Roger Fingas
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.
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
27 Comments
A human rights committee is probably a step too far.
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.
It is commercial business - not activism. Take it elsewhere.
I’m someone who does believe that companies should be socially responsible. I do believe that Apple is more so than, at least, most other large international companies.
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.
This is hardly news. Anyone who holds stock in any major company sees propositions like this all the time. I have never once seen any company recommend a yes vote for any shareholder proposal, and it is very very rare that any pass because ultimately most shareholders want their shares to gain value and they trust the corporate management to do what is necessary to bring that about. And this is perfectly logical - someone who doesn't trust management to maximize the stock's value isn't going to buy it in the first place.
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.