[NewsPoster]

A conservative group in the United States is intending to propose that Apple reveals how it selects which countries it operates within this Friday at a shareholder meeting, under the guise of demonstrating the company's actions do not match the culture and beliefs of its management over human rights. The National Center for Public Policy Research's shareholder proposal asks that Apple be compelled into explaining its processes behind locating certain operations in "high-risk regions with poor human rights records," an action it suggests risks damage to "Apple's reputation and shareholder value."

Published in the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Proxy Statement, spotted by AppleInsider, proposal 7 on the list states that Apple "has recently shown interest in opening business relations with Iran – a state sponsor of terrorism with an abysmal human rights record," and that it also either already has or expects to have a presence in areas like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates, which the proposal declares as "nations that have questionable human rights records as it relates to suffrage, women's rights, and gay rights."

The request itself is for the Board to review the "company's guidelines for selecting countries / regions for its operations" and to issue a report to shareholders by December this year "at a reasonable expense excluding any proprietary information." This report "should identify criteria for investing in, operating in, and withdrawing from high-risk regions."

The supporting statement from the NCPPR suggests the board may also want to consider a "congruency analysis between its stated corporate values and Company operations in certain regions, which raises an issue of misalignment with those corporate values, and stating the justification for such exceptions."

One example given is CEO Tim Cook's comments against religious freedom laws, which are considered by Cook to permit discrimination. "Apple is open. Open to everyone, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, how they worship, or who they love," said Cook, confirming Apple "will never tolerate discrimination." The proposal notes a report from the Washington Post which claims Apple operates in 17 countries where homosexuality is illegal, punishable by death in four. "These company operations are inconsistent with Apple's values as extolled by our CEO," claims the NCPPR.

Apple CEO Tim Cook

A second claim notes Apple's stated policies, specifically concerning "massive reductions in CO2 emissions," then points out Apple's manufacturing facilities in China, "the world's largest emitter of CO2 with a questionable record on human rights and religious freedom." This too is claimed to be a "conflict with Apple's stated values and policies."

The proposal ends by declaring Apple's decisions "demonstrates a gap between its lofty rhetoric/aspirations and its performance," and that the report would help by "illuminating and addressing the factors accounting for this gap."

Apple's Board responded to the proposal by recommending shareholders vote against it. The country selection is "based on a wide range of factors relating to our business strategy," writes the board, "but our values and our principles of business conduct apply everywhere we do business. We believe in equality for everyone, regardless of race, age, gender, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. That applies throughout our company, around the world, with no exceptions."

The company operates in some locations in order to reach its customers and support its business, on the retail, research and development, and sales and marketing branches, the board claims. As for manufacturing, it has adopted a Supplier Code of Conduct to "promote our standards of social and environmental responsibility and ethical conduct throughout our supply chain," adding that the standards "exceed what local laws require" in some cases.

Apple claims to have trained more than 8 million workers on their rights since 2007, and conducted 633 supply chain audits over a number of factors affecting over 1.5 million workers in 2014. "We do this because we believe that it drives accountability and improvement throughout our supply chain and ultimately has a positive impact on the communities we're a part of."

Lastly, Apple attacks the need to create the report in the first place, believing it not to be a "productive use of company resources." The need to remove proprietary information would make it "an incomplete picture of our approach," with Apple also claiming the company's "commitment to protecting and promoting human rights has already been demonstrated by both effective action and transparency about our work."

[Flying Meat]

Gee. Someone else that wants to control Apple.

[JeanLuc LaBarre]

First off, Macnn, in common with others, labels the NCPPR 'conservative' while never applying the term 'liberal' or 'left wing' to leftist groups, no matter how crazy.
(PETA anyone?)

When Mr. Cook talks of "human rights" in this country he's using a euphemism for homosexual acceptance.
But the people of China are denied even the right to vote, to have children and to worship as they see fit. The communist regime took control by murdering at least 45 million, and currently has over a billion people enslaved.

"Human rights" Mr. Cook??

Of course the press never questions this contradiction, choosing to ignore it for the low hanging fruit of climate change and other leftist causes, so there's no outcry, just Trump Trump Trump.

[Mike Wuerthele]

You're incorrect. When called for, we do apply the term liberal. In this case, the term "conservative" in this case is self-applied as well, the group calls themselves that.

Your post is a little disjointed. I'm not really sure what your points are, here. I'm interested in some clarifications, assuming you're staying with us for a while.

[packlad]

Whether it originates from one of those dastardly conservative groups or even a Samsung mole doesn't make the questions raised by the proposal invalid. Cook and Apple love to broadcast their magnanimous humanitarian works, fight for speech and privacy rights, support for social causes, and environmental efforts at every opportunity. Yet they continue to partner with companies (Foxconn et al.) and nations with horrific records on human rights, privacy and speech protections, and environmental destruction. They then throw out the usual "duty to maximize shareholder value" spiel and slap some solar panels on their buildings to make everything right.

Having the loaded phase "under the guise" in the opening sentence of this article speaks well of the further objectivity of the article. Not that Managing Editor Mike seems to care. Rudely dismissing his readers is a higher priority.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Where did you see us take a side in the article? "Under the guise" isn't declarative of anything. I believe you won't find a more objective explanation of what the group is trying to highlight anywhere.

Where was I rudely dismissive to Mr. LaBarre? He signed in through the front page, not the forums -- that's not generally an indication of somebody who's doing more than a drive-by, and I genuinely didn't understand some of his points.

[Steve Wilkinson]

As one of my favorite Christian apologists says, 'Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument...'

Apple is for human rights, and I'd have to applaud that, except that yes, they aren't consistent in applying that, nor what is meant by the term 'human rights.'

The whole Saudi Arabia thing and other examples are pretty clear. They are extremely inconsistent, and it seems to probably be a matter of in one case, profits are on the line, while the other is PR mixed with some genuine localized concerns. I suppose one could take a kind of Star Trek non-interference view... such as, XYZ are wrong in this culture, but we can't force that view on other cultures (who, presumably, can have their own morals), except that they aren't consistent there either. They will interfere in the sense of selling them their products, just not enforcing the human rights. But, at least the 'you have your morality, I have mine' fits within the liberal mindset on morality... they are just guilty of inconsistent application.

But, they also aren't even consistent on what human rights are or how they work. For example, Tim Cook said this in response to the FBI issue just the other day:

"People have entrusted us with their most personal and precious information. We owe them nothing less than the best protections that we can possibly provide. ... History has shown us that sacrificing our right to privacy can have dire consequences. We still live in a world where not all people are treated equally. Too many people do not feel free to practice their religion, or express their opinion, or love who they choose..."

Yet, they've given millions of dollars to organizations who have again and again suppressed the rights of religious people to practice their religion, or express their opinions without dire consequences. They have a particular view on what human rights are, how they are to be expressed, and which have priority over others. And, they are willing to put their money and backing behind those views, even when they suppress others.

Yet, when money is on the line, they turn a blind eye to some of the most horrific human rights abuses on the planet.

I really appreciate their fighting the corruption of the FBI and US government on this one, and I'm glad they want to protect my privacy, but I think they need to look in the mirror a bit more on how they are addressing human rights.