“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.
In the context of the entire course, this quote from the article about Apple’s dramatic 2014 shareholders meeting demonstrates what is to me a number of tensions when it comes to corporations and charitable donations/the broader notion of social responsibility. First is what has has been reiterated throughout this course, which is the corporate form strained by the disagreement between the individuals responsible for the corporation. Clearly, in this case, Cook as the CEO sees environmentalism and other social causes as part of the company’s managerial goals, and seeks to gear the company towards these goals. Though most of the shareholders seem content with this judging by the overwhelmingly approving shareholder vote, the NCPPR representative’s oppositional stance seems emblematic of those shareholders who campaign for greater rights and the ability to enforce profitability.
What I find more interesting, though, is the underlying tension between the corporate form itself and social innovation. On one hand, Cook’s statement sees innovative production as characterized by better accessibility, environmental consciousness, and labour rights. To put it snappily, capital creates and what is created can be donated [to social causes/in the sense of performing social responsibility–I was mainly gearing for poetics here]. On the other hand, NCPPR’s desire for maximized shareholder value draws limits around Apple’s environmental practices based on profit: capital creates and what is created can be donated how the company wishes with the important and stern qualification that it doesn’t impinge on the upward creation of profit. I think these two approaches visualize the use of the corporation in very different ways, and certainly show the potential differences between officers’ and shareholders’ interests.
The asterisk to this post is the subtext in the following list of “Canada’s Top 50 Socially Responsible Companies”: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/canadas-top-50-most-socially-responsible-companies/. Companies that make leaderboards for social responsibility aren’t necessarily faced with no criticism; L’Oreal SA, for example, has faced anger for its use of animal testing, and Goldcorp has been criticized for human rights violations overseas. What gives? Is this inconsistent with the whole idea of corporate social responsibility?
I think your final point speaks directly to the notion of corporate ‘greenwashing’, basically a profit-driven strategic PR campaign under the guise of corporate social responsibility. As you’ve alluded to, CSR is desirable to shareholders to the extent that it can be demonstrated to boost sales or generate additional revenue in some way. While I’ve always been fairly cognizant of these kinds of deceptive corporate campaigns, based on the inherent tensions you’ve identified I think it’s reasonable to imagine that certain CSR campaigns came about as a sort of middle-ground between the hypothetical altruistic corporate director, and the single-minded profit driven shareholder. Given the illusive nature of so many corporate law principles, perhaps it’s appropriate to characterize CSR initiatives on a continuum, with thinly-veiled corporate money grabs on the one end, and more genuine, impactful initiatives on the other.
I found this article interesting and enjoyed reading both of your takes on it. Like Stuart, I find there to be an ever increasing push for corporations to want to seem socially responsible. I even wondered about the motivation behind publishing the article regarding Apple’s shareholder meeting. It’s difficult to know why corporations tell us things and leave out other things. Whatever the reason, I think that Apple makes itself look good by having Cook take such a strong stance on wanting to be socially responsible.