MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
54,154
15,958



Apple is said to be "pushing back" on multiple shareholder proposals that deal with issues like Apple's greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, and human rights, discovered in letters the Cupertino company sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission in November (via Reuters). At least four proposals were argued as relating to "ordinary business," with Apple further stating that they are "not necessary" due to the company's day-to-day focus on those issues.

Apple's letters state that this means the proposals can be left off of the proxy it is expected to publish in early 2018, ahead of its annual shareholders meeting where these proposals would be heard. Apple says these are areas it "routinely reviews" and therefore they do not represent "significant policy issues" that it classifies as requiring a shareholder vote.

apple-store-logo-1.jpg

Still, some activists argue that the move by Apple "could sharply restrict investor rights," with the company using a newly enacted guidance put in place by the SEC on November 1 in its attempt to block the proposals.
While companies routinely seek permission to skip shareholder proposals, Apple's application of the new SEC guidance shows how it could be used to ignore many investor proposals by claiming boards routinely review those areas, said Sanford Lewis, a Massachusetts attorney representing Apple shareholders who had filed two of the resolutions.

Were the SEC to side with Apple, "this would be an incredibly dangerous precedent that would essentially say a great many proposals could be omitted," Lewis said.
Apple's letter is reported as specifically citing the new SEC guidance. Some of the four shareholder proposals include calls for Apple to establish a "human rights committee" that could focus on tackling topics like censorship within the company, as well as asking for further reporting by Apple on its ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and other environmental pledges.

Apple's letters to the SEC offered details as to why the shareholder proposals and resolutions are unnecessary. This included references to recent updates in its 2017 Environmental Responsibility Report, where the company pledged to end mining and switch to 100 percent recycled material for its products.
In the case of the measure on greenhouse gas emissions, filed by Jantz Management of Boston, for instance, Apple argues it already has taken many steps to improve the sustainability of its operations such as switching to greener materials and helping suppliers use more renewable energy.
Apple's 2017 shareholders meeting was held on February 28, with that date being confirmed on January 6, so we'll likely know more about the 2018 meeting early in the new year.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Article Link: Apple Seeks to Block Shareholder Proposals on Environment and Human Rights Given Its Existing Focus on Those Issues
 

jonnysods

macrumors 604
Sep 20, 2006
7,191
4,361
There & Back Again
It makes sense to me. A commitment to 100% recycled materials is also very bold!

The human rights committee sounds like it should happen IMO
 
Comment

err404

macrumors 68030
Mar 4, 2007
2,521
619
While I agree that no policy should be beyond requiring transparency, most shareholders are not concerned about the long term environmental or humanitarian impact of generating profits.
To be honest I see Apple’s commitments to these issues as being better than average and would predict voting as only worsening these commitments.
To me these are issues that need stronger legal regulations across the board, not freedom of profit motivated voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy James
Comment

simonmet

Cancelled
Sep 9, 2012
2,666
3,659
Sydney
I’m skeptical of Apple here. Their trend towards unupgradable and borderline irreparable computers could be argued as anti-environmental.

Apple is far from being the worst in the industry on environmental issues, more likely the opposite, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. My biggest pet peeve is those god-awful lightning cables that are basically designed to break and then get thrown into landfill. I urge anyone reading this to do yourself a favour and buy any of the decent third-party cables. They cost less than Apple charges for in most cases far superior and long-lasting quality. At least with wireless charging lightning cable use should decline.

I don’t see what they have to fear from shareholders expressing a democratic voice.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Tec972

macrumors regular
Aug 19, 2010
220
140
Apple is more concerned with turning more profit by making the customers think they are recycling. The whole apple watch recycle program announced recently, comes to mind. If they are really recycling why does the watch have to be fully functional? If they were really recycling and not trying to resell they wouldn't care whether or not it functioned, hence the word recycle.
 
Comment

Foggydog

macrumors 6502
Nov 8, 2014
408
483
Left Coast
I’m skeptical of Apple here. Their trend towards unupgradable and borderline irreparable computers could be argued as anti-environmental.

Apple is far from being the worst in the industry on environmental issues, more likely the opposite, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. My biggest pet peeve is those god-awful lightning cables that are basically designed to break and then get thrown into landfill. I urge anyone reading this to do yourself a favour and buy any of the decent third-party cables. They cost less than Apple charges for in most cases far superior and long-lasting quality. At least with wireless charging lightning cable use should decline.

I don’t see what they have to fear from shareholders expressing a democratic voice.

That’s me. I got a 10’ Lightning cable for 7.99. Much better than their cheap 3’ cable for 19.99
 
Comment

DeepIn2U

macrumors G3
May 30, 2002
9,636
4,021
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I’m skeptical of Apple here. Their trend towards unupgradable and borderline irreparable computers could be argued as anti-environmental.

Apple is far from being the worst in the industry on environmental issues, more likely the opposite, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do better. My biggest pet peeve is those god-awful lightning cables that are basically designed to break and then get thrown into landfill. I urge anyone reading this to do yourself a favour and buy any of the decent third-party cables. They cost less than Apple charges for in most cases far superior and long-lasting quality. At least with wireless charging lightning cable use should decline.

I don’t see what they have to fear from shareholders expressing a democratic voice.

Apple needs to look at in store return for recycle program. Along with cutting out Brithand and allow for customers to sell old iPhones back for recycling and upgrades. This’ll help customers and reduce landfills as well as aid Apple in closing their supply chain source materials.
 
Comment

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,552
Apple is also committed to turning a profit, so no more expecting accountability on their business practices. Shut up, shareholders!
It will come as a surprise to you, but many companies don't focus on huge profits first. Some profits, yes, because without some profit the business will go under unless you run a business like Uber where #1 priority is fleecing investors.

But Apple has year after year followed the strategy of creating great products first, and the profits are just a (very) welcome side effect.
[doublepost=1513012770][/doublepost]
Apple is more concerned with turning more profit by making the customers think they are recycling. The whole apple watch recycle program announced recently, comes to mind. If they are really recycling why does the watch have to be fully functional? If they were really recycling and not trying to resell they wouldn't care whether or not it functioned, hence the word recycle.
I think you don't quite understand the meaning of "recycling". The best recycling is when you can take a watch, fix it up a bit, and sell it as "refurbished". The second best recycling is when you take parts from two watches, put them together, and end up with one "refurbished" watch. You seem to be thinking about recycling in terms of raw materials. Consider that the average broken down car weighs as much as 60,000 Apple watches, and you find that recycling at that level is rather pointless.
 
Comment

fairuz

macrumors 68020
Aug 27, 2017
2,486
2,589
Silicon Valley
So what if they block shareholder proposals? If you don't like it, don't invest in it.
[doublepost=1513015228][/doublepost]
But Apple has year after year followed the strategy of creating great products first, and the profits are just a (very) welcome side effect.
Hasn't been this case in a long time. But they have probably been focusing on reducing environmental impact at the expensive of profits.
 
Comment

TheBuffather

macrumors 6502
Jul 19, 2009
485
235
Orlando, FL
Wacko eco-nazis like this are the type of people who run successful, even responsible, companies into the ground with their incessant and overbearing political agendas.
 
Comment

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,373
6,640
Germany
Apart from when they initially did it because they wanted the investor's money. They could have stayed private but guess what they didn't.

And they got it and for 30+ years have told the shareholders sit down and be quite. Telling share holders to pound sand isn't anything new at Apple and we all buy knowing it
 
Comment

WatchFromAfar

Suspended
Jan 26, 2017
1,588
1,585
And they got it and for 30+ years have told the shareholders sit down and be quite. Telling share holders to pound sand isn't anything new at Apple and we all buy knowing it
So you've argument is "they did it and paid attention while it suited them; then when it doesn't suit them they can do another thing entirely"?

As to "30+ years" what non-sense; you telling me Apple weren't interested in that sweet shareholder money in 1987? please...
 
Comment

lowendlinux

macrumors 603
Sep 24, 2014
5,373
6,640
Germany
So you've argument is "they did it and paid attention while it suited them; then when it doesn't suit them they can do another thing entirely"?

As to "30+ years" what non-sense; you telling me Apple weren't interested in that sweet shareholder money in 1987? please...

I'm not debating rightness or wrongness I'm simply stating that Apple has never cared for shareholder opinion.
 
Comment

WatchFromAfar

Suspended
Jan 26, 2017
1,588
1,585
I'm not debating rightness or wrongness I'm simply stating that Apple has never cared for shareholder opinion.
So if "Apple has never cared for shareholder opinion" do you believe that happened on December 12 1980 when Apple went public? Did they care then? They must of because no-one was forcing them to do it. Or have you got some revisionist history when Apple doesn't care because they're doing well now? Please tell me when they chose not to care?
 
Comment

Naraxus

macrumors 65816
Oct 13, 2016
1,316
5,978
"Existing focus on those issues" aka Timmy the Coward's talking points
 
Comment

szw-mapple fan

macrumors 68020
Jul 28, 2012
2,326
2,351
Apple is more concerned with turning more profit by making the customers think they are recycling. The whole apple watch recycle program announced recently, comes to mind. If they are really recycling why does the watch have to be fully functional? If they were really recycling and not trying to resell they wouldn't care whether or not it functioned, hence the word recycle.

Apple has offered recycling for all devices, including non-functioning ones, for free, online and at Apple Stores. I'm not sure why you think you deserve a gift card for sending in a broken device for recycling.
 
Comment

bmms8

macrumors 68020
Dec 19, 2007
2,487
111
I hope to attend granted i make it on the first come first serve basis. A couple questions id appreciate being answered:

1. Shares are in a trust account with my wife and i being trustees. Can she also attend?
2. We have will be 3 month old baby with us, can we stroll him in as well?
3. No to either above question, will my wife and baby be able to have a visitor pass to check our anything campus related? Thank you!!
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.