Apple's Policy on Conflict Minerals, Workforce Conditions, and Supplier Ethics

A buddy of mine at a local networking group asked me about the ethical posture of one vendor, Apple, Inc.

Apple released its environmental responsibility report for 2013 this year.

Apple issued its first conflict minerals report in May 2014. In that report, Apple identified that a majority of its suppliers are in the clear. 

Apple does have a public supplier responsibility policy and a documented Supplier Code of Conduct. 

That said, as recent as Dec 2013, Pegatron and Foxxcon reviews slighted Apple for workforce conditions in China.

An article from The Guardian in March of this year outlines sustainability and workforce improvements made by Apple since that report.

In my opinion, with any firm, I think what you'd want to look for is management intent. Is there intent on behalf of management to be transparent, to cooperate with recognized 3rd parties to investigate report on compliance, with a willingness to disclose sensitive information.

I think you see this intent at Apple.

Myself, I'm a little concerned with Microsoft, when it's CEO recently suggested that women shouldn't ask for raises because it's good karma to not ask for them, but hey, you get to choose who you do business with.

Apple isn't perfect. It will make mistakes. It's also not alone: in my opinion, Google, Nike, Starbucks, and Intel are also very transparent companies. Perhaps that's part of a larger trend brought on by both new federal regulation and progressive management policy? In either case, Apple's management does seem to show consistent commitment and intent to be both transparent and to improve its operations.

That awareness and sense of responsibility may mean something to you the next time you're planning on shopping for a tablet computer.

R

Security Presentation

Just presentation content for a speaking engagement next week on Security....

You're Lying: You Can Pay For It. You Just Choose Not To.

People Lie Through Their Teeth

They do it all of the time. They tell me, "Yeah, things are really tight right now. I love your service but, yeah, I don't have the money right now." And that's a bald-faced lie.

They do have the money. They've got to pay for the gasoline in their car, don't they? Or for food? Or for their mortgage to keep a roof over their head? Or to pay their employees.

It's never a question of whether or not a business has the money to do something. They've got the money. It's just that they've prioritized it for something else. Rational people prioritize their expenses.

Prioritization isn't bad. In my line of work, though, it befuddles strategic thinking, because my potential clients can either pay me today, or pay me tomorrow, or next month, or next year, but eventually, they'll pay me, and inevitably, they'll pay me more if they don't prioritize me.

Yeah, it sounds pretty smug but here's the idea: either we spend a little money right now to safeguard the IT asset, or, we'll spend a lot of money later to recover the IT asset. Safeguarding and implementing basic risk management principles is a whole heckavalot cheaper than disaster recovery. 

So they're lying. They're always lying! They could pay for it if they felt pain but they're not feeling pain now so it's not a priority. Once the pain hits, though, they're throwing money at me to solve their problem. To ease their pain. To make it go away.

And this just isn't tech. It's in any discipline where the consumer needs to prioritize spending today to have managed outcomes, whether or not that's automotive repair, dentistry, health care, chiropractic care, whatever. The consumer must be convinced to think strategically: in the long-run, it's less expensive to pay for mindful precaution than a panicked reaction. 

Therefore, there are two approaches to honing your strategic decision-making (or, convincing togethers to prioritize spending on you right now):

1. You can create a condition where the consumer feels pain now. Ethics, anyone?

2. You can convince or educate the consumer to avoid future pain by prioritizing their spending now. Perhaps more ethical, less coercive. 

Think about it. What's your strategy?

R