Apple's carbon-neutral product claims called a 'climate-wash'
Apple's claims it has created its first carbon-neutral product could be far-fetched, with a Chinese environment research organization calling it "climate-washing" by the iPhone maker.
Apple CEO Tim Cook
During its "Wonderlust" event on September 12, Apple introduced its Apple Watch Series 9 as the first carbon-neutral product from the company. While an achievement for Apple, it has been called out by one research organization as possibly being an exaggeration.
The Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) based in Beijing said in a report that Apple didn't reveal enough details about suppliers who produce its products to be able to substantiate the claim of carbon neutrality, reports Inside Climate News.
IPE was named in Apple's 2022 Annual Progress Report as a "leading non-profit environmental research organization." Apple was the first recipient of IPE's Corporate Information Transparency Index Master's Level Designation for its disclosures.
According to IPE's report, the entity received data on greenhouse gas emissions from fewer suppliers in 2023 than in previous years. This was apparently down to Apple stopping a requirement for suppliers to publicly disclose that information in 2023, with Apple stating "we may not request suppliers to provide facility level carbon disclosure this year."
"We believe there is a need for full disclosure and explanation of how Apple achieves carbon neutrality of its products, given the increase in carbon emissions from some of its suppliers," writes IPE in its report.
Shifting certificates
It is proposed by IPE that, since Apple relies on the purchase of renewable energy certificates for some of its carbon neutrality claims, it's possible that some of those certificates could be reallocated to support the production of another device. For example, certificates used for iPhone production could be allocated towards the Apple Watch instead.
By allocating more certificates to Apple Watch production than iPhone, Apple would therefore be able to claim the Apple Watch as using completely clean energy, with a proportionately lower hit taken to the far larger production of the iPhone.
IPE queries "If this assumption is correct, is Apple's carbon neutrality milestone' really a significant reduction in the carbon emissions of its product manufacturing process, or just a mathematical equation whereby Apple cherry picks the limited green electricity from its suppliers and allocate them to one relatively niche product?"
Apple issued a statement in response, insisting it didn't reallocate certificates from iPhone to the production of other products. It added that the iPhone 15 Pro supply chian generates 28% lower greenhouse gas emissions than the 2015 baseline, thanks to its increased use of renewable energy.
"In many years of our index assessment, Apple was one of the top performers, so we did give it credit for that," said Ma Jun, IPE director. "But when it started making the claim of [a] carbon neutral product, that is a very high standard and I think it needs an even higher level of disclosure."
Ma explained that fewer than 30 Apple suppliers disclosed facility-level greenhouse gas emissions data in 2023, down from around 100 in earlier years. "The number has dropped at a very special moment, when carbon-neutral products are being released," Ma added.
Apple said "We strongly support climate disclosures to improve transparency and drive progress in the fight against climate change. For the last decade, Apple has modeled, measured, and voluntarily reported our greenhouse gas emissions across all scopes of emissions, and publicly advocated for disclosure around the world."
It continued "As stated clearly in our Supplier Code of Conduct, we require suppliers to report their Apple-related greenhouse gas emissions to us each year, and to comply with any laws and regulations that mandate reporting of emissions to local or national authorities."
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
This says it all—Apple's hypocrisy.
The second issue is a suggestion that Apple could be swapping "renewable energy certificates" internally from phones to a watch in order to apply more credits toward a relatively small production line, thereby making that line reach the carbon neutral benchmark more quickly. Setting aside the fact that Apple says they're not doing that. What if they were? Consider this analogy: You are carrying balances on several credit cards. One of those has a large balance and another a much smaller balance. If by temporarily slightly reducing your payment on the largest balance, you could entirely pay off the small-balance card, it is legitimate to do so and then say "I paid off this card." There's nothing squirrely about that. In fact, most credit counselors will specifically recommend doing that, because it makes keeping track of (and focus on) ongoing progress easier. Eventually, you zero out the smaller balances and you're left with one number that's either going up, down or remaining flat. So it seems likewise entirely appropriate that Apple would focus achievement a carbon neutrality goal on a smaller production line first.
IPE queries "If this assumption is correct, is Apple's carbon neutrality milestone' really a significant reduction in the carbon emissions of its product manufacturing process, or just a mathematical equation whereby Apple cherry picks the limited green electricity from its suppliers and allocate them to one relatively niche product?"
Like with journalists, the criticism is that their job is not to report what people say, but to go find out. So, once you admit something is an assumption, it's a nothingburger. Do your job, go find out. Force Apple to show their math. If not, it's just noise. It's the same thing with Apple's reforestation and carbon credits. Go find out what they are buying. Don't assume that they are worthless.
I can sympathize with climate groups in China, India and southeast Asia. The single most effective thing they can do is to prevent new coal plants from being built and to get existing plants retired. They are failing at this. It's dangerous job as they can be jailed for it, so I definitely sympathize.
This makes Apple's job harder. I would hope that Apple just has solar+battery installed into their suppliers manufacturing plants. That's probably their only recourse.
The word shows up seven times and in none of those instances does the it say Apple is climate-washing. Weird right? The title of this article would certainly have you believe otherwise.
The report actually says that Apple hasn't provided enough information for someone to tell if the Apple Watch is carbon neutral or not and is an argument for more transparency. I don't think asking that people provide data to back their claims is particularly contentions stance.
So with a lack of contention AppleInsider has opted to produce clickbait by making things up.
Inevitably someone from AI is going to take issue with my claim. But this is simple. Produce the full quote from the report where the IPE says Apple is climate-washing. Not a quote that requires innuendo or inference but an actual quote that explicitly claims Apple climate-washed.
Apple seems satisfied with the Institute's credentials. The crux of the issue is that Apple stopped requiring suppliers to publicly report on their carbon emissions; suppliers still have to make that report to Apple. Does Apple then release that information as part of their own reporting? Even if it does, it's difficult to verify.
And it's important to note that IPE is claiming that it is possible that Apple could be using accounting tricks to declare the Watch 9 carbon-neutral, while simultaneously acknowledging that it is unlikely given the company's history. I read this situation as a call for stringent reporting standards so that any environmental claims can be independently verified. Not a contentious request, in my opinion.
Now, Apple could directly invest in these activities but that requires management and oversight effort and skill acquisition that the company may not wish to expend. That's the prerogative of any company or individual: choose what to work on yourself, and choose what to outsource.
As long as the certification process for carbon offset credits is largely uncorrupted (and I acknowledge the inherent optimism in that assumption), buying offsets is a valid approach to mitigate the effects of one's own carbon emissions.
In response to IPE’s latest report, Apple responded that the carbon neutrality of its Apple Watch line has been independently verified by SCS Global Services, a “leader in environmental standards and certification.”
“By far, the most impactful action a supplier can take to address climate change is to transition to renewable energy,” Apple said in a written statement. “That’s why we work closely with suppliers to help them procure more renewables and advocate together for reliable, cost-effective access to clean electricity in grids around the world.”
So, uh, did anyone ask SCS Global Services for the math?