Your use of the word "irresponsible" indicates your bias in this matter; this is not a neutral discussion, this is a political right discussion. So be it.
There is no bias on my side and it has zero to do with my personal politics, which I am happy to inform you can't be restricted to a simple left/right paradigm. I have firmly believed for quite some time that corporations have zero obligation to spend shareholder money on anything that does not directly drive the business and return value to them. It has nothing to do with any bias that you could imagine, but rather a very focused understanding of economics and politics, as well as very direct and on-going experience with what I call "institutionalized philanthropy" in my own environment.
The business case for corporate philanthropy is good will, greater brand awareness that leads to greater recognition and greater sales and higher stock prices benefiting the shareholders. A win-win all around. Now you probably won't agree with the business case, but that's fine also.
Finally, a response. Why did it take days for you to type that?
With respect to Apple, charity would not be necessary to produce any of those results you list, and indeed given that Apple until recently abstained from charity, it was definitely not needed. Under Jobs, Apple had the highest brand awareness and brand value worldwide, across multiple surveys and numerous years. They beat out corporations that had decades-long leads in the market. AT&T, General Electric, IBM, McDonalds, Pepsi, Coke, Delta, you name it, Apple beat every one of them.
Regarding Apple's stock price, it was held down for a number of years due to concerns about the health of its CEO, not by Apple's lack of corporate charity. After his death and Cook's accession to the throne, there was a very tangible relief in the financial sector that yes, Apple did have a plan in place and its being executed well. The stock price went up due to that execution, not because of charity.
As far as politics, every one of the fortune 500 companies is involved in politics, donations, lobbying etc; that's trillions of dollars of assets behind politics. Apple was late into the game, but they definitely need to be there in 2016 and beyond.... And btw, if corporate philanthropy is not the right thing, how come so many companies are doing it and what is their rational? I'm expecting an answer to this question.
Thats rather interesting - you expect me to rebut the child's numbers defense. So be it.
The reasons are many and varied, and somewhat relate to your values statement above. Indeed, they do it for good will, for brand awareness, for greater recognition and greater sales and higher stock prices benefiting the shareholders. All accurate reasons on the surface, but it rarely - if ever - is it the case in truth. For just about every case of corporate philanthropy I've considered, there is an underlying reason that has nothing to do with "doing the right thing". As I've mentioned earlier, such charity is more akin to buying carbon offset credits, a ludicrous concept if I've ever seen one and nothing less than a modern interpretation of a Potemkin Village. Everything looks good on the surface, so all is well.
Corporations promote charity as a way of pre-atoning for mistakes and evils both known and unknown. Lets talk about a couple of examples, shall we?
General Electric advances charity and hot-button causes as a way to deflect public opinion about their involvement in the military-industrial complex, as well as some very poorly designed and built nuclear reactors, while having one of the most hostile and poorly administered work environments I've ever seen. Monsanto brags about their efforts to stop hunger in the third world while Cargill commercials show happy kids on a nature walk. Yet Cargill ripped phosphate out of the ground and put out mountains of radioactive gypsum in the process; piles so high that they not only contaminate the ground water they also cause shifts in the local topography. Monsanto (along with ADM) is causing sweeping changes to the ecosystem that are so dramatic the entire industrial revolution pales next to them, so much so that I can't even begin to list them. But all three companies have a very public charitable face, so we can cut them some slack, can't we?
So, yes charity does contribute to good will and thereby protects the bottom line somewhat. But not because its "the right thing to do". Its because charity simply buys good will. It prepares the general public to have a sympathetic eye when the inevitable problem results from the things these companies do. So, company 'x' did some bad things but look at how much they do for United Way - if they weren't here giving money so many charities would be affected. This isn't philanthropy, its public relations. There are some good reasons that scripture advised on doing charity in secret, and I think that command applies here.
But rather than just look at these specific cases, lets take a macro view. If you really wanted to generate good will with the public, wouldn't the first thing that occurs to you be to lower your prices while maintaining quality, rather than keeping prices high but giving a portion of the profits away? Then customers would keep a greater portion of their money and be able to direct that money as they see fit. An even better thing would be if all these companies joined together and took their lobbying dollars away from getting specific favoritism and put it towards lowering taxes, on both corporations and individuals. That will never happen though, because government is skilled at getting companies to fight each other using the government as an ally, thereby empowering it further.
This debate, has nothing to do with the thread title. I don't understand why anyone would expect apple of 2007 to survive in 2016.
It has everything to do with it, just as I outlined in my last post. Your closing remark is absurd, as there is nothing in Apple's operations in 2007 that would make it less likely to survive in 2016. Assuming that "Apple of 2007" would include Steve being amongst the living, I would definitely say Apple would be doing more than just surviving. I think they would be thriving and helping society find direction by empowering individuals with uniquely capable tools, as they had done for the prior decade.
