Hmmm. This is the best argument I’ve ever heard for not using Apple products (besides the overinflated prices). Being flush with cash is probably why the CEO says he doesn’t care about the ROI (return on investment) and won’t make the costs transparent per a shareholder request. Seems like a sensible business request to me.
Some headlines/screencaps. FORTUNE magazine:
More: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/01/apple-cook-shareholders-sustainability/
==============================================================
The Mac Observer:
More: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rejects-politics-of-the-ncppr-suggests-group-sell-apples-s
===========================================================
Press release from NCPPR:
Tim Cook to Apple Investors: Drop Dead
Apple CEO Tim Cook tells Investors Who Care More About Return on Investment than Climate Change: Your Money is No Longer Welcome
As Board Member Al Gore Cheers the Tech Giant’s Dedication to Environmental Activism, Investors Left to Wonder Just How Much Shareholder Value is Being Destroyed in Efforts to Combat “Climate Change”
Free-Market Activist Presents Shareholder Resolution to Computer Giant Apple Calling for Consumer Transparency on Environmental Issues; Company Balks
Cupertino, CA / Washington, D.C. – At today’s annual meeting of Apple shareholders in Cupertino, California, Apple CEO Tim Cook informed investors that are primarily concerned with making reasonable economic returns that their money is no longer welcome.
The message came in response to the National Center for Public Policy Research’s shareholder resolution asking the tech giant to be transparent about its environmental activism and a question from the National Center about the company’s environmental initiatives.
“Mr. Cook made it very clear to me that if I, or any other investor, was more concerned with return on investment than reducing carbon dioxide emissions, my investment is no longer welcome at Apple,” said Justin Danhof, Esq., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.
Danhof also asked Apple CEO Tim Cook about the company’s green energy pursuits. Danhof asked whether the company’s environmental investments increased or decreased the company’s bottom line. After initially suggesting that the investments make economic sense, Cook said the company would pursue environmental goals even if there was no economic point at all to the venture. Danhof further asked if the company’s projects would continue to make sense if the federal government stopped heavily subsidizing alternative energy. Cook completely ignored the inquiry and became visibly agitated.
Danhof went on to ask if Cook was willing to amend Apple’s corporate documents to indicate that the company would not pursue environmental initiatives that have some sort of reasonable return on investment – similar to the concession the National Center recently received from General Electric. This question was greeted by boos and hisses from the Al gore contingency in the room.
“Here’s the bottom line: Apple is as obsessed with the theory of so-called climate change as its board member Al Gore is,” said Danhof. “The company’s CEO fervently wants investors who care more about return on investments than reducing CO2 emissions to no longer invest in Apple. Maybe they should take him up on that advice.”
“Although the National Center’s proposal did not receive the required votes to pass, millions of Apple shareholders now know that the company is involved with organizations that don’t appear to have the best interest of Apple’s investors in mind,” said Danhof. “Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. 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?”
The National Center’s shareholder resolution noted that “[s]ome trade associations and business organizations have expanded beyond the promotion of traditional business goals and are lobbying business executives to pursue objectives with primarily social benefits. This may affect Company profitability and shareholder value. The Company’s involvement and acquiescence in these endeavors lacks transparency, and publicly-available information about the Company’s trade association memberships and related activities is minimal. An annual report to shareholders will help protect shareholder value.”
Apple’s full 2014 proxy statement is available here. The National Center’s proposal, “Report on Company Membership and Involvement with Certain Trade Associations and Business Organizations,” appears on page 60.
The National Center filed the resolution, in part, because of Apple’s membership in the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), one of the country’s largest trade associations. In its 2013 “Retail Sustainability Report,” RILA states: “Companies will often develop individual or industry voluntary programs to reduce the need for government regulations. If a retail company minimizes its waste generation, energy and fuel usage, land-use footprint, and other environmental impacts, and strives to improve the labor conditions of the workers across its product supply chains, it will have a competitive advantage when regulations are developed.”
“This shows that rather than fighting increased government regulation, RILA is cooperating with Washington, D.C.’s stranglehold on American business in a misguided effort to stop so-called climate change,” said Danhof. “That is not an appropriate role for a trade association.”
For even more information on RILA, read “The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA): A Cartel that Threatens Innovation and Competitiveness,” by National Center Senior Fellow Dr. Bonner Cohen.
“Rather than opting for transparency, Apple opposed the National Center’s resolution,” noted Danhof. “Apple’s actions, from hiring of President Obama’s former head of the Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson, to its investments in supposedly 100 percent renewable data centers, to Cook’s antics at today’s meeting, appear to be geared more towards combating so-called climate change rather than developing new and innovative phones and computers.”
After Danhof presented the proposal, a representative of CalPERS rose to object and stated that climate change should be one of corporate America’s primary concerns, and after she called carbon dioxide emissions a “mortal danger,” Apple board member and former vice president Al Gore turned around and loudly clapped and cheered.
“If Apple wants to follow Al Gore and his chimera of climate change, it does so at its own peril,” said Danhof. “Sustainability and the free market can work in concert, but not if Al Gore is directing corporate behavior.”
“Tim Cook, like every other American, is entitled to his own political views and to be an activist of any legal sort he likes on his own time,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “And if Tim Cook, private citizen, does not care that over 95 percent of all climate models have over-forecast the extent of predicted global warming, and wishes to use those faulty models to lobby for government policies that raise prices, kill jobs and retard economic growth and extended lifespans in the Third World, he has a right to lobby as he likes. But as the CEO of a publicly-held corporation, Tim Cook has a responsibility to, consistent with the law, to make money for his investors. If he’d rather be CEO of the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, he should apply.”
“As in the past, Cook took but a handful of questions from the many shareholders present who were eager to ask a question at the one meeting a year in which shareholder questions are taken,” added Ridenour, “leaving many disappointed. Environmentalism may be a byword at Apple, but transparency surely is not.”
The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist group. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. Today’s Apple meeting was the National Center’s third attendance at a shareholder meeting so far in 2014.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is an Apple shareholder, as are National Center executives.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
=================================================================
h/t to “cincinatuschili”
UPDATE: Yes, he must have.
@wattsupwiththat Wonder if he's forgotten about all those coal fired power stations running his Chinese factories?
— Karl Bentley (@bentleykarl) March 2, 2014
@Mark Bofill
A fair point 🙂
Inquisitive reporters would take a look at who profits off Apple’s “sustainability involvement”. Might turn out that wasteful spending is filling crony pockets at the damage of investors.
I for one was pissed when the whole iMac gimmick brought the company back to life, I wanted Apple dead.
You can also blame some of this on the byzantine corporate tax code in the USA and various states where Apple does business. The code is full of incentives to do this and disincentives to do that. The purpose of the tax code should be to collect revenue for necessary government functions, not social engineering.
For those of you who take offense at Tim Cook’s remarks, you can buy some Apple stock, become an activist shareholder and fight to change Apple’s corporate policies. I personally believe the stock is overpriced in the long-term, so if you value social justice over profits, this strategy may be for you. On the other hand, if you successfully get Apple to stop wasting money by ending these policies, your Apple stock may pay off.
This greenwashing is what gets all those liberals in line to buy expensive apple products, which they then take to their 99% rallies 🙂
Frankly, I’m into apple products simply because the technology base is outstanding. The fact that they have money to burn doing this faux-greenwashing dance is sad, but not a deal breaker for me. It’ll become an issue when they’re low on cash, but for now, it’s equivalent to other CEOs spending money lavishly on parties, or yachts, or other trappings of wealth.
MrLynn says:
March 3, 2014 at 6:16 am
“”If his Board thought he was out of line, he’d be gone in a minute. In point of fact, it is an article of faith among the Left that corporations ought to be ‘socially responsible’, not just profit-makers. Apple currently makes pots of money, so they can afford to tow the Politically-Correct line, and even let their CEO become indignant at the suggestion he might deviate. In that culture, it’s good politics, maybe even good business”
If you want to sell products to the socialist part of the populace you better pretend your capitalist company is one big bleeding heart utopian commune. So you do some nonsensical stuff like buy a few windmills. Probably cheaper than one SuperBowl ad.
Full disclosure would mean the façade would come down and the green zombies would get really upset and stop paying way too much for electronics. I wonder what the hundreds of thousands of Chinese laborers working in filthy Foxconn factories think about Apple’s “green” way of business.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but advertising qualifies for a tax deduction while many “green” energy investments qualify for a tax credit. A tax deduction reduces taxable income while a credit actually reduces taxes owed. Tax credits can actually result in paying no net taxes while receiving a check from the Treasury.
@JP
Apple has been dying every year since they were founded. And the jury is still out on how mobile and ubiquitous computing is going to pan out. Not that I’m a fan of iCloud or MobileMe. I think one of those Microsoft lawyers got it right when he said, the internet is too big to control. Now we’re all arguing whether a keyboard is necessary for “real” work, even as tablets make inroads into new areas. So who knows? WhatsApp went for billions because they targeted very dumb hardware. It is a big complex world, something I wish the “climatologists” would remember.
Hmmm. Is he sincere? It isn’t an especially a pragmatic mindset is it? If this is coming from the current Apple CEO, you have to ask what kind of decisions he is making. Stockholders beware!
Robert W Turner: “Full disclosure would mean the façade would come down and the green zombies would get really upset”
Kinda reminds one of facade surrounding AGW and refusal of several certain Manns who reject disclosure, let alone “Full disclosure”.
something so ignorant coming from someone supposedly so intelligent has to make you wonder if his intelligence is nothing more than good marketing ?
@Stefan
I’ve been in IT since 1997. The first desktops I worked on were Macs. It was one of the greatest experiences I had when I was a hardware tech. Apple in the late 1990s, while virtually bankrupt, still made outstanding hardware and designed great software for niche markets.
I for one never got into the nasty Apple vs MS wars. I went for what worked. Apple, while being innovative, also made some dumb mistakes (AppleTalk IP, non-backward compatible software updates, etc…). However, after Jobs buried the hatchet with Gates, his focus went way beyond the desktop market. He was a true visionary in that he both saw the future and he forced the future on the consumer.
However, from a strictly business point of view, Jobs never did much to hurt the Apple Brand. Jobs was too shrewd of a businessman to do so no matter what his politics were. And now, 3 years after his death, the current CEO made a critical error. It is not just hipsters and Apple Groupies that buy iPads and iPods. Not only did Cooke insult a segment of his customer base, worst still he took sides in a fight that had nothing to do with Apple’s core business. Apple isn’t going to win over anymore converts, and shedding even a small percentage over a political disagreement indicates that Cooke and the Apple Board may not have the shareholders best interest in mind.
krischel: “Frankly, I’m into apple products simply because the technology base is outstanding. The fact that they have money to burn doing this faux-greenwashing …”
Up until recently, I believed Apple made very good products. Arguably, I have a biased baseline, being I had MS Windows computers for decades. 😉
With Steve Jobs becoming ill and passing away; control of Apple has been turned over to some other players. Those players appear to have an attitude that is less about customers being satisfied, and more about Apple’s ego. (For example Apple’s IOS 7.) Apple’s CEO AGW/Greenie position further reinforces the emphasis on Apple’s ego.
Unlike Big Oil-enriched Al Gore, who sits on Apple’s board, I am unable (being a skeptic with no outside funding) to afford Apple stock.
They are observations, not rants; not that you have any basis for making such ‘claims’. Maybe it is Ed Shultz you are confusing with Rush?
.
This is becoming a huge story. Remember what happened when leftist media tried to assassinate Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson character over some political correctness crap? The powerful Christian/Libertarian/Conservative/Independent right and happen to be climate change skeptics smacked them down with a vengeance. Expect Apple to be revising their statement by the end of the day, showing respect to skeptics, because of the money involved.
Another article at top right column of Drudge Report;
Apple’s Tim Cook: Business isn’t Just about Making a Profit
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apples-tim-cook-business-isnt-just-about-making-a-profit-9163931.html
Really, simply stated re: ROI, quite deluded (bordering on history re-write); I’m still making use of a Windows ’95 box to do daily recording on a timed schedule. The PSU fan gets a yearly lube, the power switch required change-out a couple years back, and I ‘move’ files off it in a Windows PC network neighborhood LAN environment … the 1990’s era 386DX 33 MHz Win 3.1 box used for Touchstone (linear network uWave and synthesis) sims and embedded development needs to be run yet this year (I think the CMOS battery ran down late last year). The TI 99/4A and Xerox 820 (Z80 based with floppy drive) ‘machines’ were long ago shipped off to recycle however …
And about apps, the serious engineering apps (board layout, modeling and analysis) were written for the IBM-PC ‘DNA’-cloned boxes and less so for the ‘artsy’-appealing and closed architecture of the Apple product …
There was, and ALWAYS has been a wider range of competing hardware for the open architecture of the IBM series of compatibles vs ‘the macs’ … this fact is either not known or was completely forgotten about (or, maybe no exposure to same?)
.
Apple is perfectly safe from ever seeing any of my skeptical money.
I came across a reader comment in The Independent that cites Hulme’s shocking admission that the “settled science” serves some extraneous purposes:
Jack Spratt
In the debate between the Alarmists and the Skeptics of Anthropogenic Global Warming it
can be difficult to sort through all the claims and counter claims.
In science 100% certainty is never available and what is true today can change tomorrow.
I think some people dislike this about science and want categorical, absolute truth.
But CAT is is a Holy Grail for children and the domain of mythology and religion where
truth is a window dressing for our desires, is plastic and easily manipulated by whim.
Time and data will slowly reveal more of the truth about this debate but in the meantime,
if you want to avoid standing in a cesspool of intellectual effluent, avoid aligning yourself
with liars, cheats, data manipulators, misanthropy, nihilism and some of the dumbest
most mediocre people on the planet masquerading as scientists, then join the skeptics.
One of the major centers pushing AGW with alarm is The Tyndell Centre
for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia in England headed by Mike Hulme.
Mr. Hulme recently released a book, ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change,’ which might
serve as an emblem of all that is wrong with the Alarmists and their tedious, tendentious arguments.
Hulme readily acknowledges that the science of the Alarmists is UNCERTAIN, but
he concludes that this DOESN’T MATTER given the importance of ‘possible’ impacts and the
uses to which the issue may be put.
Here are some revealing quotes from the book:
“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”
“Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our
human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs.”
“We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in
support of our projects.”
“These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false.'”
If this kind of intellectual gibberish is your cup of tea then you know where you belong. But if being forthright, honest and respecting people’s rights to their own Life and the Pursuit of Happiness has any hold on your psyche then you will vomit at associating yourself with such intellectual charlatans as the Mike Hulmes, Al Gores, Michael Manns, James Hansens and Rajendra K. Pachauris of the world. It would be a tragedy to have to agree with people who are so contemptible.
I would not buy an apple product but do own Apple stock. I like profiting from the leftist sheep who do buy their products. It is only business.
What an a$$hole. I hope many people will vote on his stupidity with their wallets. I certainly won’t buy another apple product until he is dead!:]
Mr. CEO, a true idiot ruling a kingdom of technologically handicapped lemings. I hope the country can firgure this out – Apple should have rightly closed it’s doors a few decades ago when no one was buying their products, all but for the little IPOD, they would have been gone. Truly an ludicrous company, in more ways then anyone can easily explain in a blog.
I never supported this company – never will, and this only strengthens my position (not that Apple hasn’t given me tons of reasons not to support them already).
Warren Buffett destroys argument that climate change is increasing extreme weather events (and is laughing all the way to the bank).
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/sean-long/warren-buffett-supposed-increase-extreme-weather-hasnt-been-true-so-far
Dang. I just bought the Apple 5s phone. If they don’t want my business then fine. I can buy a Google phone when my contract is up. Business and politicking don’t mix as Tim Cook is about to find out…