Voters shoot down human rights committee proposal at Apple shareholders meeting
A proposal to create an Apple human rights committee was defeated in voting during Tuesday's shareholders meeting, AppleInsider can confirm.
During preliminary proxy voting, the measure had just 5.6 percent support, noted CNET's Shara Tibken. At the meeting itself a supporting shareholder suggested that a committee could look into the issue of youth smartphone addiction, including tools and education to stem any problems.
Apple opposed creating the group, claiming that its audit committee accomplishes the same goal -- though the backing shareholder said the new committee would go beyond the company's present efforts.
Apple is frequently a supporter of human rights causes, particularly when it comes to racial and LGBT issues in the U.S. It has sometimes been accused of being slow or turning a blind eye, though, when it comes to privacy and labor rights in China, or simply doing any business in countries with repressive regimes. In some cases the company has even avoided marking World AIDS Day in countries with anti-LGBT laws.
Also defeated during the shareholders meeting was Proposal 5, calling for amendments to the shareholder proxy process. All three measures backed by Apple itself -- including ones approving executive compensation, and appointing Ernst & Young as accountants -- passed.
During preliminary proxy voting, the measure had just 5.6 percent support, noted CNET's Shara Tibken. At the meeting itself a supporting shareholder suggested that a committee could look into the issue of youth smartphone addiction, including tools and education to stem any problems.
Apple opposed creating the group, claiming that its audit committee accomplishes the same goal -- though the backing shareholder said the new committee would go beyond the company's present efforts.
Apple is frequently a supporter of human rights causes, particularly when it comes to racial and LGBT issues in the U.S. It has sometimes been accused of being slow or turning a blind eye, though, when it comes to privacy and labor rights in China, or simply doing any business in countries with repressive regimes. In some cases the company has even avoided marking World AIDS Day in countries with anti-LGBT laws.
Also defeated during the shareholders meeting was Proposal 5, calling for amendments to the shareholder proxy process. All three measures backed by Apple itself -- including ones approving executive compensation, and appointing Ernst & Young as accountants -- passed.
Comments
Have an opinion, voice it, act on it where necessary but I don't see any burning need for a dedicated committee to these things. It could be more trouble than it's worth.
but I also realize that being socially responsible doesn’t mean attempting to force things where doing so won’t work, or will actually do more harm than good. When Google pulled out of China, years ago, because they said that they wouldn’t be censored, that made waves. Google was held up as being responsible. But what good did it actually do? Instead of a censored Google, China’s citizens got a Baidu that is totally controlled by the government. Baidu has become a very large company. Was that a good result of Google pulling out? No, it wasn’t.
companies can’t force governments to do their bidding. If Apple strains too much, they will be kicked out, or shut down. I don’t see that helping anyone.
Very few people are buying shares for the purpose of using them as leverage against the company for activist purposes. It's all about making a statement that everybody receiving a proxy will (presumably) read, not about making any real change. There are too many outstanding shares and too high a price to be able to buy (or control) a large enough block to forcibly pass something the board opposes. If you had that kind of money, you could more easily implement your changes by creating a non-profit foundation of some kind.
This committee sound like it would definitely interfere with the paper. So there is no surprise here.
It’s even worse than that. If you want to see a path to true fascism, not the kind of fascism of the bullshit accusations of activists, it would be establishing a central or at least major role for corporations in any kind of collective activism.
Liberal democracies are under enough threat from corporate political influence and graft as it is, without promoting a role for corporations in human rights. In that type of area corporations should just focus on fully complying with the law.
Although, I do like the steady drip, drip of cultural change. But as you say, maybe a bit too much for a company. The world needs less committees.
Requesting that Apple spend more time on this is uninformed and redundant, it's also naive - Apple has done more for the environment and rights of the workers than many of the countries in which those workers are employed. Then they release this information (warts'n'all) annually for review.
Just because Apple are good at what they do, doesn't mean it's wise to use them as the figurative hammer to every nail. This seems to be a commonly held misconception: that a person or company which is very good at one thing - would suddenly be very good at another thing.
I also believe that parental controls/device addiction has nothing to do with human rights and intermingling the two is the talk of a bobble-head. Implementing discipline is far easier than software and unwinding human rights abuses.
In the early 1900s the US was on par with China today regarding unsafe work practices and basically just working someone to death. Plus we didn't have any laws to protect the worker.
China isn't a democracy, so a committee could only make observations and comment on them. They can't enforce any changes other then threatening to stop doing business with the offenders. How would they punish Foxconn if they're the only one who can meet Apple's demands for production?