…taken aback by Apple exec who dares to suggest that money isn’t everything. More like Cook, please.
Take a moment, Mark, and savor the absurd discomfort apparent in the reversal. As you know, one of the arguments in favor of the HHS Mandate is “the purpose of a business is to make a profit not make health decisions for its female employees.”
In that light we have a public shareholder at a public meeting of a public company asking the CEO of that publically held company to focus on what a business is for rather than the “corporate social responsibility” goals of a vocal minority. The answer: “If you don’t like it you can leave.”
Is this not the state of the nation?
“what a business is for” is the point of the argument. The sole core value of modern corporate America is “maximum shareholder value.” The problem is in the extreme, because it often translates into “maximum profit at any cost.” That’s pure Mammon worship.
There’s nothing wrong with making a profit. If you don’t, your business won’t last. But is it better to make a healthy profit and reward your employees, or make a maximum profit and squeeze the employees in favor of shareholder value? Sadly, the latter is the modus operandi in corporate America today.
It’s just nice to see at least one person not bowing to Mammon with all his heart and soul.
I’d say my point was too subtle and for that I apologize if it was misleading. However, I have a difficult time following that a CEO of a 50 billion-plus revenue company at a meeting of stockholders, those with a monetary interest in company dividends and stock price appreciation, rejected anything monetary whatsoever. It’s akin, to me, to saying an alcohol addict, being impaired only 6 of the past 7 days, is rejecting alcohol. In a person’s case that action, a day of abstaining, may be the inkling of a moral awakening. However, I doubt that is the case for a corporation.
Rather I see it simply as: “corporate social responsibility” is an essential part of indirect branding; the brand is what is directly profitable. In this case, casting the encounter of the evil conservative money-grubber versus the responsible, open-minded, liberal corporate leader is sure not to hurt sales.
I’m sure the slave-wagers at Foxconn building Apple’s gadgets appreciate the company’s “sustainability” programs and such. Maybe the nets installed to prevent employee suicide jumps are made from recycled plastic bottles? Like a great many corporations that have learned the immense PR and marketing value of trendy, feel-good environmental programs, Apple cares more about its image than it does about the people who make its products. NCPPR’s Randian agenda notwithstanding, I’ll take Cook’s indignation with a grain of organic fair-trade sustainably farmed sea salt.
Yes, not to mention the benzene poisoning their Chinese slaves endure.
I don’t think anyone here’s going to uncritically endorse Apple’s ethics. We’re just horrified by the opinion given by a so-called “conservative” that implies that the chief end of a corporation is to make money.
the National Center for Public Policy Research or NCPPR — a conservative think tank — […] asked the company to […] embrace a corporate policy that focused on profits above all else.
And this is what goes as “conservative” nowadays? Good grief.
The Devil, as always is in the details. I salute Tim Cook, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and others who recognize that there is more to life than the massive profits that their companies have brought in. On the flip side, the social causes they embrace are often in opposition to anything an Orthodox Catholic is likely to see as good.
Interesting take on this here, toward the end (the part about batteries). http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2014/03/05/tim-cook-as-james-taggart/
My 2c. worth: (1) Not to appear profit-mad, but sometimes you gotta spend money to make money, and (2) One might remember the parable of the talents here: the 5000- and 2000-bequeathed servants did something with what was given them. To whom much is given (and Apple is given a metric boatload), much is expected, and not just in the monetary sense.
MacObserver attribute an interesting turn of phrase to Mr. Cook, don’t they? “He said that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just…” Right and just, eh? Dignum et justum, eh? Hmmmm….