Apple Addresses Factory Pollution In China

redletterdave writes "Apple reportedly sent five employees to meet with five different Chinese environmental groups on Nov. 15, only to learn about several troubling environmental issues at as many as 22 different product parts suppliers. In the three-hour meeting, the Chinese environmentalist coalition claimed the factories were releasing toxic gasses, heavy metal sludge and other pollutants. Apple acknowledged that a number of its supply firms have failed to properly keep track of their wastewater emissions and vowed to improve its environmental standards for suppliers; this is the first time Apple has admitted any wrongdoing in relation to environmental pollution from any of its Chinese supply chains. The meeting comes one month after one of Apple's Chinese suppliers of MacBook parts was shut down by China's government in response to resident complaints of 'unbearable odors,' which were described as a mix of chemical fertilizer and burning plastic."

Comments

Really?

[masternerdguy]

I'm not an apple fan, I like Linux. However all hardware manufacturers are guilty here not just apple.

Re:Really?

[coinreturn]

I'm not an apple fan, I like Linux. However all hardware manufacturers are guilty here not just apple.

Actually, Apple and other manufacturers are NOT responsible for their SUPPLIERS' mishaps.

Re:Really?

[ganjadude]

no they are not, you are right

but

they can choose to use suppliers who do not pollute, and people can decide not to shop with a company that uses suppliers who pollute. slightly different but in the same vein, look at the nike sweatshop issue for proof that shoppers do care about the conditions that suppliers work

Re:Really?

[M. Baranczak]

I expect a drug addict to steal, not a wall street banker.

Well, there's your problem right there.

Re:Really?

[Bucky24]

Really? Then why do so many do it? Clearly those laws don't have much of an effect...

Re:Really?

[Ogive17]

For what Apple charges for their products, I would at least expect them to be more responsible with their supply base.

Re:Really?

[NatasRevol]

Mods, in case you were wondering what the proper mod to use for parent is, its "No fucking sense of humor".

Re:Really?

[joocemann]

I disagree.

The distance that contracting places between a company and its actions is not so great a distance as compared to the company having done it themselves. Surely we could bounce analogies back and forth about cause, effect, demand, action, outsourcing, exploitative employ, etc etc...

But in the end it really comes down to this: Apple (and many other businesses) are directly responsible for contracting with firms that are known environmental abusers. The use of outsourced contracts may give the appearance of a distance from responsibility, but the actual real fact is that from start to finish, the product was made by dirty methods and they have known it all along. Its not like middle school children and high school dropouts don't already know what conditions these factories produce --- (now sarcasm) but oh, no, there is no way someone at Apple could have guessed it.... Yeah right... *roll eyes*

A company can have subsidiaries, or direct outsourcing, or whatever.... They are still part of it, if not the main cause of it. The same goes for US companies selling toys manufactured in China that have heavy metals in the paints and harm our kids... If you ask them to make your product, but you've got no questions, or tests, or safeguards, and even though everything about the history of similar chinese manufacturing tells you it is dirty (like I said, even young teens know this fact), its YOUR fault that its dirty when you sold it.

Analogy for you analogizers: If I sell food, and it turns out the people growing it are being tortured to produce it nearly for free, yet I have been sourcing the food from a place where slavery and torture is widely understood to happen, there is hardly a distance you can place between me and the fact that my food comes from said place with said problems.

Re:Really?

[X0563511]

Sure. Now, if you did that with an assassin then you might be in trouble, but assassions are no big deal.

Re:Really?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The real problem is the macroeconomics of the matter. Jobs' built state of the art factories for both the original Mac and NeXT in the US. Both failed to return on their investment. At least Apple cares enough, wether it's due to concern for their image or genuine concern, to investigate and ameliorate conditions where possible. Most companies don't.

Re:Really?

[chartreuse]

Are you kidding? Dell and HP make a third of all PCs (and half of the ones sold in the US, where Apple's share is peaking at 15%). And they (along with ASUS) are some of FoxConn's biggest customers. They surely have as much pull as Apple, but they don't use it, do they?

Re:Really?

[bhcompy]

You realize that Apple doesn't just make PCs, right?

Re:Really?

[Hognoxious]

no they are not, you are right

Actually, yes they are, he's wrong.

they can choose to use suppliers who do not pollute,

That contradicts what you said before. Because if they don't choose good suppliers, they're effectively condoning and supporting bad ones.

Obligatory car analogy: If you get food poisoning at a restaurant, it's the restaurant who is liable, not the shithead who sold them defrosted prawns as fresh ones. Or should I say directly liable, i.e. to you; should you sue the restaurant, they can probably charge the vendor in turn.

In short: you're responsible to your customers for consequences caused by any and all subcontractors/suppliers you choose. And this makes 100% sense - if you weren't, you could get away with all kinds of scams using shell/sockpuppet companies. And that's reserved for Wall Street [dradadaTISH]

Re:Really?

[Riceballsan]

Well it depends if the guy clearly has a sign out front that says "Hit-man for hire", and you walk in and hand him a big wad of money and say, My ex-wife is about to sue me for 5 years of alimony, I will give you $10,000 if she does not make it to court. You didn't directly ask him to break the law, but you darn well knew that is how he is going to do it. Just like if you find a company that is willing to manufacture a part that should take 5 man hours each, and they are willing to do it for $1. Then you know darn well that , but you accept the deal, and then make no effort to send a single person to actually look around the manufacturing facility before signing the deal, you should IMO be held liable.

Re:Really?

[mug funky]

you know what, as an avid mac-hater (their design philosophy of removing functions rather than adding them, buying useful programs and sinking them, and mostly their zombie horde fan base), i have to agree with them here.

it doesn't matter if such an attempt is a cynical PR exercise - it's costing them money and they're still trying to make things better. so long as such an attempt is being made, there's still a little hope for the system.

and importantly, it wouldn't be happening if us consumers weren't holding Apple to a certain standard and voting with our feet if they don't live up to it.

well done, everybody!

Re:Really?

[DM9290]

Don't forget the consumers that turn a blind eye and focus on whatever is cheapest. There's plenty of blame to go around.

That said, it would be nice if extremely profitable companies like Apple could push standards and enforce them. They have the leverage. It would also make for good marketing.

Sadly marketing is the ONLY legal justification that companies like Apple can push standards and enforce them. Anything a corporation does must legally be for the purpose of boosting profit. The directors have a legal duty only to boost shareholder's bottom line to the maximum possible extent allowed by law, and nothing else.

Will people pay 50% more for actually clean products if cheap polluting alternatives are available that have pictures of trees and flowers on the box?

Consumers do not have time to research every single purchase. it is not cost effective. the government must step in.

Re:Really?

[increment1]

The somewhat easy answer (well, not really easy), is for countries such as the US to ban the import of goods made in countries (or even by companies) not up to a specific environmental standard.

Enforcement would be extremely difficult, to impossible, but it would prevent most of the large scale environmental problems (a large factory could not pollute egregiously since they would be noticed and caught). Small scale skirting of the regulations would continue and be mostly impossible to stop (but what you could get away with would likely decrease year after year as the major offenders cleaned up their acts and the non-compliant ones stuck out more and more).

Re:Really?

[KlomDark]

Boo hoo hoo you snivelling whiner. OWS is the most interesting thing that's happened in the USA for a long time. Unless you are one of the top richest 30,000 people in the US, you should be very interested and very concerned.

Face it, you're just afraid. It's inevitable that OWS will continue and get stronger after all the TV-bound Americans were shown the victories of the people in the Arab Spring this year. Winter's gonna put a damper on a lot of it, but as the country returns to warmth next spring, I expect it to reawaken and intensify.

I haven't been involved, but it's been fascinating watching the normal citizenry begin to awaken finally. I thought it'd never happen.

But when the real numbers of unemployed are around 20% and growing (Look at all the high-profile factories, banks, investment houses, local government, etc. that have failed just in the last four weeks!), the middle class is going to be finally showing up in large number. It's to the point where the so-called "average" family (Two parents, two kids, a dog/cat, high school and/or some college.) who has been living frugally already and just trying to live an honest life, are getting to the point where they are not going to be able to keep a roof over their heads or feed their children pretty soon. (Sorry Timmy, but we just had to cook Lassie.)

Once the higher-than-ever heating bills kick in this winter, that's going to kill a lot of people's final savings. They are going to be hungry in belly and hungry in spirit come spring. Anything could happen. The 'leaders' who have thought far too little about keeping an economy going for the long term. No knowledge of symbiotic systems, no long-picture societal wisdom. Lying to themselves that the only purpose in life is making a short-term profit without any consideration for the long-term game.

It's in their hands, they can fix this and help people, or the normal people will be faced with the scary truth that they are going to have to fix it themselves, and soon, or be reduced (They and their children) to nothing more than cattle in the next few years. No pensions, no healthcare, no 401Ks, getting older by the day, knowing that when that day comes, if something doesn't change now, they will be to old and weak to change it then...

Re:Really?

[coinreturn]

Actually, Apple and other manufacturers are NOT responsible for their SUPPLIERS' mishaps.

Anyone who is able to improve things and opts not to is responsible.

So it's your fault. You could take your entire net worth, liquidate it and go to China and help clean up the pollution yourself.

Re:Really?

[Rich0]

That's about as convincing as a CEO claiming that he wasn't responsible for his own company's pollution, because he told his subordinates to follow the law. It isn't enough for somebody in power to tell the people they employ to follow the law - they must do due diligence to ensure they are doing so.

Or, consider a factory that hires a bunch of people for $10/hr and tells them to open/pack boxes/etc. The 5 slowest people each week lose their jobs, but the rule is that you have to wear your safety gear and be careful/etc. Of course, the supervisor doesn't punish you for not wearing your safety gear, but they do watch you to figure out if you're one of the 5 people who will lose their jobs that week. Then a worker chops their hands open with a box cutter and sues, and the company says, well, we did provide safety gloves and tell people to use them.

The company in a position of power has a duty to ensure the law is followed - anything else leads to huge problems. Goods coming from places with these kinds of problems should have 500% tariffs applied.

Re:Really?

[ganjadude]

actually hog if you read the entire post I made over again, you will see I agree with you. I was agreeing that they have a choice, I was also pointing out that the consumer has a choice whether or not to do business with said company. You were attacking the part of my comment that was only used to set up the rest of my comment..that agrees with what you said

Possible Connection?

[eldavojohn]

Apple reportedly sent five employees to meet with five different Chinese environmental groups on Nov. 15, only to learn about several troubling environmental issues at as many as 22 different product parts suppliers.

Huh, that's odd, it was back in September when Apple outright rejected these claims. Perhaps Apple is free to conduct investigations with the passing of a certain misanthrope?

Re:Possible Connection?

[meustrus]

After reading what Steve Jobs has to say about education reform, it suddenly made sense that he's actually a soul-crushingly ambivalent-to-human-rights modern businessman, not the LSD revering environmentalist hippy that was more his image.

So much for "green" laptops

[dingo_kinznerhook]

Apple makes a big deal about how environmentally friendly their laptop lineup is. Maybe the non-environmentally friendly stuff just stays on the other side of the ocean, somewhere where we'll never hear about it.

Re:So much for "green" laptops

[roc97007]

Apple isn't the only company that calls a product "green" as long as the pollution takes place on the other side of the world. Google "china" and "mercury poisoning".

Re:So much for "green" laptops

[MrEricSir]

I think they're only referring to the other side of the equation, i.e. disposal. Environmental groups took Apple to task over this a while back, and they responded with some kind of recycling initiative (to what extent, I'm not certain.)

Article is Troll

[coinreturn]

this is the first time Apple has admitted any wrongdoing in relation to environmental pollution from any of its Chinese supply chains

Blaming the user of the components (Apple) is virtually the same as blaming the end-user (consumers). It is NOT Apple's fault China has lax compliance.

Re:Article is Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It is Apple's fault for hiring companies in China knowing that they do massive polluting. It's not like its a big secret that China does massive polluting with their industrial sector.

Re:Article is Troll

[roc97007]

I'd argue that the end-users are at fault just as much. It's hardly been a secret that the iphone you buy was manufactured by smog factories and assembled by slave labor.

Re:Article is Troll

[M. Baranczak]

Bullshit. They knew that China's environmental regulations are a joke, and they still chose to have their hardware manufactured there. The pollution must be REALLY bad if the Chinese govt is actually doing something about it.

Re:Article is Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly been a secret that the iphone you buy was manufactured by smog factories and assembled by slave labor.

Dude, it's only "Designed" in California.

Re:Article is Troll

[hackingbear]

Well... it could well be that Apple or other hardware buyers low-bidding the Chinese manufacturers.

Edy Jianto, general manager at Flextronics Electronics Technology (Suzhou) Co Ltd, estimated that many multinational companies enjoy a gross profit margin of between 50 to 60 percent while Chinese contract manufacturers have an average margin of around 3 percent.

Do you think you will place much emphasize in environment and labor conditions if your margin is only 3% and wouldn't you try to do whatever you can to circumvent the Chinese environmental and labor laws?.

Re:Article is Troll

[NatasRevol]

Can you find a computer company that doesn't use parts from China? Doubtful.

Re:Article is Troll

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It is Apple's fault for hiring companies in China knowing that they do massive polluting.

That argument would be a LOT stronger if Apple wasn't the sole company being taken to task for it.

.

Re:I hate apple, but?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Welcome to slashdot, where every article regarding apple is charged either heavily for/against them, depending on the editor.

they also stopped beating their wife

[HarrySquatter]

this is the first time Apple has admitted any wrongdoing in relation to environmental pollution from any of its Chinese supply chains.

Thus is also the first time they've admitted that they will stop beating their wife. Even if Apple has some "wrongdoing" to admit at.least they are doing something unlike Dell, Logitech, HP, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, AMD, Acer, Toshiba, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Cisco, Nintendo, Sony, Nokia, MSI, Vizio, Samsung, HTC, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc.(the list can go on) who have yet to admit their wrongdoings since they use the same suppliers.

Re:they also stopped beating their wife

[HarrySquatter]

Thanks for proving my point. This is nothing but Apple bashing since countless multibillion dollar multinationals use the same suppliers yet all the bad things these suppliers do are somehow Apple's fault alone.

Keep this up and they'll have to move again

[jandrese]

Cripes, you go to all of the trouble to find the place with the loosest/most poorly enforced regulatory structure, and then suddenly the government pulls a bait and switch and starts caring about the massive toll all of it is having on the population. It's a real pain to go and find some new place where they don't care about their citizens. The modern world is a libertarian nightmare.

Re:Keep this up and they'll have to move again

[sabt-pestnu]

The ones that advocate deregulating industry "and letting the market sort it out" certainly are not defending the environment any, are they?

Re:Keep this up and they'll have to move again

[joocemann]

Passively they do.

Libertarian ideology is such that a company could produce something that nearly ablates the world of mammals (including humans), and those who live through it are supposed to not buy the product and thus the market kills the company.

Libertarian ideology does not apply in a world where the damage a company an do may take years or decades to accrue (like BPA, hormone interference, long term environmental abuse) and the market response required to make sense would be 'immediate'.

Regulations are necessary because we don't want serious damage to happen BEFORE the market responds. We want to prevent the serious damage with the best scientific understandings of safety we have, and let the market respond to the products that come from our best knowledge of safe practices.

Re:Keep this up and they'll have to move again

[fsckmnky]

"Proprietarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression, or the state in which no person or group aggresses against any other person or group, where aggression is defined as the violation of private property."

There is also a non-proprietarian type of libertarianism, and the difference between the 2 is important. In your above scenario, ablating the world of mammals, pollution with BPA, hormone interference, and the environment, etc. would be an aggression against people and property.

Of course "some" regulations are necessary, while "other" regulations are not, while still other regulations are wasteful, unnecessary, and harmful.

Claiming that "all deregulation is bad" without regard to the details of a specific deregulatory action, or that libertarians want absolute freedom, even if it results in the destruction of the environment and the means by which the planet is able to support life, is ridiculous.

Re:Steve is turning in his grave

[truthsearch]

My vote would be Gates was more ruthless. He absorbed and/or destroyed more small businesses than I could count. He lied in federal court. He used a monopoly to negatively manipulate markets. He would lose billions of dollars on a product just to undercut competition.

By contrast Jobs was an asshole and difficult to work with. This is an easy vote for me.

Consumers just as guilty

[monkeyhybrid]

If Apple are guilty of anything here, then so are the consumers of Apple products. And seeing as a large percentage of other products we buy from countless other manufacturers probably have parts manufactured in similar factories and in similar conditions, that makes pretty much all of us guilty.

Responsibility for the supply chain

[sjbe]

Actually, Apple and other manufacturers are NOT responsible for their SUPPLIERS' mishaps.

Sure they are. Apple has almost certainly been sued for problems that are/were caused by their suppliers. Apple chooses who they want to do business with and as a result bears at least some responsibility for the actions of their suppliers. While it is unrealistic to expect Apple to be responsible for every action of their suppliers, they most definitely are responsible for some of them. The supplier and Apple share responsibility for the products they jointly create AND any by-products or problems they create as well.

Android phones are made out of hemp

[Brannon]

in the USA by union labor.

Not really a new thing...

[shawnce]

http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/Apple_SR_2011_Progress_Report.pdf

http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/