This is gross misrepresentation. They did not lobby against it, they lobbied for some changes including being clearer and more specific about which Chinese organisations were covered. They did ask for some deadlines to be extended but do not oppose the law. Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy, polices it's supply chain and has excluded suppliers for violations. Can you provide any examples of another company doing more?
I’m not certain what “strong” means here. If it meant principled or effective they wouldn’t need deadlines extended because they would already not be slavery adjacent.
Strong in the sense that they have already identified violators and excluded them from their supply chain.
The legislation introduced additional requirements that it would take time to comply with. Note they didn't object to complying, only asking for more time to implement it.
>“What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not have any real consequences,”
The bill is not about Apple. If Apple is doing everything right, their costs may increase marginally. The bill would force US companies that don't have as good human rights records to comply. Apple lobbying against the bill is enabling this.
Summary: Apple wants to save little money. Result of that would be that unethical US based companies could continue their unethical business in China.
I think you're completely misunderstanding the incentives for Apple here. The theory is they don't want to deal with doing anything about forced labour, because evil, therefore their changes must be to water down the legislation.
That's not the situation though. They already have a forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and have even already dumped suppliers for violating these policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The reason is because then everybody else would also have to do what Apple already does, and face the costs and accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.
