Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) has recently taken a sharp turn for the greener, taking up the banner of actual pro-environmental action rather than simply “greenwashing” with a few token environmentalist measures. So successful have these efforts been that the Cupertino firm has gained the approval of Greenpeace, which is no mean feat considering how suspicious the ecological organization is of any company’s efforts to appear “green.”
However, a major problem remains in the form of carbon dioxide pollution emitted by Apple’s (AAPL) array of supporting companies. A kaleidoscope of firms provides Apple with components and assembly, many of them located in Asia, where environmental regulations are weak to nonexistent. As reported by Reuters, most of Apple’s remaining carbon dioxide emissions come from third party suppliers and not from directly owned Apple facilities.
Apple has significantly cut its emissions, reducing carbon by 31% in three years. This is partly thanks to the efforts of Lisa Perez Jackson, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between 2009 and 2013. Ms. Jackson resigned to avoid dealing with the Keystone pipeline controversy, and shortly thereafter was hired by Apple (AAPL) as the company’s Vice President for Environmental Initiatives. The controversial Al Gore is also on the enterprise’s Board of Directors.
The Cupertino titan faces something of a conundrum, however. Its policy is to compel suppliers to provide their wares at the highest possible quality but the lowest possible cost, keeping large margins to itself and permitting its supplying firms only paper-thin profits in the name of efficiency. However, while this is good for Apple’s bottom line, it is likely to prove difficult to significantly “green” the operations of these suppliers when their margins are already so narrow.
Apple likely is not paying these firms enough to feasibly switch to more ecologically sound methods without ruining themselves. The Cupertino company will either have to pay more for each unit bought, or provide major help with greening – or go fully “Darwinian” and hire those firms able to offer minimized costs while somehow still juggling their finances to survive and use greener production methods at the same time.
The two most obvious culprits are Foxconn and Samsung, both of which are major links in the Apple manufacturing chain. Foxconn and other smaller suppliers will likely be easier to direct towards greener practices than the powerful and intransigent Samsung, however – perhaps suggesting another reason for Apple’s partial switch to alternate chip supplier TSMC.
