Completely agree. Whether or not worker safety contributes to ROI should never be a question. Same with environmental impact.
Apple has, what, > 10k workers? If it cost them $100 billion to prevent one software worker from getting carpal tunnel, your statement suggests that cost should be born by Apple. Similarly, if it cost the cumulative GDP of the US to prevent N amount of pollution, your statement suggests that Apple should go bankrupt preventing that pollution.
Back in the real world, I suspect we generally agree. The problem, IMO, is that companies (and consumers) aren't forced to capture the hidden costs of injuries/pollution.
I just disagree with your black and white assessment. The laws of economics mean companies have to assign dollar values to human life and safety, as much as we dislike the feeling it gives us.
They have to do no such thing. They choose to do so, and some people choose to give them a pass for it once the cost reaches a certain level.
See how enjoyable pedantry is? You knew what he meant just like I knew what you meant.
Now I'm going to try and go do something useful with my time, rather than get into obnoxious arguments.
I hope you're able to do the same as well.
Environmental impact in particular is an endless money hole. You can always spend more money to be marginally better, and every company (and individual) has their cut off.