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
“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,”
Sorry Mr. Cook but while your company has a future making money, people will buy into it. Otherwise you sound like a company dictator – another green Nazi?
When Apple starts to lose money (and like most fashion icons it will) you will be hoping for help from anyone you can.
So long and thanks for the stupidity.
The last time I used Apple kit was in the early 80’s, Apple II, when they were still technically interesting. Just about everything since then has be a triumph of form over function. Overpriced and underwhelming kit for narcissists, from the fashion accessory company….
Who needs them anyway ?…
The writing is on the wall to make a lot of money shorting apple stock. They have lost their great leader and motivator, they are not concerned with profit, they are being infiltrated with gov. bureaucrats. It is not even the first time this has happened to apple.
I guess that’s an invitation to not buy it’s iCrap, also, right?
In a Jamaican accent:
Never had an Apple product. Never will. Ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaa.
I for one am not a fan of either Google or Apple. I’ll stick to my Blackberry. Despite rumours to the contrary, they aren’t going anywhere, they don’t track everything I do with my phone.
Apple manufactures how much of their product in the only country that emits more CO2 than the US, and he is worried about skeptics investing in Apple? No mirrors to look into at the Cook house I guess. Earth to Apple – it’s not an increase in the mean surface temperature that makes your plants sweatshops.
Yet another reason to never send a single penny to Apple. Nevermind that their products are inferior AND overpriced.
Joseph Murphy says:
March 3, 2014 at 5:19 am
The writing is on the wall to make a lot of money shorting apple stock. They have lost their great leader and motivator, they are not concerned with profit, they are being infiltrated with gov. bureaucrats. It is not even the first time this has happened to apple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it WILL be the last time. Steve Jobs isn’t around to rescue them from disaster again.
Cook lost his cool, and should apologize. That may not be enough, though. He might need to step down as CEO. In a way, he was probably correct though, with his claim that Apple’s sustainability programs, otherwise known as greenwashing is good for their bottom line. Image is important, and being “green” is important to their customer base. Of course, it’s all a sham, and that was what NCPPR were exposing.
Come on, now. This is nothing new. Steve Jobs was a brilliant marketeer, an obsessive manager, a genius at taking new technology and combining it into cool products that people loved, and also a bona-fide California kook, into New Age fads and leftwing political causes. Steve is the one who put the insufferable Algore onto Apple’s board. Apple has always been Politically Correct. Tim Cook is just continuing the tradition in his stolid, unimaginative way.
Nedders (March 2, 2014 at 11:50 pm) summed it up correctly:
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—you know, staying on the correct side of certain folks in Washington, DC and Sacramento.
/Mr Lynn
PS Re the claim that Macintosh computers embody style over substance, I have Macs from the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s that still run. I don’t use them, because my 27″ quad-core i7 iMac is a lot faster and more Internet-capable. But Macs, even though they cost more, have always had a longer life-span and ROI than comparable PCs. And the idea that Mac users are all liberals is just nonsense. Just ask Rush.
Poor Cook, stupid enough to think he’s only speaking to 3% of the people based on “settled science”. At the Board of Directors meeting he’ll say..” but I was playing up to the 97%,. That’s good business!” It will take awhile for the erosion in stock value from this gaffe to sink in but it indeed will. I have 3 Macs at work used for design..stubbornly thinking that Apple makes the best design software (which they no longer do). They’re do for an upgrade soon. To PC!!
This morning on CNBC live interview Becky Quick and Warren Buffett: Buffet looked like a cat keeping a mouse in his mouth when he talked about climate change. The bottom line is that, he invested in the insurance business knowing that fueled by hysteria the premiums will go up while actual “climate change” disaster related expenses will remain the same, since, as Buffet said, there is no effect of climate change on economy. So, as always, first and foremost some smart people are making huge money while relatively few laymen, -women, and children, including some geeks like us –“deniers” are quietly opposing. Second, a large number of academia people profit getting their tenure, research funding, honors, and supply of graduate research assistants to help “carry the torch”. This is off balance and time for a swing back. We, the public, can perhaps start by demanding our state and federal governments to stop supporting AGW-disruption-change and then demand from the universities expulsion of all the alarmists from their academic positions.
RaiderDingo says:
March 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Why don’t apple let me change to battery for my Ipod instead of having to chuck it?
I wish someone had asked the CEO that excellent question.
iTunes.
gymnosperm says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:30 pm
“Steve Jobs would never have issued such a statement.”
No, he would probably throw a hissy fit, break down in tears in front of the board and go off and sulk until he got his own way.
Is my comment that bad?
/#comment-1581342 March 3, 2014 at 5:01 am
is still in moderation.
Cook should ask Oprah Winfrey about the wisdom of getting involved in partisan politics, if he can find her.
Cook may have forced upon himself a Dixie Chick Moment. Quite a few people may just decide to ditch their iPhones for Droids. Not even Apple is so well off they can write off 5-10% of their customer base. The Deniers may decide to get out of Apple products altogether.
If Mr. Cook is lucky the whole Apple enterprise will be bought by Samsung!
Makes me even more glad that I’ve always gone with Android.
“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,..”
Everything you say is true. But, it behooves Cooke to realize that eventually all good things come to an end. And it is his job to forestall the end as long as possible. The tech world is great; but it is also a graveyard for such things as the Betamax, Walkman, Digital Vax work stations, and Novel Netware. Soon to join the list is Sunsparc Stations, and Blackberries. Apple is living off its brand, which is a legacy of Steve Jobs. That brand has taken some hits in recent years, but still remains strong with the Apple groupies who are willing to pay huge mark-ups in order to experience the Apple Magic.
But, many people are not. Apple currently enjoys healthy profits and great cash flows. But, it hasn’t had a hit in 3 years. Apple devices only make up 20% of the smart phone market, and worst of all, younger people and hipsters are not flocking to Apple like they did in the past. In short, Cooke and Apple may need those Deniers if they wish to survive. Cooke one day may regret his angry impolitic words.
“Sasha says:
March 3, 2014 at 2:57 am”
I sort of agree the Apple model has run it course a unless they have another lucky break with some very on the ball innovation.
As to your examples – Kodak Versus Fuji comes to mind. Kodak just failed to expand its horizons, Fuji survived whilst Kodak went bust. Apple has a long way to sink, but so did Koak
Things happen fast in this world, no one can think they have it sorted
Stefan,
By no means. I don’t want to have stock in a company who’s CEO thinks it’s acceptable to trade ROI for political goals. Well, certainly not for political goals I don’t support! If I choose to risk my money, certainly I’d be sure the risks were for goals that match my goals.
“PS Re the claim that Macintosh computers embody style over substance, I have Macs from the ’80s, ’90s, and 2000s that still run. I don’t use them, because my 27″ quad-core i7 iMac is a lot faster and more Internet-capable. But Macs, even though they cost more, have always had a longer life-span and ROI than comparable PCs. And the idea that Mac users are all liberals is just nonsense. Just ask Rush.”
@lynn,
Still fighting those old Mac versus PC wars? They are soooooooo 1990s. Most businesses are steadily moving their desktops to virtual world of Cloud computing. The desktop is a commodity. Few businesses are willing to pay $2000 for a core 7 mac book when they can virtualize the desktop at a fraction of the cost. And since Apple is the only desktop OS that cannot be virtualized, they will lose out on a rapidly growing market.