United Methodist Bishop Grant Hagiya has penned an article with some fightin’ words: Apple has failed us. No, not in technical innovation (this blogger says as he types on a MacBook), but in what they do with their hoard of cash:
It is estimated that Apple has cash reserves in excess of between 137-147 billion dollars – that’s billions with a “B!” This is more cash reserve than most of the countries of our world. And despite some positive moves by Jobs’ successor, Tim Cook, in launching a charitable, corporate-matching program, the vast majority of their wealth is not being used or leveraged for any social good. Even if they released one percent of the interest in a socially responsible way, hundreds of thousands would benefit.
I am not calling for a boycott of Apple products, and the irony is that I am writing this blog from a Mac. However, we must prophetically challenge Apple to be more socially responsible. Instead of making corporate profits the solitary bottom line, they should step up in philanthropy and social change to the same degree that they want to revolutionize the world technologically.
To the good bishop, Apple is guilty of hoarding: holding onto cash reserves that could do immediate good in the world, even if given out very conservatively.
Microsoft has failed us too
I’d like to push this argument a bit further and use it to point out another truth: Apple’s products are typically bought from people’s excess money (disposable income) rather than essentials, though certainly many people who don’t make fiscally responsible decisions will buy their products out of their essential budget. Apple thus takes a chunk of people’s excess spending and then hoards the cash.
There’s another organization that takes money out of a different and more essential budget…but then gives more of it away.
Microsoft has made its billions from the sale of its Windows operating system and the Xbox and a variety of other products. The sales are sustained primarily through paid updates to the operating system and forced obsolescence of previous years’ versions. Since its an operating system and an essential element to PCs, for decades Microsoft forced everyone to pay to play with incredible resources coming from schools and universities. While the situation has become much cheaper thanks to competition by Linux systems, Chrome OS, and Apple’s free OSX operating system, there’s still a bundle of cash paid by most households every few years to keep their systems current.
Unlike Apple, Microsoft takes a chunk of people’s operating spending, and also unlike Apple, they then share the cash. Bill Gates has given away $28 billion dollars (through 2013), and I’m unsure of how much Microsoft money has flowed through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but the charity must give away 5% of its assets each year. With $38.3 billion in the bank, that yields $1.9 billion dollars given away annual. Billion!
Essentially, Microsoft has forced a tax on most businesses, non-profits, and households in America, and turned that tax money into loads of cash to leverage social good…at their discretion. And to be fair, they also have a huge cash reserve of $84 billion, which is abut 40% smaller than Apple’s, but still larger than the financial reserves of the federal government! Wow!
Ends and Means
For both companies, they fall short of the ideal balance between ends and means:
- Apple has enticed people to give out of their disposable incomes and then stockpiled the money.
- Microsoft has forced payments out of people’s operating incomes and then given away the money to particular projects.
The ideal would be an organization that encourages the giving of cash out of people’s non-essential expenses and then gives the money away to leverage social good. Such a balance between the means and the ends is often very difficult to create, but a company culture could be adapted by courageous leadership to change the way of doing business.
These shortcomings of Apple and Microsoft lead to reflection for non-profits and churches that seek social good:
- Do we have ethical means by which we encourage giving by our constituents or congregants? Do churches promise health or wealth in exchange for offering plate money? Do churches use emotionally manipulative worship services to get people to the climax of giving back? And let’s talk about credit card debt: by allowing parishioners to give to the church via credit card payments, are you supporting a debt culture?
- Do we have ethical ends that we use people’s giving for? Mars Hill, while recently in the news for much more, did have an issue where gifts designated for their international missions actually went to local ministry support. In addition, some non-profits only give a small percentage of gifts given during emergency situations directly to the need (unlike UMCOR which gives 100% of all donations).
These are tough questions, but courageous, transparent, and accountable leadership and design can lead to ethical ends and means for churches, non-profits, and businesses small all the way up to to the tech behemoths of the world.
Thoughts?
Very interesting Jeremy. It’s food for thought.
When Steve Jobs was asked about bringing the manufacturing jobs back to America, his reply was “Those jobs are gone.” If Tim Cook really wants to be revolutionary and remembered for a long time, he could bring those jobs back.
After all, it would be such a shame if Apple went from ginormous profits to “merely” healthy profits while truly being a great place for Americans to work.
They have brought some jobs back to the US:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2012/12/05/991497ac-3fa4-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html
A simple Google search could have kept you from making such an error.
-Corey
Perhaps I am cynical, but what’s his point? The company isn’t giving it away? Did he really think they would? Perhaps the bishop is putting too much faith in the wrong place. Just because Apple makes warm and fuzzy commercials that people believe and then run out and line up to buy everything they throw out there doesn’t mean they’re different. Business is about money. Pure and simple. Well, maybe not pure…
Now I want you to follow this up with and HONEST assessment of how the church has failed us!
How many Billions in worldly assets has the church accumulated and not used to feed and clothe the poor? How many lives have been lost in the name of religion? How many suicides can be attributed to religious beliefs? And this is just the beginning!
First is the article’s glaring omission that “IF” they repatriated all those billions, the US government would take over 1/3 of the cash and allocate it to wars and a million other things the church may, or may not support. Second, a company can’t fail us, if we don’t put our faith in it… Third, the companies DO NOT own that money, its the company’s owners (shareholders) who own it and the companies are charged with being good stewards to their owners. Fourth, these companies have made its owners Billions of dollars that the individuals can (many of them probably do) hand out, much like the Bill Gates portion of the article discusses. Finally (only because I’m getting tired of typing), as a shareholder of Apple, I do not want them to give money to charity for much the same reason I don’t want public prayer in schools (I prefer my kids not be exposed to many of the horrible theologies presented in such public prayers and I prefer to donate my money to the organizations that I deem worthy).
The article comes off as lazy to me, because if the church could just get corporate donations, they wouldn’t have to work so hard to convince individuals to donate their money to the church so they can build huge inefficient buildings to heat and cool and decorate in the name of God. Ouch, that came off as angry!
BTW, how would you like it if Apple donated $100 billion to Joel Osteen’s Lakewood church… I mean, the largest company in the US should clearly donate to the largest church in the US… right?!? 🙂
-Corey
Corey, every life is important and every situation is important, and thus I would hesitate to make a quantitative analysis like you are making. How many lives were transformed and turned outwards as compared to how many lives lost due to errant (or predominant) forms of religion? How many billions of dollars have been turned outward and not hoarded? How many people have dedicated their lives to the poor and transformation of the world? I really don’t know, but I suspect the amount of good done by the church outweighs the bad by some quantitative aspects, though terrible parts certainly have significant qualitative weight.
In your longer paragraph, I would suggest you research what process and products the Gates Foundation is involved in and how it uses the money: certainly not for charity and moreso for justice projects to solve solvable problems. Not perfect, of course, but I’m impressed with as much as I’ve seen.
I don’t make the allegation about applying corporate profits to the church…the article’s point is to seek an ethical balance between the means and the ends, using two tech companies as examples. Asking for corporate donations seems to be a violation of the “means” part of an ethical scenario, so I’m clearly not advocating for that.
You bring up some good points, but many of them I’m not trying to argue with you about anyway: the purpose of the article was a bit different than the sum of its parts, no matter how erroneous you find them to be.
Blessings, ~Jeremy
I personally think that the way companies operate, only concerning themselves in profits for shareholders, is a poor way of doing business. Since I’m not an executive of a corporation that makes billions of dollars in profit I admit I could be mistaken, but I always wonder how businesses can act like they are struggling when they have huge profits and give executives huge bonuses, and they often don’t share their profits very well with their lower and mid-level employees. Nor do many businesses truly give much to charity. I’m convinced that most of them only give a little because they get a tax benefit, and it’s good PR.
Of course businesses in the U.S. Are not obligated to give to charity in any significant way, but if they would it could go a long way to helping thousands or even millions of people. Our courts have ruled that corporations are in some sense “people”, we I would like for them to be generous “people”. You know, the kind of people you like to be around.
Concerning churches, I think most could improve their percentage of finances devoted to social projects and missions as opposed to the huge amount devoted to building projects and internal “needs”. The church is intended to be a blessing for those outside the church, not only those who are already in.
Andy M.