’t had one in place for the last three years.

That’s something shareholders calling for Apple to disclose its succession plan annually might want to keep in mind as they prepare for the company’s annual meeting later this month. On this issue, Apple is actually a leader in corporate governance. And it does have a good rationale for keeping its succession plan private:

• A written succession plan would give Apple’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans.
• Identifying potential successors to Steve Jobs would invite other companies to recruit those people away from Apple.

Sound reasons and ones that seem to outweigh the main reason for making it public: Making nervous shareholders less nervous.

Now backing the measure: The Laborers’ International Union of North America and Institutional Shareholder Services, one of the most influential proxy advisory outfits around.

“ISS believes that shareholders would benefit by having a report on the company’s succession plans disclosed annually,” ISS said. “Such a report would enable shareholders to judge the board on its readiness and willingness to meet the demands of succession planning based on the circumstances at that time.”

That may be so, but according to Apple, which recommends shareholders vote against it, such a report would also give the company’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans and would undermine its efforts to recruit and retain champion executives. “The company takes succession planning seriously, and the board has adopted a comprehensive process to ensure continuity and maintain the superior quality of its management team,” Apple said in its 2011 proxy statement. “This process also allows flexibility to adjust to unanticipated changes in the market.”

What it doesn’t allow for is transparency, something investors might appreciate with Jobs now on his third medical leave from Apple.

In 2010 CEO Steve Jobs retained his $1 annual salary and some 5.5 million shares of Apple stock as well. “Since rejoining the company in 1997, Mr. Jobs has not sold any of his shares of the Company’s stock,” the filing reads. “Mr. Jobs holds no unvested equity awards. The Company recognizes that Mr. Jobs’s level of stock ownership significantly aligns his interests with shareholders’ interests.”

COO Tim Cook earned $59.1 million for the fiscal year, thanks to a $5 million bonus and $52.3 million in stock awards. Quite a spike from the $1.64 million he earned in 2009, but well-deserved given his performance, particularly when he filled in for Jobs during his medical leave of absence.

Included in the proxy statement is a shareholder proposal asking Apple to adopt a CEO-succession-planning policy and appended beneath it is a strongly worded statement from the company opposing it. “The Company recognizes that a highly talented and experienced management team, not just the CEO, is critical to Apple’s success,” it reads. “Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization. While the Board strongly supports the concept of succession planning, it recommends a vote against [the proposal].”

Why?

Evidently, the board feels a written succession plan would give Apple’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans. It also fears that identifying potential successors to Jobs would invite other companies to recruit those people away from Apple. Finally, the board feels that its directors and Apple’s leadership can handle succession planning on their own. “The Company takes succession planning seriously, and the board has adopted a comprehensive process to ensure continuity and maintain the superior quality of its management team,” Apple said in the filing. “This process also allows flexibility to adjust to unanticipated changes in the market.”

Plus, Steve doesn’t like talking about it.

A quick thought on that last point: CNBC’s Jim Goldman says he’s sure Jobs’s decision to skip the Macworld keynote has nothing to do with his health. If that’s the case, tapping Phil Schiller to deliver the company’s final Macworld “Stevenote” likely has more to do with Apple’s acrimonious relationship with Macworld organizer IDG than anything else. Given the media attention the company’s able to command these days, Apple no longer really needs events like Macworld. The company’s special events are equally as effective in generating publicity and far easier to orchestrate and control.

So would Apple really send Senior VP Phil Schiller out onto the Macworld stage without a cool new product to introduce? Probably. So much for that netbook …

A quick thought on that last point: CNBC’s Jim Goldman says he’s sure Jobs’s decision to skip the Macworld keynote has nothing to do with his health. If that’s the case, tapping Phil Schiller to deliver the company’s final Macworld “Stevenote” likely has more to do with Apple’s acrimonious relationship with Macworld organizer IDG than anything else. Given the media attention the company’s able to command these days, Apple no longer really needs events like Macworld. The company’s special events are equally as effective in generating publicity and far easier to orchestrate and control.

So would Apple really send Senior VP Phil Schiller out onto the Macworld stage without a cool new product to introduce? Probably. So much for that netbook …