Apple dominates all electronics, jewelry companies in ethical sourcing of conflict mineral...

Posted:
in General Discussion
A report from a conflict mineral advocacy group puts Apple well ahead of other companies including Google, Microsoft, and Intel in efforts to develop supply chains of metals outside of conflict zones like the Congo.




A study published on Thursday by the Enough Project examined 20 of the world's largest companies in terms of market capitalization. Mineral supply chains examined include tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold.

Apple emerged as the "clear leader" scoring 114 out of a possible 120 points. Following the top five, including HP, Microsoft, Intel, and Google, the remaining electronic companies take a precipitous drop in rankings, with Panasonic scoring 42.5 -- and the anchor of the charts being Toshiba at 9.

Tin is a common semiconductor and structural mineral. Tantalum is used in capacitors and resistors, and used in other alloys to grant strength and corrosion resistance.

Gold is an excellent conductor, and is effectively corrosion-free. Tungsten has a wide array of uses in fabrication materials, can be used for wear-resistant coatings and in emitters.

Also examined with the same scale were jewelry companies like Signet and Tiffany, with Signet holding a lead at 66.5 points. Tiffany scored 60 points. The remaining jewelry companies scored between 0 and 20 on the scale.

The Enough Project defines "conflict-free minerals" as minerals that do not directly or indirectly finance or benefit armed groups, including state military units from Congo as well as other predatory regional governments. Because these rankings are focused on activities related to Congo, companies were awarded credit for criteria pertaining to sourcing conflict-free minerals if they were able to demonstrate that the minerals in their products were not financing armed violence in Congo or the African Great Lakes region.

The group recommends that consumers contact companies that use the materials to either laud their efforts -- or exclaim dismay at the poor showing.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,011member
    Kudos to all of the top 5. Good to know they are all heading in the right direction.
    RacerhomieX
  • Reply 2 of 9
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,306member
    1) Based on this, I'd say that people calling Alphabet nee Google "evil" isn't accurate.

    2) It's not surprising to see Walmart near zero, but Neiman Marcus at zero surprises me.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 3 of 9
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,658member
    Soli said:
    1) Based on this, I'd say that people calling Alphabet nee Google "evil" isn't accurate.

    2) It's not surprising to see Walmart near zero, but Neiman Marcus at zero surprises me.
    Well, the bigger the variety and sourcing of  products you get, the bigger the chance you'll get near zero; for retail it is obviously pretty hard to get those things out.
    Doesn't mean they shouldn't do better though.
    Those companies don't control their the supply chain of the hundreds of different products.

    For companies like Samsung and Toshiba though it is inexcusable.

    Google has a very small volume of consumer products and probably are buy the most for their own use in servers, which they can obviously control tightly.
    So, then being high isn't as hard to atteign than for Wallmart.


    trillot
  • Reply 4 of 9
    @Foggyhill You're right
  • Reply 5 of 9
    Apple should be proud for their efforts here considering the number of iOS devices made.
    propodwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 9
    1) Samsung's score is 17.5, against Apple 122. While not surprising, it's disgusting. Every other US tech company on that list has a substantially higher score.

    2) Where's Amazon on this list? So bad that they didn't even make it?
    edited November 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 9
    Yeah, well, question is how good is Apple at this in absolute terms. Are they actually good in this area or just the best of a bad bunch? Like, are they getting a D on the test while the rest of the class gets Fs?
  • Reply 8 of 9
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,306member
    Manqueman said:
    Yeah, well, question is how good is Apple at this in absolute terms. Are they actually good in this area or just the best of a bad bunch? Like, are they getting a D on the test while the rest of the class gets Fs?
    The website goes into detail, including a Google Docs spreadsheet with plenty of data. According to their rating Apple is at 102%. It seems like Apple is getting an 'A' and the spread is all the way down to 0% with most getting the equivalent of 'C's, 'D's, and 'F's.

    So you can easily look at it as Apple having affected the grading scale for everyone else, but I'm also sure that this will evolve over time so that a score of 102% today could be failing in the future.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,668administrator
    Manqueman said:
    Yeah, well, question is how good is Apple at this in absolute terms. Are they actually good in this area or just the best of a bad bunch? Like, are they getting a D on the test while the rest of the class gets Fs?
    FTA: "Apple emerged as the "clear leader" scoring 114 out of a possible 120 points."

    More at the source link, too.
    edited November 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.