How green is your iPad? Should you still check it with Mike Daisey?

This was a good week for Apple. The company announced that
it has sold three million of its new iPad, and Mike Daisey, one of the people who became a major critical voice against Apple was caught lying to the radio show This American Life about his investigative trip to China.

I wrote yesterday on Triple Pundit about the latest findings about Daisey and what we can learn from this story. Here's the first paragraph of the article (Does It Matter if Mike Daisey Lied to This American Life about Apple in China?):

Ira Glass, the host of This American Life (TAL) had unpleasant news for his listeners last Friday. He has found out that Mike Daisey’s story about Apple in China, which TAL broadcast in January, contained significant fabrications. “We can’t vouch for its truth and therefore we’re retracting the story,” Glass said. This was certainly a humiliating moment for Glass and his show’s staff that pride on their high standards of journalism. The news is especially painful, given that this story was one of their most popular with over a million people downloading and streaming it to date. Add to that the role this show had in creating a tipping point in the public’s attitude towards Apple’s practices and you can understand why Glass is so sorry for having Daisey on his show in the first place.

Bottom line: the social dimension of the manufacturing phase of the iPad, as well as other products of Apple (and also the Kindle by the way) still seem far from being sustainable or even satisfactory, no matter if Daisey is accurate in 100 percent or not. In any event, it's recommended to wait for the completion of the audit made now by the FLA, which hopefully will provide us with an objective analysis about the situation at Foxconn.

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

The Other Side of Apple (and not the one you're gonna like..)

This is the title of a report released yesterday by the Institute of Environmental and Public Affairs (IPE), an independent Beijing-based non-profit organization. In the report, Apple is accused of "ignoring hazardous and unhealthy conditions at the factories in China where its components are assembled."

The report is not just about Apple. It outlines findings from a group of 36 non-governmental organizations into environmental and health practices among technology companies that are operating in China. Out of the 29 global technology companies that were ranked, Apple was ranked last.

Apple was not the only company the report cited as failing to act or respond to environmental and social concerns - Nokia, LG, SingTel, Sony, and Ericsson also fared poorly in the survey. But the groups said Apple was the worst, for "dodging" questions from the public and requests from environmental groups for investigations.

This was a bit of a surprise for the authors. “We originally thought that Apple, as a corporate citizen, would take a leadership role, but now we feel they ended up as the most obstructive,” Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Environmental and Public Affairs said in a phone interview to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Examples? Here's one: "among the examples cited in the report is Wintek Corp. which in 2009 is alleged to have used poisonous chemicals in the production of screens for Apple [touch screens for the iPhone and iPad] that resulted in workers being hospitalized for nerve damage. In a regulatory filing in May, Wintek said it stopped using the chemical, N-Hexane, and all workers were getting adequate treatment. Apple has not acknowledged Wintek as a supplier, Ma said."

And what does Apple say in response? “Apple has had an extensive supplier auditing program since 2006 and we have lots of information available through our website,” said Jill Tan, a Hong Kong-based spokeswoman for Apple.

The issues Apple has with its suppliers as well as its limited willingness at best to address them are not new to those who followed the wave of worker suicides last year at Foxconn, Apple's primary China supplier, last year. Again and again we see that although Apple seems to be generally transparent and progressive in their approach to social responsibility (see Apple's Supplier Responsibility Report), they are not willing to answer tough questions and be fully transparent when it comes to criticism on their operations.

My guestimation is that it is connected to Apple's (and Steve Job's) general lack of willingness to acknowledge that they might do something that is not perfect or god forbidden wrong, no matter what the issue is. This sort of hubris is definitely not the culture you would expect from an innovative and creative company like Apple.

And if you think Apple should be excused because all the companies behave this way - think again. BT and HP, for example, ranked highly in IPE’s list of technology companies because they have responded to environmental problems and worked with suppliers to ensure better compliance, according to Ma.

You can learn more about the report from this video published by IPE:



More articles on this issue:

Is the iPad manufactured at a modern sweatshop?
Can the iPad be "green" if it is manufactured in a sweatshop?

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

Is the iPad manufactured at a modern sweatshop?

It depends who you're asking and what's your definition of modern sweatshop. last Monday I heard Frederik Balfour, who wrote a lengthy story about Foxconn for Bloomberg Business Week earlier this year, on NPR. He was talking with Melissa Block on 'All Things Considered'.

Block asked him "When you were at the Foxconn plant, you spoke with about two dozen workers, what did they tell you about conditions there? And did it seem to you like they were working essentially in a sweatshop?"

And Balfour replied:

"No. I've visited plenty of sweatshops around the world, from Central America to Vietnam. This is definitely not a sweatshop.

The thing is, though, that these workers are probably under more pressure than anyone else working in China. The supervisors are extremely draconian. There's no margin for error. The sophistication of the process and the products that they're producing means that they're always under the gun. And that, I think, is what contributes to the high stress level at Foxconn."

According to Wikipedia, a sweatshop is (sweat factory) is "a working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous — especially by developed countries with high standards of living. However sweatshops may exist in any country. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for unusually low pay, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage. Child labour laws may be violated. Sweatshops may have hazardous materials and situations. Employees may be subject to employer abuse without an easy way to protect themselves."

So even though Foxconn's employees are paid decent wages in Chinese terms and work in clean and shiny modern building and you won't there child labour, there are still some disturbing similarities between the conditions of work at Foxconn according to Balfour (a plant where the supervisors are extremely draconian, there's no margin for error and workers are always the gun) and Wikipedia's description of sweatshop.

Balfour explains in his article for Bloomberg Business Week that Apple knows about the conditions of work at Foxconn, but has its own reasons not to cut the ties with Foxconn, even though it violates Apple's code of conduct:In his article for Bloomberg Business Week.

"The incident prompted Apple executives to dispatch an audit team to investigate conditions at the Longhua plant. The report, still available on Apple's company website, uncovered several violations of Apple's code of conduct, including excessive overtime, an overly complicated wage structure, and unacceptable living conditions such as triple-decker bunk beds. Foxconn made changes that included an overhaul of its overtime practices.

Although Apple pressured Foxconn, Steve Jobs wasn't about to sever ties with Hon Hai, not with preparations under way for the production of Apple's next big product, the iPhone, which came out the following year. "Steve Jobs' achievements wouldn't be possible without Terry," says Chang Tien-wen, author of the 2005 book The Tiger and The Fox: Terry Gou's Global Competitive Strategy."

Apparently the violation of Apple's code of conduct doesn't stop Apple from continuing its working relationship with Foxconn and only two weeks ago AppleInsider reported that 'Foxconn rumored to ship next-gen iPad in 100 days for April launch'.

The bottom line is that no matter how you define Foxconn, I think the employees there deserve better conditions. It is not a big secret that it's all about the pricing of the product and Foxconn ability to provide it in minimum cost to Apple. Probably manufacturing it elsewhere (or even at Foxconn) in better working conditions will translate to higher costs. Still, doesn't seem right that Apple's financial results should come on the expense of the rights of employees for decent conditions, even if they are in China and even if they work for a powerful company such as Foxconn.

If Apple wants us to take seriously what it describes as its commitment to "the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base" ("Apple is committed to ensuring the highest standards of social responsibility wherever our products are made. We insist that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes."), something has to change.

What will make this change happren? I have a little faith in Apple's own will to do something about it, but I have more faith in Apple's stakeholders and I hope that a continuous demand of especially of customers will eventually get Apple to do the right thing and make the iPad not just a cool device, but also a one that is manufactured responsibly.

More articles on this issue:

Can the iPad be "green" if it is manufactured in a sweatshop?

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

What changed since the era of Mad Men? Not much when it comes to E-Readers!

Don Draper can sell you (almost) anything. One of the best examples for his brightness and creativity was his "It's Toasted" moment, when he created the slogan for Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Don defines in the meeting with the Lucky Strike guys the essence of advertising in that era - "Advertising is based on one thing: happiness. And you know what happiness is?The smell of a new car, it's freedom from fear. It's a billboard on the side of the road that screams with reassurance that whatever you're doing it's OK - you are OK."

Has anything changed since then? Not much. At least not when it comes to ads of of e-readers that sell you the same perception of happiness, mixed with some coolness.

The first example is the iPad:



So, yes, iPad is thin and beautiful. You can even claim it's magical. Maybe it's already a revolution. It's all true. But at the same time, "it's toasted" is also true. It's just not ALL of the truth. So just like Lucky Strike didn't mention the fact their cigarettes can kill you, Apple also avoids sharing some facts that aren't that happy and might let you think you're not that OK if you buy it.

Here are just couple of examples:

1. The iPad is manufactured at Foxconn, a Chinese factory, where 14 young workers attempted or committed suicide, the last one only couple of days ago. Foxconn was described by Li Qiang, an executive director of New York-based China Labor Watch, as a sweatshop that “tramples” workers’ personal values for the sake of efficiency."

These suicides got representatives of nearly 50 socially responsible investing groups to issue a public call to the electronics industry to step up their oversight of suppliers as GreenBiz.com reports today: "The statement, signed by 45 members of the investment community, condemns abusive workplace conditions in the electronics industry, where a recent spate of suicides at Foxconn -- supplier to some of the industry's largest firms, including Apple, Dell, Hewlett Packard and many others -- led to widespread criticism of the company and its customers, and which pressured Foxconn to offer significant raises to its workers."

2. Minerals that are used to make components for many electronic devices, including the iPad, are bought from Congo, helping to finance a horrible war there. These minerals are usually referred to as "conflict minerals". Nicholas Kristof wrote about it lately on the New York Times:

"I’ve never reported on a war more barbaric than Congo’s, and it haunts me. In Congo, I’ve seen women who have been mutilated, children who have been forced to eat their parents’ flesh, girls who have been subjected to rapes that destroyed their insides. Warlords finance their predations in part through the sale of mineral ore containing tantalum, tungsten, tin and gold. For example, tantalum from Congo is used to make electrical capacitors that go into phones, computers and gaming devices.

Electronics manufacturers have tried to hush all this up. They want you to look at a gadget and think “sleek,” not “blood.”"

Apple response? Steve Jobs wrote to a concerned customer that "We require all of our suppliers to certify in writing that they use conflict few materials. But honestly there is no way for them to be sure. Until someone invents a way to chemically trace minerals from the source mine, it’s a very difficult problem." Definitely not screaming with reassurance that what you do (purchasing the iPad is OK)..

And what about Amazon's Kindle? Well, Amazon is no different of course, presenting an ad with a catchy and happy tune:

Reality check? Well, the Kindle just like the iPad is been manufactured at Foxconn and has also the same conflict minerals sourcing problems. Somehow (maybe because Amazon is even less transparent about these issues than Apple) Apple is more on the line of fire on these issues, but it doesn't mean that the Kindle is better with regards to these issues.

And the same goes for B&N's Nook: Very happy ad vs. a much more complicated reality:



Bottom line: The legacy of Don Draper's vision is live and kicking when it comes to e-readers! They're not cigarettes of course and they won't kill you, but don't forget the happy fuzzy feeling they try to sell you is just a sales pitch and nothing more. Reality is always more complicated and many times very different from the one you see on these 30 seconds.

And of course, don't forget to enjoy the fabulous season 4 of Mad Men that started yesterday. I know I will :)

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

Can the iPad be "green" if it is manufactured in a sweatshop?

Would you consider the iPad as environmentally sound if it was manufactured in a sweatshop? It might sound a theoretical question - I mean, can this advanced device that for many represent freedom, democracy and greater opportunities of be made in an exploiting working environment that represent for many of us the dark ages?

Well, given the latest news about Foxconn, the world's largest electronics contract manufacturer, which is the maker of iPhones and iPads for Apple, this question may be more relevant and realistic than ever.

Today, on the fourth and last part of our analysis of the iPad's environmental report, we'll refer to an important part that is actually missing from this report, but is included in another Apple's report - Social responsibility.

First, let's be clear - we believe that environmental and social performance are interconnected and the discussion about the iPad as a better option from a sustainable point of view (or "green") can not exclude the social issue. The Worldwatch Institute explained it very clearly:

"Environmental sustainability requires social sustainability... Environmentalists need to be as aware of the social dimensions of sustainability—well-versed in issues like living wages or occupational health and safety—as labor representatives are mindful of the environmental dimensions."

Now, Apple doesn't refer to the specific social impacts of each of their products separately, but provide an annual general supplier responsibility report. Apple explains its commitment as follows:

Apple is committed to ensuring the highest standards of social responsibility wherever our products are made. We insist that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes.

Apple’s program is based on our comprehensive Supplier Code of Conduct, which outlines our expectations for the companies we do business with. We evaluate compliance through a rigorous auditing program and work proactively with our suppliers to drive change.

This is very impressive. The report itself also looks very impressive not to say progressive. It mentions for example that Apple "continued to increase the number of facilities audited for compliance with Apple’s Code, completing onsite audits of 102 facilities in 2009, for a total of 190 individual facilities audited since 2007," and that the company "implemented a social responsibility train-the-trainer program for all of Apple’s final assembly manufacturers. Since the launch of this initiative, more than 133,000 workers, supervisors, and managers have been trained on workers’ rights and management’s responsibility."

Impressive, right? Only that the series of suicidesat Foxconn indicate things in reality might be different. First, it looks a bit problematic that Apple assembles the iPad (as well as the iPhone) in a place with such a bad reputation when it comes to working standards. Li Qiang, executive director of New York-based China Labor Watch, wrote last May that "Foxconn is a sweatshop that “tramples” workers’ personal values for the sake of efficiency."

Even the China Daily Newspaper was critical and as reported on BusinessWeek it wrote in an editorial that “Foxconn may not be a sweatshop in the sense that it physically abuses its employees or forces them to work extra hours. That does not mean it is showing enough humanitarian concern for its employees. And, neither does it imply that it is doing enough to foster a corporate culture that helps employees strike a healthier work-life balance.”

The Guardian reported that "labour campaigners argue that Foxconn's mostly migrant workers are vulnerable because of their 10-hour working days and the monotony of their jobs. They say many feel isolated and pressured by a strict regime that bans them from speaking on the production line and takes them far away from their families. They argue that although the basic salary of 900 yuan (£91) per month is above the legal minimum, workers find it hard to live on and are driven to labour for 60 hours a week to gain overtime pay."

It should be noted that Apple responded quickly. MacRumors.com reported on May 26 that Apple is "expressing sadness at the events and promising that it is "independently evaluating" Foxconn's response while also continuing its facility inspections summarized in its annual supplier responsibility progress report."We're in direct contact with Foxconn senior management and we believe they are taking this matter very seriously," said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. "A team from Apple is independently evaluating the steps they are taking to address these tragic events and we will continue our ongoing inspections of the facilities where our products are made.""

It might looks to you like this is the first time Apple needs to deal with such issues in Foxconn. Well, it doesn't. Four years ago, In June 2006, Engadget reported the following:

Despite recent comments by a Foxconn spokesperson that Apple had already investigated and found no problems with the Chinese factory that has come to be known as "iPod City," BusinessWeek is reporting that the probe is still in fact underway, with an Apple representative reiterating that the company takes "allegations of noncompliance very seriously."

According to spokesperson Steve Dowling, Apple is in the midst of a "thorough audit" of the Hon Hai-owned plant, which had recently admitted to breaking labor laws concerning overtime, but which continues to deny other allegations contained in the original Daily Mail exposé. Specifically, Dowling says that the auditors are looking into "employee working and living conditions," conducting interviews with workers and their managers (separately, we hope), and generally making sure that the factory lives up to a supplier code of conduct that supposedly "sets the bar higher than accepted industry standards."

So what was the auditors' final verdict back then? Engadget updated on August 2006:

The long and short of it is Apple apparently did not find child or forced labor, learned that more than half of iPod city residents were earning more than minimum wage (and none below), and that there was no forced overtime, but it was found that workweeks too infrequently went long (as often as 35% of the time), some interim dorms for the workers sounded pretty harsh (think: rows of triple bunk-beds on a factory floor), and some workers were "made to stand at attention" when they did something wrong.

So as you can see these issues are far from being new to Apple. So why does the company continue to work with Foxconn? The answer is very simple: Low prices. Good quality. Pamela Gordon of Technology Forecasters, a supply-chain research firm explained it on Business week:

"It's the prices. Their prices are lower for high-quality work." Foxconn won Apple's order to make the iPhone after Gou directed the business units that make components to sell parts at zero profit, according to two people familiar with the chairman's actions. Net income jumped 37 percent in 2009 to $2.3 billion, Foxconn's second-best year on record.

Wondering how cheap manufacturing the iPad could get at Foxconn? According to analysis of iSuppli the manufacturing cost of the 3G-wireless version of the iPad is $11.20.

To be fair, we have to remind that physical books production has its own social toll. The Green Press Initiative reminds us that "From the pine and spruce forests of the Canadian Boreal, to the tropical rainforests of Indonesia, there are people who rely on forests to support a traditional means of sustenance, spiritual connection, and economic development. Forests are used for lumber and commerce, gathering food and medicine, and for hunting and trapping." More information about the social impacts of the paper industry can be found in a paper published by the Environmental Paper Network. It was published 3 years ago, but unfortunately still very relevant.

So what's the bottom line? Is the iPad "good" or "bad" when we look into its social impacts? And is it better from physical books from this aspect?

We feel that there's a problem here. Apple created a very progressive code of conduct and like its environmental reports, its supplier responsibility report is something that other companies that sell e-readers don't have. So Apple is definitely one step ahead. At the same time, it looks like in reality the iPad is being manufactured in a place where the working environment are described by some as sweatshop, while others use more subtle terms to describe it such as "tough culture".

BusinessWeek summarize it saying that "Foxconn's suicides are a reminder of the human cost that can come with the low-cost manufacturing U.S. tech companies demand." Does it worth it? We believe the answer is no, just like it was with Nike and Gap in the past. I don't know if the answer is necessarily to move the production of the iPad back to the United States as Gilbert B. Kaplan offered lately, but there's definitely need to be a change. If the iPad wants to become a greener alternative, it needs to be made in working environment that is not exploitative.

Regarding the comparison with books - there are no metrics to use here unlike the ones you have in a life cycle assessment, but we can say that both options have serious social impacts when considering their 'business as usual' conduct.

Yet, we see some progress in the last couple of years in the paper industry, especially with the growing usage of forest management systems, including the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification that is considered the best practice. These systems are supposed to make sure that the concerns of indigenous and local communities are integrated into forest plans and assessments. And of course, growing usage of recycled paper that reduce the need to cut down trees is helpful as well.

Bottom line: No matter how low the carbon footprint of the iPad may be, or how good and efficient their recycling program is, the iPad wouldn't become a "greener" or more sustainable option comparing to books until Apple will really hold to its promise to be committed to ensuring the highest standards of social responsibility wherever our products are made. Right now, we're just not there yet.

Parts on the analysis published so far:
Part 1 - the iPad's Carbon footprint
Part 2 - Recycling
Part 3 - Materials

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!