Hard to believe, but as recently as 15 years ago, the adjective the
media most attached to Apple Computers was "beleaguered". In 1996,
exiled founder Steve Jobs returned to the company, the
following year negotiating a cash infusion from archrival
Microsoft to forestall bankruptcy or purchase.
In the years that followed, Apple released a series of successful
products: consumer-focused personal computers like its iMac and MacBook series,
iPod music players, iPhone smartphones, and iPad tablets, along with
popular services like its iTunes Store. Now it's arguably the most
profitable company in the world, sitting on over $100 billion in
cash.
At the same
time, though, Apple has been increasingly criticized: Has its success
come with environmental costs and have its profits been gained through
the exploitation of Third World (predominately Chinese) workers?
Similar complaints could be raised against any company in the
consumer electronics and technology industries; Apple has not been
singled out by virtue of being the worst polluter or sweatshop operator
in its industry.
(Apple has also been criticized for its closed systems - gadgets
that make it hard to run apps from sources other than Apple's closely
controlled App Store for instance. Another stream of recent criticism
of Apple has focused on its tendency to use the courts to discourage
competition with its products.)
Apple has become the focus for criticisms of its environmental and
labour records for a number of reasons - the company aims its products
at well-educated artsy types, people who like to imagine they "think different" (in the
words of an iconic series of Apple ads from the late 1990s).
People think of Apple as associated with liberal causes and values -
US right-wing radio host, Rush Limbaugh, who apparently prefers to use
Apple products, recently commented: "Apple wouldn't let me in the door
if I went out there. We tried for years to get them as advertisers;
they wouldn't talk to us . . . Politically they have nothing
in common with me."
As a result, critics tend to hold Apple to higher standards -
expecting the company to "walk the walk". Would Think Different
advertising campaign subjects like Gandhi or John Lennon have approved
of the company's behavior?
Its recent success has made Apple a standard-bearer for its
industry. Just as its competitors have arguably copied Apple's
smartphone and tablet designs, if Apple leads in environmental or work
conditions standards, its competitors may feel pressured to respond in
kind.
Finally, Apple has managed to be successful marketing its products
as higher-priced models; that gives it more flexibility to make changes
to its environmental or labour practices than competitors who are
focusing exclusively on selling products at the lowest-possible
prices.
In response to criticisms from
Greenpeace, among others, Apple has minimized the use of toxic
substances in its product line - the company notes, for instance, that
all of its displays use mercury-free backlighting and arsenic-free
glass. Apple has reduced the amount of packaging and is making
increased use of recycled plastics and paper and vegetable-based inks,
and notes that the energy needs of a number of its newer facilities -
in the US, Ireland, and Germany - are entirely met by renewable energy
sources.
While Apple (and other tech companies) have been responsive to
criticisms from environmental activists, it isn't all good news. Recent
Apple models, such as MacBook laptops and iPhones and iPads, have
included non-removable batteries and soldered on memory chips, making
them harder to disassemble for recycling. These product designs allow
for larger batteries in slimmer cases; now models from many of Apple's
competitors similarly feature non-removable parts - sleek design
trumping recyclability.
Apple does little of its own manufacturing. Instead, along with most
of its competitors, much of its manufacturing takes place at factories
in China owned by companies like Foxconn Technology. There, workers
have complained about long hours and poor working conditions -
including a January 2012 protest when 150 workers went onto the roof
and threatened to commit suicide.
Foxconn, with hundreds of thousands of employees, produces an
estimated one-third of the world's consumer electronic products.
Employees in its factories work an average of 83 hours of overtime a
month despite Chinese labour law setting a maximum of 36 hours.
(Some note that despite attention paid to suicide-attempts among
Foxconn employees, their suicide rate is
lower than China's national average. And despite employee protests,
Foxconn claims it continues to get ten applicants for every job
opening.)
Apple publishes a code of conduct for its suppliers (including
Foxconn) and has asked the American Fair Labour Association to
investigate and publicly report on working conditions in Foxconn
factories. Recently, wages were raised by 25% and overtime hours have
been capped.
Foxconn's long-term answer to criticisms of its labour practices,
however, may be twofold: It is looking to move production from China to
even lower-wage countries - Foxconn's parent company Hon Hai has been
building manufacturing capabilities in Vietnam and Brazil.* As well, it
is investing heavily in automation, removing the need for even low-wage
workers.
(Foxconn is not necessarily the worst sweatshop operator; it has
become the target of complaints because it is among the largest.)
Moreover, technology and consumer electronics products are rarely
manufactured from start to finish at one place - an Apple laptop
computer can include a hard drive (often manufactured by a different
company in Thailand), a display (perhaps manufactured by Apple
competitor Samsung), memory chips, and other parts sourced from a
variety of manufacturers.
It gets even harder to track back to where the original raw
materials come from. Microsoft has said, "We are working with our
suppliers to trace the source of all minerals used in our products that
could potentially come from conflict zones." Noteworthy, though, is the
implication that right now Microsoft is unclear what is the source of
the raw materials used in its products.
It's not currently possible to purchase an "ethical" computer,
smartphone, tablet, or other technology or consumer electronic product.
Nevertheless, pressure from environmental and labour activists has
resulting in some gains. Consumer boycotts of Apple will not result in
change, though, if the result is simply to purchase the product of one
of its competitors.
Instead, long-term change may only occur, as Greenpeace's Tom
Dowdall suggests, with "a change in business model towards
long-lasting, durable, upgradeable technology where the focus is on
selling the service, not on new devices."
First published in Columbia
Journal, September 2012.
