This seems like the kind of story where it is easy to just confirm ones biases.

Perspective 1:

Apple didn't get to be one of the largest companies in the world by making a priority of labor standards. Businesses are motivated by profit, and maximizing profit means minimizing costs. Investigating labor conditions increases costs. Rejecting cheaper suppliers because they have substandard labor standards increases costs. Apple spends a trivial amount of annual revenue producing self-serving Supplier Responsibility reports because doing so is cheaper than actually insisting on supplier responsibility.

Perspective 2:

Businesses are motivated by profit, and maximizing profit means maximizing revenue. Revenue comes from customers, and customers are motivated largely by price but also by reputation. The difference between UPS and FedEx or Walmart and Target is slim, and relies heavily on brand identity. Nike can't afford to lose market share to Adidas over a sweatshop scandal. It is more cost-effective to insist on supplier responsibility than to risk getting in the news for mistreated workers (and, while lesser-known brands get a pass, the news loves to drag big corporate names through the mud). Hence Apple not only maintains labor standards, but investigates suppliers and suspends work when standards are not met. And Apple does not do this secretly, but promotes the suspension and publishes their supplier list.

There is such a thing as bad publicity:

Volkswagen sales plunge on emissions scandal

"BP gas station owners across the country are divided over whether the oil giant stained by its handling of the Gulf spill should rebrand U.S. outlets as Amoco or another name as part of efforts to repair the company's badly damaged reputation."

At Wells Fargo, "although the financial impact was trivial, the reputational damage proved to be enormous."