In many places where companies are incorporated, that is likely an illegal decision to make for your company. Unless you can argue that the loss of sales in that jurisdiction will be less than the loss in sales abroad (from loss of consumer trust), you probably can't do it.
In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring.
In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.
Legality and morality are different things. Your shareholders may have the right to ask you to fire loads of people, or be a patent troll, but the choice is still yours.
But let's be fair, how many individuals, given the choice, would choose making a better world over money ? Probably not event most people in this thread. We are weak creatures.
On a serious note though, I don't disagree that indeed your statement above is true but because we are weak creatures, we must rely on systems. Making the world a better place is many a time correlated with some sort of validation by consumers in a market based system. I.e. solve problems/make life better or easier for someone, get rewarded by more and more patronage.
Granted, this is not always the case but majority of the time, this has been in my experience the most unbiased and reliable way to do good in the world. Simply by solving other people's problems for your and others' sustenance, you somehow also end up making the world a better place. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
My reference is to majority of the time and in a sustainable way. If doing good will last, there must also be a way to sustainably compensate the actors; they also need to have their needs taken care of.
Not really, look up fiduciary duty. When you trade publicly, you have a special form of contract to the shareholding trusts, and in turn to the shareholder.
If you breach this, you are liable for damages, and likely to be replaced by somebody who isn't going to make the same mistake.
This is a vital part of publicly traded companies.
Fiduciary duty, in the sense you are using it, is a myth (most likely created to justify shameful but profitable actions from corporations). A few sources:
California Corporations Code section 309(a):
A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances.
Directors and officers of Apple Inc., incorporated in California, are bound to serve in a manner such that they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders.
If the directors and officers of Apple Inc. could determine that their shareholders have an interest in abstaining from the Chinese market for ideological reasons, they could (possibly) make a decision which would not serve the financial interest of the shareholders, but I find it unlikely that their shareholders would consent to that.
It's obvious to me that remaining in the Chinese market despite the CCP's suppression of liberties is in the interest of the shareholders. It is a huge market, and the other markets simply don't care enough about this issue to stop buying Apple devices and services on account of this concession to the CCP.
In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring.
In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.