APPLE INC. | Right to Repair

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
AAPL
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Environment
ESG sub-theme
  • Waste and pollution
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Technology
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request that the Board prepare a report, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary information, on the environmental and social benefits of making Company devices more easily repairable by consumers and independent repair shops.
Whereas clause
By 2040, 14% of greenhouse gas emissions will result from internet-connected technologies. Electronic waste is the fastest growing waste stream globally, and a recent World Economic Forum report found that product longevity and repair are critical to stemming this growth. Apple Inc. has committed to carbon neutrality by 2030, including across its product life cycle, yet the carbon footprint associated with an Apple smartphone has increased 14-54% from the iPhone 7 to the iPhone 12 series. More than 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions from an iPhone occurs before the consumer even receives the product. By expanding access to repair that extends the life cycle of existing products, the Company could mitigate climate and other material financial risks. Although the Company has grown its network of repair providers, Apple has come under scrutiny for: • Denying access to repair materials such as repair manuals, spare parts, and repair software; • Designing products in such a way that hinders third party repair; and • Vigorously lobbying against Right to Repair reforms. Due to its practices, Apple may be exposed to increased regulatory risks from growing support of Right to Repair’’ legislation, which would require electronics manufacturers to provide access to parts and service information in order to extend product lifespans and improve access to repair. In June 2021, Right to Repair legislation was introduced in 27 states and in the U.S. Congress. In July, President Biden signed an executive order calling for the Federal Trade Commission to develop rules on unfair anticompetitive restrictions on third-party repair. This may increase pressure on Apple, which has already been the subject of a Federal Trade Commission investigation. As serviceability becomes a more important factor for consumers and regulatory risk continues to increase, competitors in the laptop markets such as Hewlett-Packard and Dell Technologies have long made service manuals available online while making spare parts available to consumers. Neither company is known to be lobbying against Right to Repair. Apple’s anti-repair practices have been covered by major media outlets, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Bloomberg, exposing the Company to reputational risk. Even one of Apple’s founders, Steve Wozniak, has publicly called for Apple to recognize Right to Repair, noting that repairable products helped build the Company’s success. Investors are concerned that Apple’s continued opposition to repair access could undermine its ambitious climate commitments and pose regulatory, competitive, and reputational risk to the Company.
Supporting statement
The report should, at Board discretion, assess, among other issues: • The benefits or harms of making instructions, parts, and/or tools for products more readily available; and • The cost, risks, and benefits of the Company’s lobbying activities against repair legislation.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.