In October 2016, Ethical Consumer viewed an article by Reuters dated 28 August 2015, titled, "Pentagon teams up with Apple, Boeing to develop wearable tech". The article stated, "U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter awarded $75 million on Friday to help a consortium of high-tech firms and researchers develop electronic systems packed with sensors flexible enough to be worn by soldiers or molded onto the skin of a plane." "The technology also could ultimately be used to integrate sensors directly onto the surfaces of ships or warplanes, allowing real-time monitoring of their structural integrity."
As such Apple lost a whole mark under Arms and Military Supply.


Pentagon teams up with Apple (28 August 2015)

In August 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed Apple’s 2019 Supplier Responsibility Report, the most recent available, for information on how the company managed workers' rights in its supply chain.


Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct, dated January 1st 2019 was viewed. The document contained clauses covering forced labour, child labour, anti-discrimination and freedom of association, which were considered adequate. It also contained clauses relating to working hours and wages, however these were considered inadequate for the following reasons: it did not specify a maximum number of working hours, only stipulating that suppliers conformed to the law; and only required the payment of legal minimum wages, not living wages.
The Code of Conduct stated “This Code applies to Apple suppliers and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and subcontractors”.
Apple’s Supply Chain Policy was considered to be rudimentary.


Apple was a member of the Responsible Business Alliance. However, as an industry-only body (with no membership from NGOs or trade unions), this was not considered to be a multi-stakeholder initiative and therefore the company did not demonstrate adequate stakeholder engagement as it did not appear to be member of any multi-stakeholder initiative focusing on labour standards in its manufacturing.
The report mentioned the use of third-party auditing in relation to the upholding of labour standards, however, it was unclear as to what type of third-party organisation this referred. Apple was therefore considered not to have included systematic input from NGO’s or labour organisations in the verification of its labour standard audits.
The Supplier Responsibility Report stated that Apple requires suppliers provide channels to employees to voice concerns including phone lines and the ability to contact Apple’s Supplier Responsibility team. It was unclear whether the complaints channels themselves were zero cost or provided in employees native languages, however, the report also stated that Apple “interview numerous supplier employees during annual assessments in their local language without their managers present,” to verify that the complaint channels are suitable. On this basis, the company was considered to have an an adequate complaints process.
Overall, Apple was considered to have a rudimentary approach to stakeholder engagement.


Apple’s 2019 Supplier Responsibility Report contained some disclosure of results including the number of ‘Core Violations’ found and several examples of these. However, this was not considered to be adequate reporting, as the results at factory and supplier level were not disclosed.
Neither a clear schedule for audits nor a statement pertaining to the breadth of the supply chain to which auditing applied were found in the documents consulted.
The report did demonstrate a clear strategy for handling instances of non-compliance, for example it stated that suppliers were required to immediately remediate a ‘Core Violation’ [in order] to remain an Apple supplier.
No mention of the costs of audits could be found in the documents consulted. Apple was considered to have a poor approach to auditing and reporting overall.


A difficult issue within the electronics industry is child labour. Apple detailed how it required suppliers - if they were found to be using child labour - to commit to a remediation strategy of returning the child back to their home and supporting them. Only two cases were found in 2017.
Another difficult issue it was addressing was the use of third-party recruiters to secure contract workers. Apple required suppliers to reimburse fees back to the workers. No mention was found in the reports or associated documents of the difficult issues of purchasing, audit fraud, illegal freedom of association or living wage.
Apple was considered to be addressing some of the difficult issues within its supply chain therefore it was considered to have a rudimentary approach to difficult issues.
Given that Apple's approach to its supply chain policy, stakeholder engagement and addressing difficult issues were considered to be rudimentary, and its approach to auditing and reporting was considered to be poor, Apple received Ethical Consumer’s middle rating for supply chain management overall and lost half a mark in this category.


Supplier Responsibility 2019 Progres Report (19 August 2019)

An article published on the Guardian website on 27 July 2015 raised concerns about the marketing tactics of childrens' games manufacturers.

It mentioned a case in 2014 when Apple announced it would refund $32.5m to parents who’d been billed for unauthorised in-app purchases made by their children in order to settle a dispute with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The article stated that in 2013 aggressive monetisation techniques such as requiring a real-life purchase during a game to continue play had caught the attention of the UK’s Office of Fair Trading (which had since become the Competition and Markets Authority). The CMA had launched an investigation into the way in-app purchases were marketed to children. It expressed concerns that some companies were attempting to exploit “children’s inexperience, vulnerability and credulity, including by aggressive commercial practices” such as “direct exhortations to children to buy advertised products” or persuading their parents to do so for them. It subsequently published a set of principles designed to remind developers of their responsibilities under consumer protection law.
The Children’s Rights and Business Principles, developed by UNICEF, the UN Global Compact and Save the Children, were also applicable to video games. Principle Five, for example, required companies to ensure that their “products and services are safe, and seek to support children’s rights through them”. Additionally, Principle Six called for marketing and advertising that respected and supported children’s rights.

The article noted that the fact that the CMA recently referred three online children’s games to the Advertising Standards Authority due to concerns that they may be pressuring children into buying extra features suggested that some developers of children’s apps were unaware of the principles and guidelines that applied to their products - or were choosing to ignore them.

Even when developers did follow available guidance, the default settings on mobile devices could still catch people out, it said. Parents and children weren’t always aware that every app or in-app purchase opens a 15 minute window when further purchases can be made, as with the case of Apple above.

As such Apple lost half a mark under Irresponsible Marketing

Marked as info only because Apple said it would refund.


Responsiblities of the gaming industry in protecting children's rights (27 July 2015)

An article on dated December 2019 reported that Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla had been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

It stated “The lawsuit, which is the result of field research conducted by anti-slavery economist Siddharth Kara, accuses the companies of aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain.

The families and injured children are seeking damages for forced labour and further compensation for unjust enrichment, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

As a result, the company of lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer's Human Rights category.


Apple and Google named in US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths (16 December 2019)

The 2019 Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) Corporate Accountability Index evaluated “the world’s most powerful internet, mobile ecosystem, and telecommunications companies on relevant commitments and policies, based on international human rights standards.” The research was based on company policies that were active between January 13, 2018 and February 8, 2019. The new information published by companies after that date was not evaluated.

The RDR Index scores represented the extent to which companies were meeting minimum standards. This information was ranked since “people around the world still lack basic information about who controls their ability to connect, speak online, or access information, or who has the ability to access their personal information under what circumstances.” Over time, some regulations contributed to reinforce the disclosure and policies on human rights within the companies, but others made it harder.

The RDR Index evaluated 24 companies on 35 indicators examining three main categories as follows:
“Governance: Threats to users caused or exacerbated by companies’ business models and deployment of new technologies are not well understood or managed. ”
“Expression: Transparency about the policing of online speech remains inadequate.”
“Privacy: Most companies still fail to disclose important aspects of how they handle and secure personal data.”

The RDR Index assessed company disclosure at the overarching “parent” or “group” level as well as those of selected services and or local operating companies (depending on company structure). Companies received a cumulative score of their performance across all RDR Index categories, and results showed how companies performed by each category and indicator.

Apple was one of the 24 companies rated in the 2019 report. It scored 46% overall. The Company Report Card for Apple stated:
“Apple placed seventh among the 12 ranked internet and mobile ecosystem companies in the 2019 Index. As in previous Index rankings, Apple’s low score relative to its U.S. peers was due to its lack of governance and oversight over human rights risks, and also lack of clear disclosure of policies affecting users’ freedom of expression.2 On privacy and security issues, Apple remains near the top of all ranked companies in this Index. It was the only company to clearly disclose it does not track users across the internet, and disclosed more about its encryption policies than its peers. For its mobile operating system, Apple also disclosed more than Google’s Android and Samsung’s Android about options users have to control location tracking on iOS.
But Apple should be more transparent and accountable to users about policies and practices that affect freedom of expression: Of the user agreements evaluated in the RDR Index, Apple's were among the least accessible. It also lacked adequate disclosure about its rules and how they are enforced. While it disclosed data about government requests to restrict accounts, it disclosed no data about content removal requests, such as requests to remove apps from its App Store.”

Only eight of the 24 companies evaluated scored 50 percent or higher. The highest score was 62 percent. This showed much room for improvement. All companies evaluated in the RDR Index could make many improvements immediately, even in the absence of legal and policy reform.

All the companies ranked, except those which scored 50 percent or higher, lost half a mark under Human Rights.


2019 Corporate Accountability Index (2019)

In July 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed the family tree for Apple Inc, on the corporate website, which stated that the company had subsidiaries in the following countries: India, China, Thailand and Israel. These countries were considered by Ethical Consumer to be oppressive regimes at the time of writing.
As such Apple lost half a mark under Human Rights.


Generic Hoovers ref 2019 (2 January 2019)

In October 2015 an investigation by China Labour watch revealed that despiet promises to address issues at the Shanghai-based Pegatron Technology factory conditions there for workers remained poor.

The report entitled “Something’s Not Right Here” calls on Apple CEO Tim Cook to acknowledge the problems and work harder to put them right.

The report outlines how workers at Pegatron, which produces Apple’s iconic iPhone:
often work 12-hour shifts,
often work six days a week,
are forced to do overtime work and unpaid labor,
have short breaks for meals,
facing hiring fees and unreasonable fines, and
receiving inadequate training in safety and prevention measures

This researchers say is all covered up by Pegatron management through fraudulent documentation. They add that "Pegatron also contravenes Chinese law in its excessive use of precarious temp labor and its refusal to pay legally mandated benefits to its workers."

Problems that they say are all exacerbated by the lack of any labour union.

CLW say that this "grim reality" stands in contrast to Apple’s ethical commitments (the company receives an Ethical Consumer middle rating for its supply chain management).

CLW compared findings from its new investigation with those of a 2013 investigation of Pegatron. Among 21 categories of legal and ethical violations that were identified they found that, 11 went unchanged, five problems deteriorated further, and four showed partial but incomplete improvement.

One category of violation, hiring discrimination, appeared to have improved. But this may have been influenced by the fact that CLW’s investigator was hired directly by the company rather than as a temp worker, where more discriminatory hiring practices are common.


Chinese Factory Producing Apple’s iPhone 6s Exposed Again for Ongoing Labor Abuses (30 October 2015)

Apple Inc was given an overall rating of 3 out of 4 by Amnesty International in 2017 in relation to the company's cobalt sourcing practices.

In its report, Time to Recharge: Corporate action and inaction to tackle abuses in the cobalt supply chain, published in November 2017, Amnesty International looked at the performance of 29 companies, comprising Huayou Cobalt (the smelter and “choke point” in the supply chain) and 28 downstream companies. All had been identified in the course of research for the 2016 report 'This is What We Die For' to have possible supply chain links to Huayou Cobalt and included five automakers contacted after publication of the 2016 report.

The report summarised the cobalt supply chain as follows:
- Artisanal mines
- Intermediaries (in the case of child miners)
- Licensed buying houses in Musompo and Kapata
- Congo Dongfang Mining (CDM)
- Huayou Cobalt, China
- Lithium-ion battery component manufacturers
- Electronics and car companies

Apple Inc was one of the nine computer, communication & consumer electronics
companies in the report which sourced cobalt for its products.
At the time the report was published, more than 50% of the world's cobalt (an essential element of lithium-ion rechargeable batteries) originated from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with 20% of that cobalt coming from artisanal miners. An earlier report by Amnesty International published in 2016 ('This is What We Die For') had documented serious human rights abuses in artisanal cobalt mining in southern DRC and exposed how miners operating outside of authorised zones worked in extremely dangerous conditions, lacked basic safety equipment, had limited access to legal protections, and suffered from chronic illnesses including fatal respiratory diseases. In addition, children as young as seven had been found to be working in the mines. The report also assessed the cobalt sourcing practices of 26 companies and concluded they had all failed to conduct human rights due diligence in line with international standards.

Two years on, 'Time to Recharge' documented the extent to which those companies and others had subsequently improved their cobalt sourcing practices. The report rated Apple three out of four after finding it had taken:
- adequate action in relation to investigating its supply links to the DRC;
- adequate action in relation to establishing robust policies and systems to detect human rights abuses in its cobalt supply chain;
- adequate action to identify human rights risks and abuses;
- moderate action to disclose information about human rights risks and abuses in its supply chain;
- moderate steps to mitigate human rights risks or remediate harms related to its cobalt supply chain.


Time to Recharge: Corporate Action and Inaction to Tackle Abuses in the cobalt supply chain (2017)

According to an article published on the Guardian on 14 January 2015, four Silicon Valley companies including Apple had agreed to a new settlement that would resolve a class action lawsuit by tech workers who accused the firms of conspiring to avoid recruiting each other’s employees.
Plaintiffs accused Apple and three other silicon valley firms in the 2011 lawsuit of limiting job mobility and, as a result, keeping a lid on salaries.
The case had been closely watched because of the possibility of big damages being awarded and for the opportunity to peek into the world of some of America’s elite tech firms.
US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, last year rejected a $324.5m (£214m) settlement of the lawsuit as too low after one of the plaintiffs objected.
That worker was said to be in support of the new agreement, his attorney Daniel Girard said, which could be a joint payment of $415m, the New York Times reported citing a person close to the negotiations.
Representatives for Apple declined to comment.
The case was based largely on emails in which Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and some of their rivals detailed plans to avoid poaching each other’s prized engineers.


Silicon Valley giants ‘to settle claim’ of conspiring to limit pay (14 January 2015)