In case you have not noticed, Apple is not exactly virtuous when it comes to working conditions in the factories of its Asian suppliers, especially when considering that customers are paying good money for Apple products that goes directly into the company's vault, rather than spending a part on the improvement of labour standards and to polish the public image. The recent outcries and Apple's responses indicate that the customers grow weary of the company's policy and that a shift is unavoidable, particularly when you look at Apple's competitors. While it is not clear to me what this human-rights committee would have done, it does have a symbolic meaning now that it has been voted down.
Simply shoving the responsibility of working conditions to foreign governments does not work. There are many factors at play to keep the working conditions as they are, including economic incentives for those countries to keep the big companies there, strong pressure from abroad and even bribes to hamper with any legislative reform. Companies like Apple are at a unique position in that they can often dictate the terms of employment in those countries and improve the overall conditions. While I do not want to argue that the US Government should force companies to maintain certain human-rights standards everywhere, there is a strong desirability that companies should take their responsibility.
"Apples board recommends that shareholders vote against a proposal from Mr. John Harrington, a beneficial owner of at least $2,000 in market value of the companys common stock, to establish a separate Board Committee on Human Rights.
Such a committee would, according to the proposal, review the implications of company policies, above and beyond matters of legal compliance, for the human rights of individuals in the US and worldwide, including assessing the impacts of company operations and supply chains on resources and public welfare in host communities.
In recent years, Apple has indeed become embroiled in public controversies regarding the human rights implications of its products and supply chains, including but not limited to controversies related to Foxconn, a supplier of many key items for Apple with facilities located in China and elsewhere.
Apple argues that a separate committee isnt needed at present, however:
The Company is committed to the highest standards of social responsibility and human rights wherever we do business.
The Board is aware of no other company doing as much to safeguard and empower workers as the Company does today.
The Companys dedicated Supplier Responsibility team continually audits the Companys suppliers for compliance with the Companys industry-leading Supplier Code of Conduct. The Supplier Code of Conduct is based on widely recognized international human rights principles as defined by the United Nations and the International Labor Organization.
The Companys auditing program has expanded in breadth and depth over the past several years. In January 2012, the Company became the first electronics company to be granted membership in the Fair Labor Association (the FLA ), a leading non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of workers. In February 2012, at the Companys request, the FLA began a series of independent inspections of the Companys final assembly suppliers and has published the results on its website for complete transparency.
The Board does not believe that establishing a committee is an effective way for the Companys practices and goals to continually evolve and improve in response to changing conditions. Instead, such an additional and redundant committee would distract the Board from its other responsibilities to the Company and its shareholders, while adding little value to the Companys existing commitment to human rights and social responsibility."