Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook has commented on shareholders who share a dislike to the company's sustainability approach.

Apple's question and answer session during its latest shareholders meeting featured the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), a self-proclaimed conservative think tank that had pushed for a shareholder proposal for Cook's company to disclose its sustainability program's costs. In addition, the NCPPR wanted Apple to be more transparent with its collaboration in "certain trade associations and business organizations promoting the amorphous concept of environmental sustainability."

As The Mac Observer's Bryan Chaffin noted, the NCPRR is an "avid climate change denier."

The proposal, put forward by the National Center's Free Enterprise Project's Director Justin Danhof, recognized Apple's membership with the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), a Washington D.C.-based trade organization.

"RILA has been working with its member companies to advance top-down, market-distorting sustainability initiatives," wrote Danhof. "RILA is pressuring its members to make expensive capital expenditures that have limited prospects for a reasonable return. RILA also advocates that its members lobby for changes to local building codes that will increase building costs and restrict property rights."

According to Danhof, RILA claimed its strategy would give its members a competitive advantage whenever environmental regulation laws are issued.

In the proposal, Danhof asked, "But why is an increasing regulatory state the only future RILA sees? Shouldn't the Company's trade associations be working to prevent costly federal interference with Apple's operations rather than pro-actively acceding to DC's regulatory morass?"

Furthermore, the NCPPR representative acknowledged Apple's hiring of President Obama's former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lisa Jackson in 2013. He added Jackson's hiring could be Apple agreeing with RILA's "sustainability push." According to the NCPPR, during Jackson's time as with the EPA, the agency issued 1,824 regulations, and 20 of the regulations are estimated to cost corporations "$7 billion in one-time initial compliance and $44.86 billion in annual direct compliance costs."

"As shareholders, we object to increased government control over Company products and operations, and likewise mandatory environmental standards," wrote Dunhoff. "This is something the Company should be actively fighting, not preparing surrender. Apple should feel free to invest in sustainability where it is doing so with a business rationale -- and staying one step ahead of federal regulators falls far short of this duty."

The proposal was scheduled for a vote on Feb. 28. The shareholders voted, and the proposal failed as it received only 2.95 percent of the vote.

"We do a lot of things for reasons besides profit motive. We want to leave the world better than we found it," said Cook, who also stated any shareholder should "get out of the stock" if they disagree with Apple's environmental efforts.

The Apple CEO noted, via Mashable, "We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That's who we are as a company. I don't...when I think about human rights, I don't think about an [Return on Investment (ROI)] . When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism, I don't think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don't think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view."

After the shareholders meeting, Danhof stated, "Mr. Cook made it very clear to me that if I, or any other investor, was more concerned with return on investment than reducing carbon dioxide emissions, my investment is no longer welcome at Apple."

According to the NCPPR's Amy Ridenour, the organization has no intention to sell their Apple shares and have been an Apple-only office since 1985.

__

For the latest updates, follow Latin Post's Michael Oleaga on Twitter: @EditorMikeO