Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a “self-described” conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., happens to be a shareholder in Apple. NCPPR has not been happy with Apple’s environmental initiatives. According to Chris Taylor (Mashable), Apple has made great improvements “in its use of renewable energy” since Tim Cook took over as CEO. Taylor said, “More than three-quarters of the company’s facilities worldwide, including all of its data centers and its Cupertino HQ, now run on solar, wind, geothermal or hydro power, up from about a quarter under Jobs.” Just last year, Cook hired former EPA head Lisa Jackson “to lead the company’s sustainability efforts.”
In a written statement prior to Apple’s recent annual shareholder meeting, NCPPR’s general counsel Justin Danhof said, “We object to increased government control over company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards. This is something [Apple] should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender.” According to Fortune, NCPPR “was pushing a shareholder proposal that would have required Apple to disclose the costs of its sustainability programs and to be more transparent about its participation in ‘certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability’…” Bryan Chaffin (The Mac Observer) said that the NCPPR proposal was “rooted in the premise that humanity plays no role in climate change.” He also noted that there was language in the proposal that “advanced the idea that profits should be the only thing corporations consider.” During the shareholder meeting, NCPPR urged Apple CEO Tim Cook and the board “to pledge that Apple wouldn’t pursue any more environmental initiatives that didn’t improve its bottom line.”
According to Chris Taylor, Cook’s response to NCPPR was “blistering.” Bryan Chaffin said it was the only time he could recall that Cook appeared angry. Chaffin said Cook “categorically rejected the worldview behind the NCPPR’s advocacy.” The Apple CEO insisted that the company’s environmental efforts make “economic sense.” He added that Apple does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive.” Cook said that there were many things the company does “because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.” Cook said that when the company works on “making devices accessible by the blind,” he doesn’t “consider the bloody ROI.”
Cook continued, “We want to leave the world better than we found it.” But Cook didn’t stop there. He suggested that anyone who had a problem with what the company was doing should sell their shares in Apple. “Get out of the stock,” he said.
Evidently, NCPPR was not too pleased with Cook’s response to its objections, advice, and shareholder proposal. Following the meeting, the think tank released a statement saying, “After today’s meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?”
Good question. How much should companies/corporations invest in looking for ways to combat climate change?
And imagine this: The CEO of a big company who is concerned not only about the “bottom line”—but who also cares about doing things that are “right” and “just and that will leave the world a better place. If only his condition was infectious.
NOTE: NCPPR’s proposal was rejected by Apple’s shareholders. It received just 2.95 percent of the vote.
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
SOURCES
Apple CEO: Climate Change Deniers Should Take Their Money Out Of Apple Stock (ThinkProgress)
Tim Cook to Climate Change Deniers: Get Out of Apple Stock (Mashable)
Right Wing Think Tank Wants Apple to Disclose Sustainability Costs (The Mac Observer)
Tim Cook Soundly Rejects Politics of the NCPPR, Suggests Group Sell Apple’s Stock (The Mac Observer)
Ocean acidification
http://youtu.be/xuttOKcTPQs
It is difficult to get a man to understand when his income is dependent on NOT understanding…
I haven’t driven in over ten years… Er, owned a car, that is.
I’m a strong believer that one does not prosper and future generations suffer when we continue to urinate and crap pollution into the very ecosystem we rely upon for our very survival. Aka common sense.
My motto: I have yet to see a wind farm, a solar array or geothermal plant poison the land sea or air like we witness, and many deny, from coal, oil/gas and nuclear every day.
We had a presentation not long ago from a PhD meteorologist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories about this. Inter alia, he explained that research of tree rings, ice, and soil columns indicates that climate has always been variable along a sine wave type pattern within a steady channel of measurement. Lately, we happen to be on the upwave. In time, it will roll over to a down wave.
It was recommended that irrigation and cultivation of large desert areas would benefit the climate more than anything else that has been suggested. And this plan would be less expensive as well. It would remove politics and grandstanding from the debate once and for all.
” it is quite another to make long term business decisions based on climate change. Especially when we are sitting on huge deposits of coal, oil and natural gas.”
Why would reasonable people let the nations reserves of coal, oil and natural gas influence their evaluation of the science of climate change.
And if there is reasonable belief in human influence on climate change why would a reasonable person let reserves of coal, oil and natural gas affect energy policy.
Finally, if their is reasonable belief in climate change then doesn’t it follow that climate-aware management is the best long term approach for the bottom line.
Management text books are full of examples of short run policies that damage corporate viability.
Dr. Michio Kaku says climate change is not debateable.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/23/climate-change-is-not-debateable/
annie,
Right! Apple has a long way to go.
It comes down to this: should ROI dictate business decisions or should business decisions result in ROI.
Power to Apple if they can maintain the attitude that (short term) ROI is not the alter at which they worship.
It is not amazing to me that the simple answer is the most popular.
Certainty is a word not found in the lexicon of the scientist. Of course, a court of law can always say it isn’t so for awhile
If Apple did bring back it’s manufacturing to the US, they’d be on the road to putting that shameful Foxconn episode behind them, because Americans sure wouldn’t tolerate Chinese style work conditions.
Ha! Not even 3% of the vote. Yes, imagine that, a big powerful corporation with a conscience. Almost unheard of and refreshing. Maybe they will start a trend, but I kind of doubt it.
chestercat1:
not exactly, China has rising manufacturing costs which are reaching parity with those here.
They dont care about the people who work at Foxcomm, if they can get an I-phone built for less than it costs here, they will stay with Foxcomm.
Thanks Elaine for this post.
And thanks to Apple for standing up for the survival of civilization, and against idiot deniers.
Good for Tim Cook! I hope the representative from NCPPR left the stockholders’ meeting with his (hers/ their) tail between their collective legs.
Rafflaw, from what I’ve read, Apple is bringing a lot of jobs back to the U.S. What the percentage is, I’m not certain, but they have been stung by the Foxcomm stories and did pay atttention.
Elaine:
I hope they stay profitable. I wish I would have bought them at 65/share. Never listen to a stock broker even if you know him well.
Now he might be playing with the EPA and the Feds to keep them off his back or for tax reasons, I dont know. I would probably do the same. Or maybe a market survey showed Apple most people who buy are climate warmists.
In any event, he is doing it for his bottom line and if he isnt, well, I would sell.
It is one thing to benefit the blind by making products easy to use, that has universal application, it is quite another to make long term business decisions based on climate change. Especially when we are sitting on huge deposits of coal, oil and natural gas.
Bron,
Apple TV becomes most profitable ‘hobby’ ever as sales top $1 bn
By Malarie Gokey
Tech Times | March 1
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3904/20140301/apple-tv-becomes-most-profitable-hobby-ever-as-sales-top-1-bn.htm
Excerpt:
Apple TV isn’t even a TV and it still made more than $1 billion in sales for the company in 2013. According to estimates, Apple sold 10 million Apple TVs at $99 each to reach that staggering number. As a result, Apple TV is now the company’s fastest-growing category.
Naturally, Tim Cook was pretty pleased when he announced these impressive sales figures at the annual shareholder meeting on Friday. Apple’s TV business was long-regarded as something of a “hobby” for the tech giant, but now that it is so successful, that could very well change.
“That hobby was over a billion dollars of revenue last year,” Cook said. “It’s a little hard to call it a hobby anymore.”
According to analyst Horace Dediu of Asymco, Apple would have had to have sold 10 million Apple TVs in 2013 to reach that total sales figure of $1 billion, since each media-streaming box costs $99. He also figured out that Apple has sold 28 million units since 2007, amounting to as much as $3.5 billion in sales.
Additionally, due to the fact that Apple only sold 5 million units in 2012, the Apple TV business increased sales by 80 percent year over year. Consequently, Apple TV is now the company’s fastest-growing business.
Great article Elaine. Kudos to Apple. Now let’s see them bring more manufacturing back home.
“He added that Apple does “a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive.” Cook said that there were many things the company does “because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issues.””
Cook must be short on Apple, I would sell too if I owned any. At least Cook is right about selling Apple stock.
A great read. I’m a big Apple fan, and consider myself to be somewhat undecided on global warming (since I’m not scientist, I have a hard time wrapping myself around all of the data), but I do believe that our climate is constantly changing. Having said that, Apple is not an unprofitable company, and as a former member of the GOP (now an Independent), I applaud Apple, and Tim Cook. I see no harm, and great potential upside to what he, and Apple, are doing. Leadership often times means taking the tough road, not the easy one.