If we approach Apple CEO Tim Cook’s Feb. 14 speech at the Goldman Sachs Technology Conference as sociodrama (which it clearly is), the first question has to be: Why Goldman Sachs?
Cook’s address was his first appearance in the wake of the New York Times story that exposed Apple’s exploitation of its workers in China. And worker welfare was the first point that Cook discussed. This was an opportunity to manage public outrage over the Foxconn scandal. So why choose Goldman Sachs (the poster child for Wall Street’s culpability in 2009’s global economic meltdown) as the stage?
Clearly this was a miscalculation on Apple’s part, a signal that it is far more concerned with shareholder primacy than Cook admits. This contradiction damages the credibility of Cook’s words, even as he tries mightily to master the quirky, deceptively simple language that his predecessor, the late Steve Jobs, employed to launch products like the iPhone and the iPad.
Jobs was a master of such presentations. But when Cook resorts to Jobsian boilerplate like “truly a model for the industry” and “pretty amazing when you think about it” to describe Apple’s efforts to better treat its workforce in Asia, the effect is shallow yet somehow appalling.
He describes Apple’s commitment as “simple,” and in doing so sets up yet another contradiction. Study his words here: “ … every worker has the right to a fair and safe work environment, free of discrimination, where they can earn competitive wages and they can voice their concerns freely. Apple's suppliers must live up to this to do business with Apple. “ And then remind yourself … he’s talking about China. How can he possibly ensure such rights in a culturally and politically repressive environment? How can any worker there expect to gain such rights from an American corporation? There is nothing "simple" about the situation or its resolution.
Cook then swiftly touches upon a range of themes -- transparency, accountability, high concern for workers, and attention to detail – that might be persuasive it not for a glaring omission. Cooks fails to address the well-publicized suicides, suicide attempts, and threats of mass suicide among his workers in China.
He also glosses over the aphorism that confounds even the most socially conscious of CEOs: How to balance the need to protect the welfare of workers and yet meet the demands of shareholder primacy? By staging his appearance in a Wall Street theater, Cook signals on which side of that question he will land. He continues to cede the high ground that Apple has claimed for so long.