At Apple's recent shareholders meeting, a proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research's shareholder resolution requested a vote to force the tech giant to be transparent about its environmental activism.
A NCPPR representative asked CEO Tim Cook if the company's plans to have 100% of power come from renewable sources was good for the bottom line and to commit to doing only environmental activities that were profitable.
The Mac Observer reports that Tim Cook became very at angry at the question, rejecting the idea and noting that Apple does many things because they are right and not with ROI as the primary consideration.
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader.
As evidenced by the use of "bloody" in his response—the closest thing to public profanity I've ever seen from Mr. Cook–it was clear that he was quite angry. His body language changed, his face contracted, and he spoke in rapid fire sentences compared to the usual metered and controlled way he speaks.
He didn't stop there, however, as he looked directly at the NCPPR representative and said, "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
The proposal didn't pass and the NCPPR has since posted its account of the meeting in an article entitled, "Tim Cook to Apple Investors: Drop Dead".
"Although the National Center's proposal did not receive the required votes to pass, millions of Apple shareholders now know that the company is involved with organizations that don't appear to have the best interest of Apple's investors in mind," said Danhof. "Too often investors look at short-term returns and are unaware of corporate policy decisions that may affect long-term financial prospects. After today's meeting, investors can be certain that Apple is wasting untold amounts of shareholder money to combat so-called climate change. The only remaining question is: how much?"
Let us know what you think in the comments. Should Apple's concern for the environment come ahead of its concern for shareholders?
