NYC Comptroller & Investor Coalition: Apple’s Workers’ Rights Assessment Lacks Rigor, Expertise and Worker Input

New York, NY – New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, on behalf of the five New York City retirement systems, alongside Greater Manchester Pension Fund, Parnassus Investments, Service Employees International Union Master Trust Pension Plan and SOC Investment Group, and Trillium Asset Management (Proponents) released an analysis of Apple’s workers’ rights assessment conducted by independent assessor Jenner & Block. The analysis raises concerns and underscores investors’ lack of confidence in the assessment’s ability to thoroughly analyze whether Apple, in practice, adheres to its commitment to upholding workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

“Apple’s lackluster report undermines confidence in the company’s commitment to workers’ rights,” said Comptroller Brad Lander. “As the company addresses many major real-world issues, it is disappointing that it is not equally focused on respecting the fundamental rights of its workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining.”

“Apple’s assessment falls short of the clear guidance and standards outlined by investors. Despite our persistent engagement with the company — including a meeting and letters— Apple opted to overlook our concerns,” said Tejal Patel, Executive Director of SOC Investment Group. “It calls into question how serious the company is about its commitment to uphold worker’s rights.”

“Looking forward, we are watching the collective bargaining process closely,” said Jonas D. Kron, Chief Advocacy Officer at Trillium Asset Management. “Good faith bargaining in the lead up to a first contract is critically important to stakeholders and will provide tangible evidence of Apple’s intentions.”

In 2022, the investor group submitted a shareholder proposal urging Apple’s board of directors to commission and oversee an independent third-party assessment of the company’s adherence to its stated commitments to workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. This followed concerns raised by media reports and regulatory filings suggesting possible interference with workers’ rights.

Apple and Proponents reached an agreement in January 2023, leading to the withdrawal of the proposal, with Apple committing to conduct the assessment and publish the findings by the end of the year.

Recommendations made by the Proponents to ensure a genuine assessment went unheeded by the board. The Proponents’ review of Apple’s assessment raises three main concerns:

1. The assessment lacked rigor, failing to address the company’s actual practices.

The assessment of Apple’s commitment to adherence lacked rigor, as it failed to effectively evaluate the company’s actual practices concerning workers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Jenner & Block’s Report extensively detailed Apple’s policies and manager training efforts but failed to examine the real-world implications of those policies and trainings, including whether these were implemented successfully.

The assessment consciously avoided addressing 28 unfair labor practice charges, which could have provided insights into potential inconsistencies between company practices and stated commitments. Proponents were clear in their written recommendations that accounts of alleged interference and anti-union behavior, as well as formal and informal incentives and directions for managers as it relates to worker organizing should be assessed. Excluding review of the very issues and controversies that gave rise to the assessment, undercuts the credibility of its conclusions, and minimizes the utility of its recommendations.

The assessment also failed to examine whether the company’s response to labor activity was part of a broader strategy to avoid unionization, as evidenced by Apple’s reported engagement with a law firm known for “union avoidance.” The impact of the company’s labor strategy on workers was simply not addressed, which further undermined the assessment’s rigor.

2. The assessor was not publicly disclosed, and the assessment lacked crucial worker input.

The lack of meaningful worker input, a basic requirement, undermines the assessment’s value as an actual examination of Apple’s labor rights adherence. Proponents expressed that assurances of voluntary, confidential participation without fear of reprisal or retaliation were essential to conducting a credible assessment, and that multiple methods for input should be offered to workers and managers. Clearly, Apple did not heed these calls. In addition, Proponents recommended that Apple disclose the identity of the assessor, another recommendation unheeded that impeded voluntary input from workers and stakeholders throughout the assessment period.

The limited level of disclosure continued after the assessment as well, with the assessment buried on Apple’s Investor Relations webpage and only announced in the 2024 proxy statement, further limiting its subsequent reach to workers and other stakeholders.

The company’s control over assessor outreach to workers, coupled with the absence of essential safeguards, potentially discouraged worker participation. In the end, the assessment lacked crucial feedback from workers seeking to exercise their freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, especially those in unionized stores.

3. The assessor lacked relevant expertise, which hindered the report’s integrity and utility.

The assessor’s insufficient experience in international labor rights compromised the integrity and usefulness of the assessment on Apple’s adherence to core labor rights. While Jenner & Block’s assessment team demonstrated experience in human rights, it notably lacked expertise in international labor rights. The report also lacked transparency about which stakeholders were consulted or how the feedback received informed the report’s conclusions or recommendations, undermining the value of this portion of the assessment. Additionally, the report failed to understand the unequal power dynamics between workers and employers, as seen in the inadequate examination of whether employees were empowered to leave company meetings where organizing and labor-related topics were discussed.

Proponents express ongoing concerns that Apple’s potential failure to uphold workers’ rights and align itself with its stated commitments may have adverse effects on the company. These consequences include the potential to negatively affect Apple’s ability to attract and retain a high-performing workforce, harm to its consumer reputation, and the introduction of legal and regulatory risks.

Recent events, such as new Unfair Labor Practice charges and slow progress in contract negotiations since the assessment, amplify these concerns. Additionally, the Apple CORE Union issued a response criticizing the lack of direct input from Apple workers during the assessment, further underscoring the need for increased transparency in addressing workers’ rights.

Materials

Investor Review of Apple Workers’ Rights Assessment Report

###