Apple earns A+ rating from toxic chemical watchdog

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2018
Mind the Store ranks retailers by their use of toxic chemicals in consumer products and how they are -- or are not -- working to reduce them.

Apple and Mind the Store report logos
Apple and Mind the Store report logos


Apple's efforts to reduce its use on toxic chemicals has seen the company top environmental rankings by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families organization. It's the second year Apple has come out best in this report but its continuing work has also seen its grade rise from an A to an A+.

"Apple has made impressive strides in this area," says the report led by Campaign Director Mike Schade, "not only maintaining and frequently updating a Beyond Restricted Substance List (Apple's Regulated Substances Specification or RSS) but also aiming for full material disclosure of its private-label products to analyze every component in the products it sells, with more than 25,000 out of 50,000 reviewed so far."

Mike Schade, Campaign Director
Mike Schade, Campaign Director


Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families is a body comprised of 450 businesses which has been issuing annual report cards called Mind the Store for three years. Each report awards a point score as well as an overall grade and this year Apple earned 106.25 out of a possible 135 points.

Part of that point score was 15 out of 15 for what Mind the Store calls continuous improvement in a steadily expanding safer chemicals policy. It also scored 9 out of 15 for public disclosure and transparency. Other scores included 7.5/7.5 for establishing management responsibilities and 10/10 for supply chain accountability.

However, the report also says that Apple has room for improvement. "Apple can make even more progress by setting transparent public, quantifiable goals with specific timelines for reducing and eliminating chemicals of concern and expanding its Full Material Disclosure initiative to brand name products sold in Apple stores and on Apple.com."

"The company should also report how it is ensuring that the molded fiber packaging materials the company is increasingly utilizing are not treated with PFAS. Apple should also become a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project and pilot it with key private label suppliers," concludes the report.

Still, Apple was the only company to be awarded an A+ rating this year. Target was the sole A rating with 95.5. points. Walmart andIkea each earned an A- with 93.75 and 87.75 points respectively.

Best Buy and Amazon both earn a C with 54.25 and 51.75 points while a dozen firms were awarded a F and scored zero. These include McDonald's and Subway.

Apple has not yet commented on Mind the Store but continues to issue its own progress reports on its move to power all facilities with 100 percent renewable energy and is working to mine less material from the earth. The most visible results of this are the new MacBook Air and Mac mini which are both made from 100 percent recycled aluminium.

Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    "Woof!"
  • Reply 2 of 14
    silvergold84silvergold84 Posts: 69unconfirmed, member
    This way to do by Apple is absolutely important. No toxic materials. People should be informed. They can choose and appreciate Apple also for this. Not only the best products on the market. Not only real progress like Face ID,but also keep in mind health and the world where we live. Look at the new campus: completely 100% green energy and great solutions to use less air conditioned. New threes. All stores around the world 100% renewable energy. Ecc 
    radarthekatpatchythepirate
  • Reply 3 of 14
    Yet, despite all that, Apple will be bashed, because bashing will produce moe results for lazy-arse “activists”.
    SpamSandwichpatchythepirate
  • Reply 4 of 14
    Samsung have stores and a significant level of manufacturing.. yet where are they.
  • Reply 5 of 14

    I'm being a prick here, but Mike Schade needs a new PR photo. That photo looks like something I clicked on my Sony Smartphone's 1 Megapixel camera in 2004.

    darren mccoyTuubor
  • Reply 6 of 14
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,799member
    Yet, despite all that, Apple will be bashed, because bashing will produce moe results for lazy-arse “activists”.
    Doesn't sound lazy-arse to produce moe results to me.  Sounds like a sensible strategy.
    minicoffee
  • Reply 7 of 14
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,569member
    Samsung have stores and a significant level of manufacturing.. yet where are they.

    Well, their record isn't great, as it turns out.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/samsung-compensate-factory-workers-cancer
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27407493
  • Reply 8 of 14
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,569member

    I'm being a prick here, but Mike Schade needs a new PR photo. That photo looks like something I clicked on my Sony Smartphone's 1 Megapixel camera in 2004.

    Yup, the bloke looks like he's on the run.
  • Reply 9 of 14
    Rayz2016 said:

    I'm being a prick here, but Mike Schade needs a new PR photo. That photo looks like something I clicked on my Sony Smartphone's 1 Megapixel camera in 2004.

    Yup, the bloke looks like he's on the run.
    Came here to comment on the same thing. :smiley: 
    maybe he should by an iPhone XR or XS. ;D
  • Reply 10 of 14
    crowley said:
    Yet, despite all that, Apple will be bashed, because bashing will produce moe results for lazy-arse “activists”.
    Doesn't sound lazy-arse to produce moe results to me.  Sounds like a sensible strategy.
    It is a dishonest strategy. if in order to get the results, you need to bash not those who are lacking or behind, but rather those who are leading the way, I would say you are being lazy and dishonest in what you do and in what your TRUE motivations are. It is like claiming you are trying to improve the average class's grade by bashing A students for not doing enough, while leaving out of the equation all the B and C (and especially D) students. I can't call that - a sensible strategy, but rather a showing off strategy (virtue signaling for the environmentalists). It is especially true, if you look at the grade distribution curves. Apple produces a lot less pollution and its production is more safe, than the production methods of other companies. Problem is - other companies will tell you to f*ck off, if you were to demand anything from them. Since you have real power, you will have to do exactly that, lol. So, you see, working with those companies will require a lot more brain and persistence. Apple, on the other hand, cares to project the image of a sensible hippie company (despite being a huge corporation), and hence they HAVE to listen to those demands. But again, I think abusing the situation like that, might lead to the wrong results (often happens to those who understand little, but scream a lot).
    edited November 2018 patchythepiratejony0
  • Reply 11 of 14
    How in the world did Walmart and Target earn A- ratings? Have you ever seen how wasteful those companies are???? Just go look behind any store to see the piles of recyclable materials tossed in the trash!

  • Reply 12 of 14
    How in the world did Walmart and Target earn A- ratings? Have you ever seen how wasteful those companies are???? Just go look behind any store to see the piles of recyclable materials tossed in the trash!

    That’s what proves this test is horseshit. 
    Apple can’t prove that it’s component suppliers aren’t using dangerous chemicals unless they are right there in the plant while making them. 
    In Asia and other 3rd world countries where these plants reside, there are no laws preventing the use of cancer causing materials or if there is, they are not enforced. 

    This is why Apple had to implement their program of investigating the supply chain. 

    Until countries themselves get involved with banning the use of these toxic chemicals, all you can do is take their word that they are not using them. 
  • Reply 13 of 14
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,799member
    crowley said:
    Yet, despite all that, Apple will be bashed, because bashing will produce moe results for lazy-arse “activists”.
    Doesn't sound lazy-arse to produce moe results to me.  Sounds like a sensible strategy.
    It is a dishonest strategy. if in order to get the results, you need to bash not those who are lacking or behind, but rather those who are leading the way, I would say you are being lazy and dishonest in what you do and in what your TRUE motivations are. It is like claiming you are trying to improve the average class's grade by bashing A students for not doing enough, while leaving out of the equation all the B and C (and especially D) students. I can't call that - a sensible strategy, but rather a showing off strategy (virtue signaling for the environmentalists). It is especially true, if you look at the grade distribution curves. Apple produces a lot less pollution and its production is more safe, than the production methods of other companies. Problem is - other companies will tell you to f*ck off, if you were to demand anything from them. Since you have real power, you will have to do exactly that, lol. So, you see, working with those companies will require a lot more brain and persistence. Apple, on the other hand, cares to project the image of a sensible hippie company (despite being a huge corporation), and hence they HAVE to listen to those demands. But again, I think abusing the situation like that, might lead to the wrong results (often happens to those who understand little, but scream a lot).
    Make up your mind.  You said that bashing Apple would produce moe results.  Activists care about results.  Therefore they'll be achieving what they're trying to do.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    Yet, despite all that, Apple will be bashed, because bashing will produce moe results for lazy-arse “activists”.
    Doesn't sound lazy-arse to produce moe results to me.  Sounds like a sensible strategy.
    It is a dishonest strategy. if in order to get the results, you need to bash not those who are lacking or behind, but rather those who are leading the way, I would say you are being lazy and dishonest in what you do and in what your TRUE motivations are. It is like claiming you are trying to improve the average class's grade by bashing A students for not doing enough, while leaving out of the equation all the B and C (and especially D) students. I can't call that - a sensible strategy, but rather a showing off strategy (virtue signaling for the environmentalists). It is especially true, if you look at the grade distribution curves. Apple produces a lot less pollution and its production is more safe, than the production methods of other companies. Problem is - other companies will tell you to f*ck off, if you were to demand anything from them. Since you have real power, you will have to do exactly that, lol. So, you see, working with those companies will require a lot more brain and persistence. Apple, on the other hand, cares to project the image of a sensible hippie company (despite being a huge corporation), and hence they HAVE to listen to those demands. But again, I think abusing the situation like that, might lead to the wrong results (often happens to those who understand little, but scream a lot).
    Make up your mind.  You said that bashing Apple would produce moe results.  Activists care about results.  Therefore they'll be achieving what they're trying to do.
    I did make up my mind. Read what I actually said. Bashing D grade players will poduce a lot more results, but environmentalists dont care. They care to bash those who lead to get THEMSELVES some publicity. Environmental groups dont care about the environment. The only thing they care about is their own image and virtue signalling.
    edited November 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.