Why do you assume that this is the case? China itself is a great example that absolute human rights are not really a requirement for a great economy, growth, and profits for those involved.

But then they would have to be able to prove that in a court of law.

What people don't understand here is that the principle of fiduciary duty binds the hands of a lot of these companies. If you don't hold the controlling voting interest in the company... you really have very limited room to maneuver legally speaking.

Now if Apple could count on its shareholders not to sue them...

THEN they could operate in the fashion that you postulate.

Ugh, this is most definitely not true at all. Apple has repeatedly refused to bend to shareholder's demands, and has suggested that shareholders unhappy with Apple's focus on environmental conservation (at the expense of greater short-term profits) should buy a different stock.

Tim Cook has shown that Apple has no problem telling people to ditch their shares when the interests truly don't align. [0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook...

When is the last time that a jury found for a plaintiff who sued a company for being too friendly to human rights?