We argue that despite the fact that there are collective predicates that show homogeneity, homogeneity can be reduced to distributivity (contra Kriz 2015): First, there is a principled way of distinguishing which collective predicates show homogeneity: collective achievements and states lack homogeneity, (1)-(2) while collective activities and accomplishments show homogeneity, (3)-(4): (1) The students elected a president. (collective achievement) (2) These books constitute a famous series. (collective state) (3) The boys performed *Hamlet *for an hour*.* (collective activity) (4) The girls built a raft. (collective accomplishment) The positive version of (1) can be true in a situation where only a subset of the students (not all the students) actually voted, as long as enough students voted for the election to be valid. No undefinideness ensues. (2) can be true in a situation where there is a famous series of 6 books; books 1-3 are famous, while books 4-6 are more obscure. (2) is true, and not undefined, even though not every sub-series within this larger series is famous. (3) and (4) though are undefined in situations where some of the boys did not participate in the performance of *Hamlet*, (3), or some of girls did not participate in the building of the raft, (4). Second, collective accomplishments and activities have been analyzed as being able to host a D operator in their structure, while this is not possible for collective states and achievements (Brisson 2003). Therefore, once we control for the aktionsart of a collective predicate, it emerges that the collective predicates that allow homogeneity are exactly those that can host a D operator. Therefore, homogeneity can be reduced to distributivity.