Apple bought retail uniforms from Chinese firm sanctioned for forced labor
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."
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."
Comments
Desperate Guardian ‘not about us screwing up our COVID response’ news.
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.
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).