This thread takes a real situation, to which Cook was responding, and distills it down to a myopic partisan argument devoid of any real substance.
This "incident" isn't a commentary on an executive's fiduciary duty, an indication that Cook has gone off the reservation in respect to his duty to his shareholders, or a general commentary on a corporation's responsibilities in general.
What happened here is that over the course of Cook's tenure as chief executive at Apple he's made an effort to move the company to a more sustainable energy infrastructure.
Neither Cook nor Apple are unique in this pursuit.
Most Fortune 500 companies have policies and programs related to issues that aren't, strictly speaking, focused on driving profit.
Such policies and programs run the gamut from expanded use of renewable/green energy, reinvestment in local disadvantaged communities, support for Veterans, diversity initiatives, monetary contributions to foreign disaster relief efforts, and on and on...
Generally none of this stuff is a major issue for the majority of shareholders.
It comes up from time to time where you'll have "activist investors" pushing some agenda or another but it rarely makes the mainstream news.
And the same actually applies in this case, except it did make the news this time.
What happened was this...
An institutional Apple investor, the The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), got a measure placed on the 2014 proxy statement related to the disclosure to shareholders by Apple (in the form of an annual report) of Apple's involvement with trade organizations, including membership fees paid to such organizations, that focus on sustainable energy issues.
At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) Apple shareholders voted on the measure and choose to reject the NCPPR's measure.
Later, representatives of the NCPPR in attendance at the AGM, decided to try to put the screws to Cook and he pretty much told them flat out, "Listen, you guys are partisan idiots. We do plenty of things here at Apple that don't focus primarily on turning a profit and our investment in renewable energy, and our participation in organizations dedicated to renewable energy issues, are just a few of those thing. You put your measure on our ballot, our shareholders voted on that measure, and your measure was rejected. The people have spoken. If you disagree with the direction the leadership and the ownership of this company choose to take it, don't let the door hit you in the ass."
To turn this into a commentary on anything more than the specific situation in question is disingenuous.
(To read the actual proposal that was voted down by Apple's owners see this link:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000119312513486406/d648739dpre14a.htm - refer to Proposal No. 9)