Apple taken to task for actions of Chinese suppliers in 'Complicit' documentary [u]
'Complicit,' which showed at film festivals around the world the last two years and just aired on Australian television, says Chinese electronics firms use harmful chemicals that poison workers and Apple should be held completely responsible for it.
The 90-minute documentary feature has screened at nearly twenty film festivals in 2017 and 2018, and aired in a 44-minute version on Four Corners, a 60 Minutes-like newsmagazine show on Australia's ABC News. The film centers on Yi Yeting, a migrant worker-turned-activist who battled leukemia while fighting against terrible working conditions.
Directed by Heather White & Lynn Zhang and filmed with hidden cameras over the course of four years in the Chinese regions of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, "Complicit" also tells the story of other young workers who have been exposed to dangeous chemicals, some of whom developed leukemia, as well as their fight for better conditions and practices in the electronics industry.
The idea of the film, starting with the title, is that those worldwide who use iPhones and other popular electronics are "complicit" in the pain caused by Chinese workers on their assembly line, and need to be held more accountable than they are.
In 2010, 44 workers sued Wintek, an Apple contractor, alleging that they were exposed to n-hexane.
In 2016 Samsung, which is both a supplier and competitor to Apple, was accused of poisoning over 200 workers and covering it up.
The Four Corners web page for the film states, somewhat misleadingly, that "around 500 other chemicals are still used to produce electronics." Just about everything is a chemical, and most chemicals aren't dangerous.
The film is available on the TV show's website and on its app, but permissions don't allow it to be viewed in the United States.AppleInsider has requested to view a copy of the film.
Update One of the directors of the piece, Heather White, contacted AppleInsider about the documentary.
"The film doesn't say 'Chinese electronics firms use harmful chemicals that poison workers and Apple should be held completely responsible for it.'" writes White. "The film raises awareness about what is happening to workers exposed to toxic chemicals in the factories supplying Apple,Samsung, and others. Foxconn is Apple's lead supplier and Foxconn has had numerous documented violations."
"We leave it up to the audience to decide who is 'complicit' in what is happening to young assembly line workers in China," adds White. "We don't use the word complicit in the film and I've learned from our post-film Q & A session that everyone who sees it has a different takeaway: some feel the brands are complicit, and some feel that we as consumers are complicit."
White also provided a list of 500 chemicals used in the manufacturing process. Of the 500, about half have no toxicity, and the rest do have some. All of the risks can be mitigated with proper safety procedures, with the lack thereof at times appearing to be at the crux of the documentary.
White has offered a copy of the film to AppleInsider for review.
The 90-minute documentary feature has screened at nearly twenty film festivals in 2017 and 2018, and aired in a 44-minute version on Four Corners, a 60 Minutes-like newsmagazine show on Australia's ABC News. The film centers on Yi Yeting, a migrant worker-turned-activist who battled leukemia while fighting against terrible working conditions.
Confrontation
"The struggle to defend the lives of millions of Chinese people from becoming terminally ill due to working conditions necessitates confrontation with some of the world's largest brands including Apple and Samsung," according to the description when "Complicit" screened in February at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival.Directed by Heather White & Lynn Zhang and filmed with hidden cameras over the course of four years in the Chinese regions of Shenzhen and Guangzhou, "Complicit" also tells the story of other young workers who have been exposed to dangeous chemicals, some of whom developed leukemia, as well as their fight for better conditions and practices in the electronics industry.
"Complicit" 2017 Trailer from ComplicitFilm on Vimeo.
The "Complicit" film began with a successful crowdfunding campaign in 2014, launched by New York-based director White; the Beijing-based Zhang is the co-director. In the last two years it was shown at the Toronto Film Festival, the Tel Aviv Solidarity Film Festival and the FIFDH Paris Festival, where it received the Investigative Report Best Film Award. A separate crowdfunding effort was launched to assist some of the workers featured in the film.The idea of the film, starting with the title, is that those worldwide who use iPhones and other popular electronics are "complicit" in the pain caused by Chinese workers on their assembly line, and need to be held more accountable than they are.
The Benzene ban
In 2014, Apple banned the use of two chemicals used for cleaning, n-hexane and benzene, from the final assembly part of its production process, following worldwide pressure from activists. However, the chemicals are still allowed for the subcontracted construction of components such as screens and camera modules prior to full device assembly.In 2010, 44 workers sued Wintek, an Apple contractor, alleging that they were exposed to n-hexane.
In 2016 Samsung, which is both a supplier and competitor to Apple, was accused of poisoning over 200 workers and covering it up.
The Four Corners web page for the film states, somewhat misleadingly, that "around 500 other chemicals are still used to produce electronics." Just about everything is a chemical, and most chemicals aren't dangerous.
The film is available on the TV show's website and on its app, but permissions don't allow it to be viewed in the United States.AppleInsider has requested to view a copy of the film.
Update One of the directors of the piece, Heather White, contacted AppleInsider about the documentary.
"The film doesn't say 'Chinese electronics firms use harmful chemicals that poison workers and Apple should be held completely responsible for it.'" writes White. "The film raises awareness about what is happening to workers exposed to toxic chemicals in the factories supplying Apple,Samsung, and others. Foxconn is Apple's lead supplier and Foxconn has had numerous documented violations."
"We leave it up to the audience to decide who is 'complicit' in what is happening to young assembly line workers in China," adds White. "We don't use the word complicit in the film and I've learned from our post-film Q & A session that everyone who sees it has a different takeaway: some feel the brands are complicit, and some feel that we as consumers are complicit."
White also provided a list of 500 chemicals used in the manufacturing process. Of the 500, about half have no toxicity, and the rest do have some. All of the risks can be mitigated with proper safety procedures, with the lack thereof at times appearing to be at the crux of the documentary.
White has offered a copy of the film to AppleInsider for review.
Comments
Samsung sells more Samsung’s than Apple sells iPhones m. Apple has forced a code of conduct on their suppliers but Samsung never has. Apple is not the bad guy even if their suppliers still use these chemicals.
Still, all Apple needs to do is pull their contracts from these suppliers and they’ll see the error of their ways. In fact I suspect this could in part behind the so called parts reductions for iPhone X.
The problem is Samsung makes too much of Apple’s parts because there is no one else who manufactures at that level.
*rant on *
Speaking of ‘clickbait’ - that really is the problem here. While ‘paid for clicks’ (advertising) is a thing - that’s where the effort goes. If we want effort to go to finding solutions to problems and reporting the truth then we have to monentise that and remove the financial incentive to do the opposite. Ie: the big news here is that Apple try harder to protect the health and safety of their 3rd world contractors. That’s the story - Samsung don’t even try. Apple can improve - Samsung could try just starting. If that message got you $$ for clicks but for telling lies and half truths got you a ‘fine’ for every click then you’d see a difference in behaviour pretty quickly. yes im talking about government control of the media - but currently we have market control of the media - which is arguably less transparent and more manipulative. ABC as Australia’s public broadcaster has done a fair job (AFAICT) here - but the click bait articles linking to it / amplifying it are a real problem - everyone reads the headline and no one watches the in depth article.
*rant off*
Irony would be if you could rent the movie on iTunes.
It's the fact that China has no standards for workers health and safety. It would be like comparing them to the US in the 1900s. No safety standards in the workplace, no workers rights, nothing.
We luckily had our government make changes to make the workplace safer. I'm not sure changes would come as fast in China as they did here. The only reason there is any change is due to the threat of losing the contract. So the worker is less important than the amount of money they make for the contract. The government doesn't care due to the back room deals made.
Apple was one of the only companies that I can see that has forced Foxconn into making changes and then started down the supply chain.
When you dont have the backing of the government, it makes it harder to enforce rules for safety. Especially since Dell, HP, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, and pretty much any company that has their product made in China does not want their name brought up when it comes to policing the health of the workplace where their products are made.
This could take decades to fix if it's even possible to.
So Apple is no more complicit than we are in the processes and substances used by a component manufacturer operating under the laws of whatever country it does business in.
The folks who who created this documentary should google ‘legal test of complicity’ and the same for ‘ommision.’ They might learn something before trying to educate the rest of us.
Employers were already raising wages and improving working conditions BEFORE government regulations and unions got involved and took credit. This is what happens naturally as economies improve due to expanding personal wealth. Children become less a part of the workforce, safety standards go up as employees can pick and choose which companies to work for and environmental and health factors become more important despite the interventions of lawmakers. All of these things are occurring in China now. The workers are being paid more and they’re demanding more.
Legal requirements and ethical behaviours are two different things. This documentary is trying to make Apple act ethically as well as legally.
others in its industry in terms of ethical behavior with regard to its supply chain. I challenge them or any other to present a more ethical maker of consumer electronics.
It is about bringing awareness to the issue that workers are dying in the making of a large number of electronics of all brands that the West buy from China, so that we can put pressure on those brands to reform. It was pressure such as this that resulted in Apple dropping benzene from its immediate supply chain level (but importantly, not from the lower supply chain levels which meant that it didn’t effectively eliminate benzene from its production process at all).
Stephen hadn’t had an opportunity to watch the program when writing his piece (the show aired here in Australia this week) but the point that had been made about the 500 chemicals was that they are used primarily in countries that have no regulation in place to ensure that only the safe ones are on the table (ie including China). It’s not misleading to imply that a larger number of unregulated chemicals probably include a larger number of unsafe ones.
If you can find a link to the documentary, it’s worth viewing.
out the best while ignoring the worst. But hey, thanks for playing.
Hence, "complicit".
I swear, some of you guys are so busy falling over yourselves to defend Apple that you're not hearing what's being said at all.
The difference the critics above seem to miss between Samsung and Apple, is that Samsung is more than 60% produced in S. Korea - a democracy with a free press and activists who can protest the company's actions without disappearing behind bars without a trial for months or years. A year-long sit in at Samsung's headquarters led by the families of workers poisoned on the job just ended when the company recently negotiated. Samsung created an $80 million compensation fund for their workers w/ occupational diseases in 2015. Samsung is bound by the democratic legal system in place in S. Korea.
Apple is producing in a totalitarian dictatorship. The company has not acknowledged there's an issue of poisoned workers in its vast supply chain. Until the film was made they didn't monitor what chemicals were being used by Foxconn's workers, their main producer. (Samsung is required to take legal responsibility in Korea and is being sued)
Apple doesn't monitor or report on their subcontractor factories ( not legally required to do so ) and denies knowledge of them when presented with an independentThe wor report. Activists can't operate above ground in China today - all NGO worker groups have been shut down since 2012. Apple benefits. In our research for the film every poisoned worker w/ an occupational disease diagnosis had a connection back to Foxconn or an Apple subcontractor - due to immense global demand for Apple products, the other brands in China barely make a ripple.
An ethical company would no longer be making nearly all of its products in a repressive dictatorship 6 years into an unprecedented human rights crackdown, that is now killing activists and occasionally their lawyers. China has good laws in place - they aren't enforced. Could Apple ensure their Code and local laws are enforced in their all factories - absolutely. $1 Trillion goes a long way. As for their Code of Conduct - all companies have them, granting workers the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining - illegal and impossible in China - in short, the codes are empty words, rarely enforced.