Task 1

Individual Reflection on a Group In-class Activity

The presentation on the case study of Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter brought to light
numerous ethical issues that arise from his actions. This reflection aims to delve deeper
into these concerns, explore the reasons behind their unethical nature, and contemplate
alternative approaches that could have been employed.

The ethical issues raised in the case study are significant and multifaceted. Firstly,
Musk's decision to fire employees without proper notice and subsequently recall some
of them demonstrated a lack of fairness and respect for the individuals affected. This
abrupt termination jeopardized the livelihoods of many employees, causing distress and
uncertainty.

Secondly, Musk's implementation of an ultimatum demanding employees to commit to a

"hardcore" work environment or leave raises concerns of bullying and coercion. This
approach disregards the well-being and autonomy of employees, essentially forcing
them to choose between compromising their personal lives or risking their employment.

Furthermore, Musk's disregard for compliance with company policies, such as the
revocation of remote work options and the accidental lockout of badge access,
demonstrates a lack of respect for established rules and processes. This disregard
undermines the stability and trust within the organization and creates an environment of
uncertainty and confusion.

The unethical nature of Musk's actions can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, they
contravene the principles of fairness and justice. Musk's decisions were made without
consideration for the impact on employees' lives, resulting in an unfair distribution of
consequences. Such disregard for fairness erodes trust and damages the social
contract between an organization and its employees.

Moreover, Musk's actions disregard the principles of respect and human dignity. By
implementing an ultimatum and subjecting employees to intense work demands, he fails
to acknowledge their worth as individuals with their own lives, values, and well-being.
This dehumanizing approach devalues employees and diminishes their intrinsic
motivation, leading to decreased morale and productivity.

If I were faced with a similar situation, I would approach it differently, taking into account
ethical considerations and alternative approaches. Firstly, I would prioritize open and
transparent communication with employees. Providing clear explanations of the
organization's goals and vision would foster understanding and engagement. This would
include actively seeking employee input and involvement in decision-making processes
to ensure their perspectives are considered.

Additionally, I would emphasize empathy and compassion in dealing with employees.

Recognizing the importance of work-life balance and well-being, I would strive to create
a supportive environment that values employees' personal lives and offers flexibility.
This could include providing remote work options, promoting employee wellness
programs, and accommodating individual needs.

Furthermore, I would uphold fairness and equity in all actions and decisions. This would
involve fair and transparent evaluation criteria, ensuring that employees have a clear
understanding of performance expectations and avenues for advancement. Additionally,
compliance with legal regulations and company policies would be of utmost importance
to maintain integrity and trust.

In conclusion, the presentation on Elon Musk's Twitter takeover shed light on several
ethical issues, including fairness, respect, and compliance. Musk's actions were
deemed unethical due to their disregard for employees' well-being, the use of
ultimatums and coercion, and the absence of fairness and compliance. As individuals, it
is crucial to reflect on such case studies and consider alternative approaches that
prioritize fairness, respect, and open communication. By doing so, we can contribute to
creating ethical and thriving work environments that uphold the dignity and rights of all
individuals involved.
 Task 2
Individual Report

1.0Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become an integral aspect of contemporary
business practices, with companies increasingly recognizing the importance of ethical
and responsible conduct in their operations. This report focuses on the case of
Batterygate, a controversy involving Apple Inc., and analyzes the company's approach
to CSR in light of the incident. Batterygate, which centered around Apple's intentional
throttling of iPhone performance to address battery-related issues, raised questions
about transparency, accountability, consumer welfare, and environmental impact. The
report examines Apple's actions from the perspectives of normative and descriptive
business ethics theories, namely stakeholder theory and legitimacy theory. Additionally,
it explores stakeholder perspectives, including those of customers, shareholders,
employees, regulators, and advocacy groups, to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the implications and responses to the controversy. By delving into these aspects, this
report aims to shed light on the CSR practices of Apple and draw lessons for companies
facing similar challenges in managing stakeholder expectations and upholding ethical
standards.

2.0 Company Background 

Apple is an American corporation that develops and sells computer electronics,

software, personal computers and portable devices internationally (Johnson et al.,
2012). Founders Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne established Apple in
1976, with its incorporation in 1977. Apple has a history that spans over 30 years, and
during that time the company has experienced its ups and downs in financial
performance. It was after 2007 when Apple finally achieved widespread success with
the launch of the iPhone, the iPod touch and the iPad. It is traded on the NASDAQ
under the ticker AAPL. It is also a part of the NASDAQ-100 and S&P 500 (Johnson et
al., 2012).
Apple Inc. has a diversified portfolio of its products and services because it not only
designs but manufacture and sells mobile and media devices, software, computer
accessories (Lockamy, 2017). Not only that but it also includes iPhone, iPad, Mac,
Apple watch and Apple TV. Its services varied from iOS, iCloud, Apple Pay and much
other software (Vogel, 2007). iPhone comes under the category of Smartphones
consisting of the operating system that gave 62% revenue to Apple in 2017 (Lockamy,
2017).

Introduced in 2007, Apple faces many improvements and successes after the iPhone
was made available for its customers due to its unique shape, style, features, and
innovative options. iPad comes in the tablet devices introduced by Apple also operates
through the operating system (Heracleous, 2013). Until 2013 after reaching its peak, it
started to decline in the market share had given 18% revenue to Apple. However, it
faced an increase in countries such as China and India. Mac is in the division of
personal computers (Heracleous, 2013). It gave quite a huge amount of revenue to
Apple which is regarded as its best: $25.8 billion. Services comprise of iCloud,
AppleCare, Apple Pay reaching all-time highest revenue scale to almost $30 billion in
2017. iPhone X has been the most expected iPhone over the past years for Apple Inc.
introduced on November 3rd. It is considered as the most innovative phone introduced
ten years back that will design future paths for iPhones (Dragnić, 2014). It has many
innovative features namely face recognition which made it more popular among its
customers around the globe.
 Figure 1: Apple's global revenue from 1st quarter 2005 to 2nd quarter 2023 (Federica,
2023)

3.0 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with reference to

the chosen case 
Corporate Social Responsibility refers to a company's commitment to conducting its
business ethically and responsibly, taking into consideration the impact of its actions on
various stakeholders, including customers, employees, communities, and the
environment (Du, Bhattacharya and Sen, 2010). CSR involves going beyond legal
obligations and actively contributing to social, environmental, and economic well-being
(Lougee and Wallace, 2008).

In the case of Batterygate, Apple's actions and subsequent responses can be analyzed
through the lens of CSR. The controversy raised questions about Apple's ethical
responsibility towards its customers and the transparency of its practices (Hanley,
Kelloway and Vaheesan, 2020). Several aspects of CSR can be examined in relation to
this case:
3.1 Transparency:
CSR emphasizes the importance of open and honest communication with stakeholders
(Lee and Comello, 2018). Batterygate raised concerns about Apple's lack of
transparency regarding the intentional throttling of iPhone performance. Customers
were unaware of the underlying battery-related issues and the impact of software
updates on their devices (Lougee and Wallace, 2008). Transparency, or the lack
thereof, played a significant role in the Batterygate case. Initially, Apple's approach
lacked transparency, which led to widespread criticism and raised concerns among
stakeholders. Here are some key aspects related to transparency in the case:

3.1.1 Initial Lack of Disclosure:

Apple did not openly disclose the fact that it was intentionally slowing down the
performance of older iPhones due to battery-related issues. Customers were left in the
dark, unaware that their device's performance was being deliberately throttled to
prevent unexpected shutdowns (Boersma, 2022).

3.1.2 Misleading Software Updates:

Apple's iOS updates, such as iOS 10.2.1, included changes to power delivery on newer
devices, but the true intent behind these updates was obfuscated (Spence, 2018). While
they did address the sudden shutdown issue, they also resulted in reduced performance
without users' knowledge.

3.1.3 Speculation and Uncovering by Stakeholders:

The lack of transparency from Apple led to speculation and investigations by
stakeholders, including tech journalists, Reddit users, and researchers (Allyn, 2020).
Through their efforts, it was eventually discovered that the performance throttling was
directly related to battery issues.

The lack of transparency in the initial stages of the Batterygate controversy fueled
frustration and eroded trust among customers and other stakeholders. It highlighted the
importance of transparency as a fundamental principle of corporate social responsibility,
particularly when it comes to disclosing information about product performance and
addressing potential issues affecting consumers (Allyn, 2020).
Subsequently, Apple's efforts to improve transparency, such as providing battery health
information and offering discounted battery replacements, aimed to restore trust and
enhance communication with customers (Allyn, 2020). These measures were important
steps towards addressing the transparency concerns raised during the controversy.

3.2 Accountability:
CSR encourages companies to take responsibility for their actions and address any
negative consequences (Tamvada, 2020). Accountability was a crucial aspect in the
Batterygate case. Initially, Apple's lack of transparency and failure to disclose the
intentional performance throttling raised questions about its accountability to customers
and other stakeholders (Rashid, 2022). The delayed acknowledgment further intensified
the demand for accountability. However, as the controversy unfolded, Apple took steps
to address the issue and demonstrate accountability. This included offering discounted
battery replacements, introducing battery health features, and facing numerous class-
action lawsuits. By taking responsibility for the problem, providing remedies, and facing
legal consequences, Apple aimed to restore trust, demonstrate accountability, and fulfill
its obligations towards affected customers and stakeholders (Rashid, 2022). The case
highlights the importance of holding companies accountable for their actions and
ensuring they take appropriate measures to rectify any negative impacts on
stakeholders.

3.3 Consumer Welfare:

CSR recognizes the significance of considering consumer welfare and ensuring product
quality and satisfaction (Wei et al., 2018). Batterygate highlighted the importance of
delivering reliable products and managing customer expectations. The controversy
brought attention to the need for Apple to address the performance issues of older
iPhones caused by aging batteries and provide appropriate solutions.

3.4 Environmental Impact:

CSR encompasses environmental sustainability and minimizing negative ecological
footprints (Msosa and Govender, 2019). While the primary focus of Batterygate was on
performance and consumer concerns, the disposal of potentially usable iPhones due to
performance issues raises questions about electronic waste and resource management
(Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2021).

Overall, the Batterygate case serves as a context for analyzing Apple's adherence to
CSR principles, particularly in terms of transparency, accountability, consumer welfare,
and environmental impact (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell, 2021). It highlights the
importance of companies being proactive in addressing issues, considering the broader
implications of their actions, and actively engaging with stakeholders to uphold CSR
values.

4.0 The approaches of the chosen case 

In the case of Batterygate and its relation to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), we
can evaluate Apple's approaches from the perspective of normative and descriptive
business ethics theories. Let's consider two prominent theories: stakeholder theory (a
normative theory) and the legitimacy theory (a descriptive theory).

4.1 Stakeholder Theory (Normative):

Stakeholder theory suggests that businesses have a moral obligation to consider the
interests and well-being of all stakeholders affected by their actions (Castelo, Lúcia and
Rodrigues, 2006). From this perspective, Apple's initial handling of Batterygate could be
seen as falling short in terms of CSR.

4.1.1 Transparency and Accountability:

Apple's lack of transparency regarding the performance throttling and battery-related
issues can be viewed as a violation of stakeholder theory's emphasis on openness and
accountability (Lockamy, 2017). The initial failure to inform customers about the
underlying problems and the implications of software updates goes against the principle
of treating customers as important stakeholders.

4.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement:

Stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of engaging with stakeholders to
understand and address their concerns. Apple's response to Batterygate, including the
discounted battery replacement program and the introduction of battery health features
in iOS, can be seen as a step towards acknowledging stakeholder concerns and
engaging with affected customers (Wasieleski and Weber, 2017).

4.1.3 Ethical Decision-Making:

Stakeholder theory emphasizes the ethical dimension of decision-making (Orts and
Strudler, 2002). In the Batterygate case, Apple's initial lack of transparency and delayed
acknowledgment could be seen as ethically problematic since it disregarded the
interests and rights of affected customers. However, their subsequent actions, such as
offering discounted battery replacements, demonstrated a commitment to addressing
stakeholder concerns and rectifying the situation.

4.1.4 Long-term Perspective:

Stakeholder theory promotes the idea of taking a long-term perspective and considering
the impacts of business decisions on various stakeholder groups over time (Laczniak
and Murphy, 2012). Apple's response to Batterygate, including introducing battery health
features and engaging in dialogue with customers, indicates an acknowledgment of the
long-term consequences of their actions and a commitment to building trust and
maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.

4.2 Legitimacy Theory (Descriptive):

Legitimacy theory focuses on how organizations seek to gain and maintain legitimacy
by aligning their actions with societal expectations (Solikhah, 2016). It examines how
companies respond to controversies to protect their reputation and legitimacy.

4.2.1 Crisis Management:

The legitimacy theory lens would view Apple's responses to Batterygate, such as the
discounted battery replacement program and increased transparency, as attempts to
manage the crisis and maintain legitimacy (Christensen, Laegreid and Rykkja, 2016).
By offering remedies and addressing customer concerns, Apple aimed to restore trust
and credibility in its actions.

4.2.2 Compliance with Societal Norms:

Legitimacy theory emphasizes a company's adherence to societal norms and
expectations (Bhattacharyya, 2016). In this case, Apple's initial lack of transparency
could be viewed as a violation of societal expectations regarding transparency and
accountability. However, the subsequent actions taken by Apple, such as the battery
replacement program and improved communication, can be seen as an effort to comply
with societal expectations and regain legitimacy.

4.2.3 Legitimacy and Trust:

Legitimacy theory recognizes that legitimacy is closely tied to trust and acceptance by
society (Mogensen, 2018). Apple's initial lack of transparency in the Batterygate case
may have undermined its legitimacy and eroded trust among stakeholders. However,
their subsequent actions aimed at addressing the issue, providing solutions, and
improving communication were efforts to regain trust and maintain their legitimacy
(Mogensen, 2018).

5.0 Stakeholder perspectives on the business behaviour

Stakeholders bring their unique viewpoints and interests to the table, and their
perspectives can significantly shape the narrative, outcomes, and implications of the
controversy (Salvioni and Gennari, 2019). Understanding these perspectives is
essential for companies like Apple to effectively manage their relationships with
stakeholders and navigate the challenges presented by such controversies (Salvioni
and Gennari, 2019).

Moreover, analyzing stakeholder perspectives helps companies identify potential areas

of improvement and take corrective actions. It enables them to address stakeholder
concerns, rebuild trust, and align their practices with the expectations of various
stakeholder groups (Morris et al., 2018).

Furthermore, stakeholder perspectives highlight the importance of considering the

broader social, ethical, and environmental implications of business actions. This
understanding can guide companies in adopting more responsible and sustainable
practices, incorporating stakeholder input into decision-making processes, and
prioritizing the long-term interests of all stakeholders (Morris et al., 2018).
Analyzing stakeholder perspectives on Apple's behavior during the Batterygate
controversy provides insights into the diverse interests and concerns of different
stakeholder groups. Let's consider some key stakeholders and their perspectives:

5.1 Customers:
Customers were directly affected by the performance throttling and the subsequent
revelations. Their perspectives can be summarized as follows:

 Disruption: Many customers experienced frustration and inconvenience due to

the sudden performance slowdowns, as their iPhones did not perform as
expected.
 Transparency: Customers desired more transparency from Apple regarding the
performance issues and the reasons behind them. They expected clear
communication and disclosure of the battery-related concerns affecting their
devices.
 Trust: The controversy led to a loss of trust in Apple's practices, as customers
felt misled and believed that Apple prioritized profits over customer satisfaction.

5.2 Shareholders:
Shareholders, as owners of the company, are concerned about financial performance
and reputation. Their perspectives include:

 Financial Impact: Shareholders may have been concerned about the potential
financial impact of the Batterygate controversy on Apple's stock price and overall
market value.
 Reputational Damage: Shareholders valued Apple's reputation as a leading
technology company. The negative publicity and legal repercussions associated
with Batterygate could have raised concerns about the potential damage to
Apple's brand image and long-term shareholder value.

5.3 Employees:
Employees, as internal stakeholders, may have had the following perspectives:

 Company Reputation: Batterygate, with its negative implications for Apple's

reputation, may have raised concerns among employees about the stability and
 security of their jobs. The controversy could have led to uncertainty about the
company's financial performance and its potential impact on employment,
especially if the situation had escalated and resulted in substantial financial
losses for the company. Employees might have been concerned about the
impact of Batterygate on Apple's reputation and how it could affect their own
careers and job security.
 Ethical Practices: Employees who value ethical conduct might have been
disappointed by the lack of transparency initially exhibited by Apple and its failure
to proactively address the battery-related issues.

5.4 Regulators and Government Authorities:

Regulators and government authorities are responsible for ensuring consumer
protection and fair business practices (Prosser, 2010). Their perspectives include:

 Compliance: Regulators would assess whether Apple's actions complied with

relevant laws and regulations. They would investigate the transparency and
disclosure practices of the company.
 Consumer Protection: Authorities would consider the impact on consumers and
evaluate whether Apple's actions sufficiently addressed the concerns and
provided appropriate remedies.
 Advocacy Groups and Consumer Organizations: Advocacy groups and
consumer organizations represent the interests of consumers and may have the
following perspectives:
 Consumer Rights: These groups advocated for consumer rights, emphasizing
the importance of transparency, fair treatment, and the right to choose whether to
replace batteries or upgrade devices.
 Corporate Accountability: They demanded accountability from Apple, urging
the company to take responsibility for its actions and ensure better
communication and support for affected customers.

6.0 Conclusion
The case of Batterygate involving Apple Inc. presented a significant challenge to the
company's corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. The intentional throttling of
iPhone performance to address battery-related issues raised concerns regarding
transparency, accountability, consumer welfare, and environmental impact. Through the
analysis of normative and descriptive business ethics theories, namely stakeholder
theory and legitimacy theory, as well as the examination of stakeholder perspectives,
we have gained valuable insights into the implications and responses to the
controversy.

Overall, the Batterygate controversy underscores the importance of proactive

communication, transparency, and accountability in CSR practices. Companies must
prioritize the well-being of their stakeholders and address ethical concerns promptly and
honestly. Furthermore, incorporating sustainability considerations into product design
and manufacturing processes can mitigate environmental impacts and enhance overall
CSR performance.

The lessons learned from Batterygate provide valuable insights for businesses facing
similar challenges. By emphasizing ethical decision-making, engaging with
stakeholders, and prioritizing transparency, companies can establish and maintain a
strong foundation of CSR that aligns with societal expectations. Ultimately, CSR is not
just a moral imperative, but a strategic advantage that can enhance reputation, foster
customer loyalty, and drive long-term business success.

7.0 References

Allyn, B. (2020). Apple Agrees To Pay $113 Million To Settle ‘Batterygate’ Case Over
iPhone Slowdowns. [online] NPR.org. Available at:
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936268845/apple-agrees-to-pay-113-million-to-settle-
batterygate-case-over-iphone-slowdowns [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Bhattacharyya, A. (2016). Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility in an

Emerging Economy: Through the Lens of Legitimacy Theory. [online] Social Science
Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2729620 [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].
Boersma, M. (2022). Organizational legitimacy and legitimizing myths. [online]
www.elgaronline.com. Available at:
https://www.elgaronline.com/abstract/book/9781839103261/book-part-9781839103261-
15.xml [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Castelo, M., Lúcia, B. and Rodrigues, L. (2006). Positioning Stakeholder Theory within
the Debate on Corporate Social Responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics
and Organization Studies, [online] 12(5). Available at:
http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol12_no1_pages_5-15.pdf [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. and Rykkja, L.H. (2016). Organizing for Crisis
Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. Public Administration
Review, [online] 76(6), pp.887–897. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12558.

Dragnić, D. (2014). Impact of internal and external factors on the performance of fast-
growing small and medium businesses. Management - Journal of Contemporary
Management Issues, [online] 19(1), pp.119–159. Available at:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=160781 [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International
Journal of Management Reviews, [online] 12(1), pp.8–19.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x.

Federica, L. (2023). Apple revenue by fiscal quarter 2023. [online] Statista. Available at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263426/apples-global-revenue-since-1st-quarter-
2005/#:~:text=In%20its%202022%20financial%20year [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Ferrell, O.C., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell (2021). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making
and Cases. [online] Google Books. Cengage Learning. Available at:
https://books.google.com.pk/books?
id=o38xEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA583&lpg=PA583&dq=CSR+of+Batterygate+and+Apple+cas
e&source=bl&ots=Vz_C6N6JV7&sig=ACfU3U0GCQNoSA9EfQl_BJIYnhhK0tuYVw&hl=
en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-osDC0dv_AhVmV6QEHdAGAec4FBDoAXoECAIQAw
[Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Hanley, D., Kelloway, C. and Vaheesan, S. (2020). Fixing America: Breaking

Manufacturers’ Aftermarket Monopoly and Restoring Consumers’ Right to Repair.
[online] Available at:
https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/s/Report_RightToRepair_HanleyKellowayVahees
an-1.pdf [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Heracleous, L. (2013). Quantum Strategy at Apple Inc. Organizational Dynamics,

[online] 42(2), pp.92–99. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.03.002.

Johnson, K., Li, Y., Phan, H., Singer, J. and Trinh, H. (2012). The Innovative Success
that is Apple, Inc. [online] Marshall Digital Scholar. Available at:
https://mds.marshall.edu/etd/418/ [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (2012). Stakeholder Theory and Marketing: Moving
from a Firm-Centric to a Societal Perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
[online] 31(2), pp.284–292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.10.106.

Lee, T.H. and Comello, M.L. (Nori) G. (2018). Transparency and Industry Stigmatization
in Strategic CSR Communication. Management Communication Quarterly, [online]
33(1), pp.68–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918807566.

Lockamy, A. (2017). An examination of external risk factors in Apple Inc.’s supply chain.
Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, [online] 18(3), pp.177–188.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2017.1328252.

Lougee, B. and Wallace, J. (2008). The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Trend.
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, [online] 20(1), pp.96–108. Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2008.00172.x [Accessed 24
Jun. 2023].
Mogensen, B.G. (2018). Managing Corporate Legitimacy Through CSR Reporting.
[online] Available at: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/63476/1/Master-
Thesis-Bendik-Mogensen.pdf [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Morris, A., Murphy, R., Shepherd, S. and Graves, L. (2018). Multi-Stakeholder

Perspectives of Factors That Influence Contact Centre Call Agents’ Workplace Physical
Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, [online] 15(7), p.1484. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071484.

Msosa, S.K. and Govender, J.P. (2019). Environmental Impact and CSR
Responsibilities. Opportunities and Pitfalls of Corporate Social Responsibility, [online]
pp.151–168. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17102-5_10.

Myers, C. and Walsh, E. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in the Consumer

Electronics Industry: A Case Study of Apple Inc. [online] Available at:
http://sites.georgetown.edu/lwp/wp-content/uploads/sites/319/uploads/Connor-
Myers.pdf [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Orts, E.W. and Strudler, A. (2002). The Ethical and Environmental Limits of Stakeholder
Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, [online] 12(2), p.215.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3857811.

Prosser, T. (2010). The Regulatory Enterprise: Government, Regulation, and

Legitimacy. [online] Google Books. Oxford University Press. Available at:
https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=hfa35rySVdIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Regulators+and+Government+Auth
orities&ots=hGRYc3yuYj&sig=8wKEOaMqNzyMHmfsYZxbfhcYtHo [Accessed 24 Jun.
2023].

Rashid, M.M. (2022). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Evaluating/auditing

corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices. Journal of Economic and Social
Thought, [online] 8(4), pp.141–156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1453/jest.v8i4.2261.
Salvioni, D.M. and Gennari, F. (2019). Stakeholder Perspective of Corporate
Governance and CSR Committees. [online] papers.ssrn.com. Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3523684 [Accessed 24 Jun.
2023].

Solikhah, B. (2016). An Overview of Legitimacy Theory on the Influence of Company

Size and Industry Sensitivity towards CSR Disclosure. [online] Social Science Research
Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2893283
[Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Spence, E. (2018). Apple’s Embarrassing iPhone Throttling Is Tim Cook’s First Major
Failure. [online] Forbes. Available at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2018/01/03/apple-iphone-battery-throttle-kill-
switch-ios-tim-cook-hiding/ [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Tamvada, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and accountability: a new

theoretical foundation for regulating CSR. International Journal of Corporate Social
Responsibility, [online] 5(1), pp.1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0045-8.

Wasieleski, D.M. and Weber, J. (2017). Stakeholder Management. [online] Google

Books. Emerald Group Publishing. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=KgAmDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&ots=FsI7nRzTAU&sig=I9lOS7NQz
djxHsJci9KDmInwLjI [Accessed 24 Jun. 2023].

Wei, W., Kim, G., Miao, L., Behnke, C. and Almanza, B. (2018). Consumer inferences of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) claims on packaged foods. Journal of Business
Research, [online] 83, pp.186–201. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.046.