Apple has been criticised for labour abuses in its supply chain, but is it under closer scrutiny than its competitors?
Apple has been criticised for labour abuses in its supply chain, but is it under closer scrutiny than its competitors?Apple enjoys a reputation as a company apart from the rest of the IT industry – but it has been receiving some familiar criticism.
Although its fourth annual supplier responsibility report was praised for shedding light on dark corners of the supply chain, some have been critical of Apple’s failure to improve factory conditions, particularly in China.
The report, based on an audit of 102 facilities, identified 17 “core violations”, including eight cases of “excessive recruitment fees”; three involving underage workers; three where suppliers used “non-certified” hazardous waste disposal providers; and three where suppliers falsified records provided for audit.
Meanwhile, over-working (described by Apple as more than 60 hours per week) was frequent: 60 factories exceeded the limits more than half the time; in 65 plants, employees worked more than six days straight at least once a month; and various forms of under-payment were common. Apple workers were often denied minimum wages, sick or maternity leave, or stripped of payments for disciplinary reasons.
Apple says its supplier code outlaws these practices, and that its requirements exceed those of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition.
Enforcement commitment
The report continually emphasises Apple’s commitment to enforcing standards. Apple points in particular to its “train the trainer” programme: five-day workshops for human resources staff at all its assembly plants. It claims that all staff working on its products receive training in their rights and obligations – 128,000 workers last year.
Critics, however, point out that Apple’s recent performance deteriorated from previous years. There were five more core violations last year than in the previous year. The figures may have more to do with greater scrutiny than falling standards, however. Apple auditors visited 102 factories last year, compared with 83 in 2008 and 39 in 2007.
Dan Viederman, executive director of Verité, which carries out training programmes for Apple, says: “The test for any company is whether it is treating the issue strategically and whether it is reporting on these issues, even if they are failing.” He emphasises the need for the industry to work on common standards and enforcement, as much of the IT industry shares the same suppliers.
Indeed, analysts point out that Apple has limited room for manoeuvre, particularly in its Chinese operations. There, only three suppliers – Foxconn, Quanta and Pegatron – are said to be capable of producing Apple’s products to sufficient quality, price and scale. Going to alternative suppliers, analysts say, would take time, and require investment to build up the necessary capacity and know-how.
These large players have borne the brunt of criticism over working practices, however. Foxconn’s Longhua factory, which employs up to 300,000 people near Shenzhen, has seen five suicide attempts – and at least one death – in the past year. Last summer, another staff-member killed himself after reportedly losing an iPhone prototype and being beaten by security staff.
China Labor Watch, a New York-based NGO, claims Foxconn employees are regularly forced to work excessive hours, and sometimes endure beatings with iron bars and whips. CLW says workers for Apple get slightly better conditions than others, though, including use of stools while on assembly lines.
Apple’s report displays an admirable level of detail. Its auditing procedures and training programmes, delivered by respected third-party organisations, appear serious and thorough. Its openness, and the unique nature of its following, meanwhile, bring attention to issues that are frequently overlooked by consumers.
On the other hand, some of the situations that Apple documents can hardly be cause for praise, and it remains a fact of life that conditions in much of the electronics supply chain remain sub-optimal. And we should not complacently believe that reporting leads inexorably to fixes.