Apple bought retail uniforms from Chinese firm sanctioned for forced labor

AppleInsider

Apple has previously bought clothing for Apple Store uniforms from a subsidiary of a company that the US Government is alleging violated human rights in China's Xinjiang region.

Some Apple Store uniforms may have been sourced from Esquel

Following Tim Cook saying to the House of Judiciary that Apple will not tolerate the use of forced labor in its business or any part of its supply chain, documents have shown that the company has previously bought from a subsidiary of Esquel. Changji Esquel Textile is currently facing sanctions for alleged human rights violations, including forced labor.

"Esquel is not a direct supplier to Apple but our suppliers do use cotton from their facilities in Guangzhou and Vietnam," an Apple spokesperson told The Guardian. "We have confirmed no Apple supplier sources cotton from Xinjiang and there are no plans for future sourcing of cotton from the region."

The Guardian reports that Apple's spokesperson declined to say where future cotton supplies would come from. The newspaper also notes that there is no cotton farming in Guangzhou, and that Esquel does not appear to farm cotton in Vietnam.

Apple is no longer listed as a major customer on Esquel's website, but the two firms have reportedly worked together for many years. It's believed that the clothing listed in shipping records were uniforms for Apple Store staff.

In 2014, Apple and Esquel together agreed to produce what were being described as more sustainable uniforms, using recycled cotton waste.

Speaking at the antitrust hearing in Washington, Tim Cook called forced labour "abhorrent." He said that Apple "wouldn't tolerate it...We would terminate a supplier relationship if it was found."

randominternetperson

The the story here is that Apple does what it says it does.  Or arey the supposed to stop doing business with companies before there is an allegation of impropriety at the parent company?  The corporate version of Minority Report pre-crime?

Rayz2016

randominternetperson said:

The the story here is that Apple does what it says it does.  Or arey the supposed to stop doing business with companies before there is an allegation of impropriety at the parent company?  The corporate version of Minority Report pre-crime?

I can’t really pass judgement here because I have no idea who made my underpants. 

Yeah, it’s Ding Apple Month again …

leavingthebigg

Thankfully Apple is going EXACTLY what Ztim Cook! 👏🎉🎊🎈

macxpress

Why is it that The Guardian always has to publish articles that just shit all over Apple? What bug do they have up their ass for Apple?

Beats

Cue the "Apple hires slaves!!" meme.

mcdave

I’ve probably breathed the same air as Hitler, does that mean I procured his atrocities too?
Desperate Guardian ‘not about us screwing up our COVID response’ news.

mcdave

Wait, doesn’t MicroSoft Retail have some spare, ethically curated uniforms?

mr lizard

macxpress said:

Why is it that The Guardian always has to publish articles that just shit all over Apple? What bug do they have up their ass for Apple?

Partly because the word Apple generates page views and that of course drives up income for the publisher. 

But also because Apple goes well out of its way to hold itself to a higher set of ideals. If you’re one of the planet’s largest companies and you choose to put yourself on that pedestal then you can expect far greater scrutiny than other companies who don’t. 

So all in all I think it’s fair game. Apple made a carefully considered choice to set theirselves apart. They’re big enough to handle the attention that brings. 

mjtomlin

mr lizard said:

macxpress said:

Why is it that The Guardian always has to publish articles that just shit all over Apple? What bug do they have up their ass for Apple?

Partly because the word Apple generates page views and that of course drives up income for the publisher. 

But also because Apple goes well out of its way to hold itself to a higher set of ideals. If you’re one of the planet’s largest companies and you choose to put yourself on that pedestal then you can expect far greater scrutiny than other companies who don’t. 

So all in all I think it’s fair game. Apple made a carefully considered choice to set theirselves apart. They’re big enough to handle the attention that brings. 

Actually it's not a fair game. ALL companies should be held accountable for their actions, not just those that proclaim to be ethical. People like to pick on those companies because they're an easy target and can be used to justify the unethical actions of other companies. However, I do agree, the "truthiness" of those claims should at the very least be checked to verify the integrity of the company. But again, Apple releases regular "Supplier Responsibility" reports that can easily be fact checked - and even Apple has been known to call out some of their own suppliers.

The ridiculousness of these types of articles is that they try and make it seem as if Apple actually runs these "sweat shops", when in fact they are so far removed from Apple that they could've just as well said "Weyland Yutani" and somehow would've applied. But, as another poster said, it's Apple and they attract attention.

h2p

Truthiness Revealed! I, too, object to this type of article by the Guardian. Seems to be an obvious click-bait hit piece.

• Do we even know when the offense happened? 2014: Apple/Esquel agreement time frame?

• Reports say the offensive cotton(picking) was used by an indirect supplier. Does Apple have reports on indirect suppliers? (Around 2006: Supplier Responsibility Reports begin so they had time to be warned, I will concede, IF these type of suppliers are included).

eideard

How many modifiers do you need in a sentence to justify politics over economics linkage?