You may already know that Apple’s track record on ‘socially responsible entrepreneurship’ is not very good. I’ll bore you with some facts later, but first I want to let you know what I am not going to do: I am not going to advice you to throw away your Apples. Not just because this may be inconvenient or too expensive for you, but mainly because I do not think it would be the best way to protest against Apple’s a-social policies. What with Apple’s booming success, a few customers switching to other brands will hardly be noticed. Furthermore, the divide between Apple users and the rest is such that any criticims from ‘those who can’t afford the Real Thing’ is usually rejected without argument.
Therefore, if there is to be any change, the driving force must come from within the ‘Apple community’.

Those of us who love their Apple devices and have done so for many years: stand up and be counted. Let’s make it clear to Apple that not everyone is so blinded by the genius of their devices that they can’t see the human and environmental cost of their manufacturing. Let us ‘like’ critical facebook pages, write letters, sign petitions (see hereunder); at least let’s do something to let Apple know we do not appreciate their unethical policies.

Summary

• Apple devices are mainly produced in China, a dictatorially governed state where laws on working conditions and safety seem to mainly serve the consience of Western consumers; they are not at all respected in practice.
• Apple’s release policy is unique and enormously successful. It implies unsurpassed numbers of sales within days of the introduction of a new model. This puts an enormous peak pressure on the labour force. Laws which are supposed to protect workers are not enforced; workers who dare to protest meet with physical abuse or even torture and threats to their families.
• Suicide rates among workers in the factories where Apple devices are made are appalling. In response, Apple commends it’s subcontractor for measures like placing nets to prevent people committing suicide by jumping out of a window.
• With working hours not just now-and-then but usually twice what is allowed by law, and workers living often hundreds of kilometers from their families, social life is severely disrupted.
• Apple devices are increasingly made to not last; they are soldered and glued together and increasingly hard to repair. Replacement parts are either not available or inordinately expensive.
• Software upgrades of Apple’s operating system make older devices function less well, thus enticing users to buy the latest model and throw the old one away. A very eco-unfriendly and totally unneccessary practice, as is demonstrated by the competition.
• Sign one (or both) of these petitions:
  https://actions.sumofus.org/a/planned-obsolescence-is-why-apple-isn-t-a-green-company
  https://www.change.org/p/apple-protect-workers-making-iphones-in-chinese-factories-3

Some facts about the manufacturing of Apple devices

Working conditions and social life in China

Apple stands for innovation and that is sure true for their famous and original ‘trick’ of building up a PR campaign before the introduction of a new model and subsequently selling huge numbers right from the start – with people literally camping on the sidewalk during the night to get their hands on the new device. The iPod sold 1 million in two years; by it’s introduction in 2012 the iPhone5 sold 5 million in the first weekend.
I find it sad that this groupy-behaviour is almost invariably hailed as something wholely positive. For the Apple-adept it is proof of Apple’s genius; for the competition it is an enviable state of affairs. Few people seem to realise at what cost such spectacular launches are realised.

Apple’s hugely successful release policy puts an enormous, and still increasing, pressure on their supplyers. The bulk of Apple devices are manufactured by the Chinese company Foxconn, the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Working conditions in Foxconn’s factories are appalling, as are the long working hours. In response to Apple’s demands, working hours increased to far beyond the legal limit, deadlines were continuously shifted forward; target-numbers were continuously raised to breaking point.
The number of suicides among Foxconn’s labour force rose to heights which even drew international attention. In response, and only after pressure from Western social activists, Foxconn took some measures and Apple was quick to applaud them; the press release said:
“The team commended Foxconn for taking quick action on several fronts simultaneously, including hiring a large number of psychological counselors, establishing a 24-hour care center, and even attaching large nets to the factory buildings to prevent impulsive suicides.”

Yes indeed: not one word about the reasons behind these staggering suicide rates!

“It can’t be that bad; why else would they go work for this company” you may well think. Even though we may harbour a grudging respect for China’s impressive economic achievements, let’s not forget that China is not a democracy and that the word ‘law’ has not the same meaning we attach to it. Many laws seem to be adopted mainly to appease the conscience of Western consumers; in practice they are ignored as a matter of policy. Reports about forcing workers into obedience by simply beating them up and/or threats to their families are rife. There are no labour unions; taking part in any gathering of labourers is a dangerous undertaking for which the participants more often than not pay a heavy toll.
The safety conditions, meanwhile, are not much better than ours were in the 19th century.

The most damaging effect of Foxconn’s factories and Apple’s demands may be the destruction of social life. The vast majority of factory workers come from rural communities, far away from the factory. Not being able to afford adequate housing for their familily near the factory, the workers travel hundreds of kilometers up and down – or do so if and when they have the time and means, which isn’t too often. That is why a working week of 70hrs, as is common in the factories making Apple devices and which we, at a pinch , might even find acceptable for a young man, becomes a destructor of social life in China. No more need for the ‘one-child-policy’; Foxconn sees to it that husbands and wives are rigidly detained at hundreds of kilometers from each other and rarely meet. What this means for birth figures and for infants growing up with an absent father or mother and for social relationships in general is not hard to guess.

See a report here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14649373.2016.1170961 (with thanks to www.goodelectronic.org).
Note: Reliable information on this subject is hard to come by for obvious reasons and the process of composing an overview that is based on facts is a slow one; that is why the facts mentioned here are already old (up to 2012) but I can’t see any indication that things have lightened up since then.

Planned obsolescence

In 2013 columnist Catherine Rampell at the New York Times wondered whether her iPhone, which became much less usable after she upgraded to iOS7, was being deliberately sabotaged by Apple, to encourage her to buy a new iPhone. This started a heated debate in all media about what has become to be known as ‘planned obsolescence’. The debate centered on the words ‘deliberate’ and ‘sabotage’: some maintained the upgrade deliberately targetted older devices to run slower while others pointed out that the slowness of older devices, although real, was but a side-effect of the added functionality.
In my opinion, putting the question in this form rendered most of this debate irrelevant. Whether deliberate or not, fact is that the upgrade, which was forced upon users, did make older devices less useable and did lead to many perfectly good phones being thrown away.

In contrast, Microsoft’s 2015 Operating System (Windows 10) performs even faster then Windows Vista from 2007, while still offering a host of extra functionality. Nor have any users ofAndroid, by far the most used OS for smartphones, ever complained about an update rendering their device slower.
Where every other company adheres to standards like ‘USB’ to inter-connect and/or charge-up devices, Apples come with their own specific and patented connectors, making it impossible for any 3rd party manufacturer to even make a connection cable without their consent. By thus controlling what connections can be made, they also effectively control the lifespan of their devices.
In the market of smartphones, tablets and computers, Apple is unique in that it makes both the hardware and the software, which are inseparably linked. On both they keep a very tight grip, constantly seeking the limits of what patent and copyright law allows. This gives them the opportunity to effectively control when a new update will make certain older devices obsolete.

So, it may well be that Microsoft or Samsung or Google are not better in any moral sense; it may be they just do not have the same opportunity for profiting from rendering devices obsolete Apple has. But who cares? The point is that Apple has an interest in pushing updates which render older devices obsolete. The updates and upgrades of the competition, on the other hand, are severely judged by a host of reviewers, precisely on their performance on older devices.

‘Throw-away’ devices

Meanwhile, there is quite some evidence that Apple is not in the business of producing durable goods but instead is all for ‘throw-away’ devices.
In a by now (in)famous press presentation on March 22, 2016, Apple’s Phil Schiller mentions an “amazing statistic”: there are more than 600 million PCs in use that are over five years old. He repeatedly calls this state of affairs “really sad” and continues: “These people could really benefit from an iPad Pro”. (see: http://www.apple.com/apple-events/march-2016/ at around 46:17)

Now let us assume these 600 million PC’s still perform to their users’ satisfaction. In that case I think it is Phil’s flagrant appeal to throw-away consumerism which is ‘really sad’. If, on the other hand, these PC’s are are only still in use because their owners can’t afford a new computer, his words are even more despicable. Quite a lot of commentators pointed out that it is a fact, not even denied by Apple, that Apple’s devices are quite a lot more expensive than comparably performing PC’s and that Apple has nothing to offer in the middle-to-bottom end of the market anyway. Like one commenter put it: “Stating that people who can’t afford a new computer could ‘really benefit from an iPad Pro’ is like pointing to the thread-bare sandals of a desert nomad and saying he ‘could really profit from some Gucci’s'”.
How about the term planned dissatisfaction?

Keeping Apple devices going was never easy but has become increasingly difficult in the past decade or so.
A desktop-PC or even a Windows or Android notebook is composed of parts, which can be replaced or upgraded. Apple, at an early stage, took to soldering many parts together (the memory chips, for example) which is cheaper but makes it virtually impossible
to repair them or upgrade them. Since about 2010, increasingly Apple devices are not held together by screws but by glue, making it impossible to even gain access without damaging them. Some parts in a computer (like the harddisk, battery, cooling fan) simply wear down and have to be replaced after a while. Yet, with Apples, even these components are increasingly soldered and/or inaccessible.
Now who cares if this is planned obsolescence or simply the consequence of the very cheapest production techniques available?

The website of the iFixit organisation (www.ifixit.com, which can’t be praised enough i.m.o.) shows it all: just look for the repair manuals and replacement parts available for any non-Apple smartphone, tablet or laptop. Then take a look at the sorry small chapter on Apples.

Unfair Trade – supporting murderous militia’s and child labour

Our electronics devices incorporate some rare elements which are found in exploitable quantities only in a few places. Almost nowhere in the world did this sudden demand for these materials lead to increased welfare for the people who traditionally lived on and owned the land. Vast areas of land were bought by large companies from people who did not know what they were selling as they did not realise the value of the materials and – more importantly – did not share our Western ideas about ‘land propery’. To make matters worse, criminal groups were quick to realise the value of these recources and by force took hold of the areas where they could be mined. By now, most of us may know about ‘blood diamonds’: diamonds mined by militia’s under forced labour conditions and sold to the US and Europe, thus supporting the might of a few and the oppression of millions. Nowadays there are other materials which proved to be just as valuable, like gold, tungsten, cobalt, palladium, lithium etc. These rare materials are mined by what can only be called ‘slave labour’ under supervision of either global corporations or local militia’s, supported by the continuous demand from electonics manufacturers who on our behalf insist on productivity even if it involves children mining 12 hrs a day in dangerous shafts too low for an adult to stand upright and unprotected from dangerous gasses or lack of oxygen. The profits are then used to buy arms and increase the pressure on local communities.

Apple is not alone here: all electronics manufacturers (with the exception of one, see hereunder) take part in this ruthless exploitation of the poor and vulnerable to some extent. It will continue for as long as we allow it to continue. Only the loud protest of an informed public which threatens sales and brings legislators to action can stop this.
Without the continuous hard work by activists, the following would never have been achieved:

– In 2010, in the wake of the ‘Great Crisis’, the US passed the Dodd-Frank act, a package of laws to reform the financial sector. It may surprise many that it contains a number of paragraphs on the obligation of manufacturers to track and disclose their involvement with so called ‘conflict minerals’ from the Congo Republic and neighbouring areas. (Notably tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold.)

– In 2012 the OECD published guidelines on the subject.

– The European Parliament passed legislation on this subject in 2015; negotiations are currently underway among member states as to specific wording details. On 16th June 2016 the European Parliament confirmed that “mandatory due diligence” would be required for “EU firms importing tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores”.
(see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20150513IPR55318/Conflict-minerals-MEPs-ask-for-mandatory-certification-of-EU-importers)

These measures, mind you, are concerned with openness and disclosure; no changes in policy are demanded. It is up to activists to spread the disclosed information and it’s up to us to act on it.

But even these limited measures are in disarray and in need of our support.
The US body that is overseeing the implementation of the Dodd-Frank act had to conclude after a few years that manufacturers mainly just don’t know where the minerals they use in their products come from. The whole production chain, as it functions now, is just too complicated to oversee, they point out. Moreover, in 2015 a US court ruled several requirements unconstitunional. What all this will mean for the implementation of the Dodd-Frank act is not yet fully clear.
In addition a 2016 report by Amnesty (http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/this_what_we_die_for_-_report.pdf) attacks all major brands for making use of child labour in mining cobalt. And this report from Friends of the Earth (https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/tin_mining.pdf) puts the spotlight on the real social and environmental cost of mining the tin used for our devices. So we have to add cobalt and tin to the list of ‘suspect minerals’.
Meanwhile, the EU parliament is powerless while negotiations with the member states continue.

And that’s only describing the troubles for the current generation. Mining and using these rare materials like there’s no tomorrow leaves future to cope with the ensuing problems. The rare and valuable minerals in smartphones could be recycled almost fully, but instead every smartphone consists for over 98% of new materials.

I think it grossly unfair to depict Apple users as just ‘dedicated followers of fashion’; please let that be known to Apple that we are not, at least not all of us. Write a letter, sign a petition. Here, for example:
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/planned-obsolescence-is-why-apple-isn-t-a-green-company and/or:
https://www.change.org/p/apple-protect-workers-making-iphones-in-chinese-factories-3

• Read some more here, if you want:
  http://www.resourcesforlife.com/apple/ethics
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fran-hawthorne/apples-appalling-ethics_b_1651264.html
  https://mic.com/articles/7868/apple-icheat-how-the-world-s-biggest-company-also-became-the-most-unethical

Hans

Today, I learned that on of my favourite NGO’s will start a campaign against ‘throw-away’ manufacturing of goods. More and more goods are produced in a way which makes it impossible to repair them when even the tinyest component gives out; you can’t even open them anymore – the casing is held together by glue rather then screws. And if you can open them, the components turn out to be soldered in place and you can’t get replacement components anyway.

Consumers are thus forced to buy a whole new device or machine, even when a more eco-friendly design would have made repairing a cinch. The (Dutch) NGO campaign demands legislation to curb such wasteful designs.

I feel elated that, finally, someone stands up and says “We can’t go on like this; this is shear nonsense. We all agree, the public, the politicians and the businessmen, that we should work toward a more sustainable way of producing our goods. Our representatives voted, in our name, for committments to that effect. But at the same time we would allow this trend toward more-and-more ‘throw-away’ devices to go on? Come on! We’ve got to do something about that!”

I wholeheartedly agree and will support this campaign where I can.

Yet, I’m a bit sad too. For I’m a bit weary of waiting for political solution and legislation. For starters: it will take many, many years to get this legislation accepted. And it will never make a chance to be accepted if ‘the public’ doesn’t ask for it and so far only few of them do. In some areas, like mobile phones and tablets, the trend seems to go rather the opposite way. But let’s not be pessimistic: phones are one thing, but washing machines, coffee makers and electric drills are quite another; I think that we would like these to last, as we would like most of what we buy to last.

So, the alternative to legislation is simple: we buy, preferably, goods that are well made and last for a liong time. Goods from manufacturers who produce and keep a stock of replacement parts. There’s just one thing wrong with this simple idea: how do we know what devices to buy? As durability is clearly in the interest of consumers, one would expect consumer organisations to provide this kind of information and make it count heavily in the comparison charts. That is where I am mightily disappointed. Only now and then any attention is given to this aspect and even in those rare cases where goods are tested for sturdiness, usually no attention at all is paid to the availability of replacement parts of the ease with which a device can be repaired. Which, of course, detemines the cost of the repair.

So, yes let’s support this campaign to get some long overdue legislation in place. But also: let’s write letters to our consumer organisation, again and again pointing out where they have, once more, failed to take ‘durability’ into account.

This is about what you and I can do. “Very little” you may well say, “the really important changes should come from governments”. Or from companies, or big investors, or others. I do not deny it, but where it comes to such matters, I want to focus on what we can do to influence the decisions of governments and the choices made by companies. Simply stating “They should stop doing this or that” is, in my opinion, both frustrating and useless.
Evidently, getting ‘the general public’ to be more aware of these issues is a condition for success, but not everyone is prepared or able to seek media attention or whip up demonstrations. And anyway, I, for one, firmly believe in the power of these two strategies:

– voting with your feet and
– convincing by example.

Which can be summed up as ‘putting your money where your mouth is’. I’ll explain.

Your own lifestyle.

It all begins at home. Many choices we make as consumers do have an influence. Sure, it is disheartening to realise that my personal choices only have an infinitesimal small impact, so I don’t think about it

Personal lifestyle choices have an impact in at least two ways (three, in fact, but I’ll come to that later).

First, every time I make a choice for something more sustainable or more ‘fair trade’, I contribute directly. Of course, making the right choices demands a lot of knowledge, which is not at all easy to come by. I plan to provide a lot of advice and links which enable one to ‘make the right choice’ but even so, many choices are by no means straightforward.

Therefore, it is important to realise that there is a second benefit: with every choice I make I give off a signal, the signal that I do care. A signal which can be and and in fact is picked up by companies and governments. And, let’s not forget, by idealistic groups, who feel strengthened and supported by even small changes in the behaviour of ‘the public’.
For this signal function it is not even necessary that my choice actually is the environmentally right one; at least I let it be known that I do care and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Beyond the personal – ‘Talk to your friends’

Personally, I have some rather negative experience with a direct approach of ‘spreading the message’ among my friends, and so have many others, I fear. Chances are, you’ll soon be seen as a preacher or doomsday-prophet and friends may start shunning conversations about ‘climate change’ or even ‘fair trade’ with you. I admit I was late in heeding the millennia-old advice of reformist souls: be an example, but nowadays I learned to refrain from preaching; instead I just do my best to make my choices in accordance with my principles, while trying to take care I do not offend others. Eventually – and this may take many years – my choices will find a natural place in conversations and friends will start asking questions. Of course, I am willing to explain, when asked. Of course I am willing to furnish further information, when asked.

This is a third reason why I maintain ‘it all begins at home’ and why I set out to supply a list of links which can guide one toward ‘more responsible’ choices as a consumer.

Politics

Big companies are often seen as the main culprits; “they just care about money, not about the environment nor about people”. In so far as this leads to the conclusion “it’s not our responsibility and we can’t do anything about it” I strongly disagree. My reasons:

In the world of today, the profit companies make is greatly determined by laws. Lots of laws; I just mention laws about taxes and tax-exemptions and laws determining what a company can legally do, which comprises regulations about the environment and about the social conditions of employees. It’s the company which does best within the legal framework which will make the most profit – and in a democracy it is we who are responsible for that legal framework.

Let me put it another way: I think the invention of money is a wondeful accomplishment; it allows us to compare things that would otherwise be uncomparable and put them on a scale of values and priorities. If we think our earth’s resources and the future of our children are of low value, then of course companies will plunder the earth. But if we think these are of value then it is up to us to put a price on them and show ourselves to be willing to pay that price. Yes, this may mean voting for higher taxes on energy, for instance, or for legislation to curb emissions of CO2 – but I don’t want to go into specifics here; we can, and hopefully will, discuss that elsewhere; my point here is just that todays economics reflect our priorities and values and if we find them to be lacking in appreciation of values we hold high, we should should make that clear. By our vote and/or by taking other political action. And, of course, by our choices as consumers.

Big companies

The behaviour of companies is determined by profit, and this greatly depends on the laws and regulations we all voted for – although, I’m sure, mostly not consciously but by tacitly through lack of interest or comprehension.
However, the main factor is simply sales: the more sales the more success and the more profit. The most effective way of changing the behaviour of companies, therefore, is by action which threatens sales.

Even the largest companies are far more vulnerable then we tend to think; a very small dent in sales figures or the slightest slurr in the public image of the company will be of great consequence. This is where our actions can count. Several ways are open to us:

• Boycotting their product;
• Speaking ill of them to friends;
• Supporting the actions of others by means of donations;
• Joining those others in action against them.