Apple Took Three Years to Cut Ties With Supplier Using Child Labor

Reading Time: 4 minutes.

Suyin Electronics is a Chinese electronics supplier. Up until a few years ago, they made parts for Apple’s MacBooks. However, seven years ago, Apple discovered they were relying on child labor, finding two 15-year-old children working in the factory. Apple gave them some time to improve, but found a 14-year-old working there during another inspection. Apple threatened to cut ties with the supplier over child labor, but would then continue to use the supplier for the next three years.

What went wrong? How did Apple go so far from what they claim to stand for?

You don’t become the most valuable company in the world by choosing morals over profit. Apple needed these parts, and couldn’t replace the supplier quickly enough. Instead, they allowed the contract to run its course. The new MacBooks wouldn’t have the parts Suyin Electronics made, and, therefore, they finally didn’t need them anymore. That process took three years. Three years of excusing child labor.

Was Apple really out of options?

Apple’s Standards

To be clear, Apple has high standards when it comes to child labor laws. Well, not high by U.S. standards, but regionally high standards. Apple, like every other tech company, is not in control of its full supply chain. Cobalt and tin, vital for all electronics, are both often mined by children. It’s an issue facing the entire electronics industry: they still don’t know exactly where all the raw materials for their devices come from.

Still, at factories, it’s easier to track labor and monitor companies. Here, Apple can ensure workers are at least 16 years old. That’s why, in 2013, when they learned Suyin Electronics employed two 15-year-old workers, Apple threatened to cut ties with the company if they still had underage employees by the time of their follow-up inspection. Months later, Suyin still had underage employees. This time, Apple found a 14-year-old. That was their last chance.

Or, it was supposed to be.

Instead, they’d continue to use Suyin to supply parts for MacBooks until 2016.

That’s when Apple stopped selling the MacBook lineup with USB-A ports, which Suyin made for the company. How much longer would Apple have allowed child labor at one of their suppliers if they hadn’t redesigned the MacBook Pro entirely?

The Exception That Proves the Rule?

The Information interviewed ten former Apple employees, all on the “supplier responsibility team.” They stated that Suyin Electronics was an “isolated incident.” Apple did, eventually, cut ties with Suyin. Still, this was only because their contract had run its course and Apple no longer needed the HDMI and USB-A modules that Suyin Electronics made.

Did Apple go USB-C-only just to hurt Suyin? Unlikely. However, they did decide to let the contracts play out, instead of cutting Suyin off for breach of contract prior to the end of it, and finding another supplier for these parts. Doing so may have caused a production delay, which would hurt shipping times and potentially sales and stock prices. Apple couldn’t have that happen to one of their most popular and expensive products.

Suyin claims that it did not intentionally hire underage workers and passed future inspections from Apple. Still, Apple stopped doing business with the company in 2016, and hasn’t gone back.

Why did it take three years to leave them behind?

Unique Suppliers

It can be hard to find a new supplier. Not every company is up to the task of creating parts with Apple’s designs. Furthermore, they may not have the same quality standards that Apple demands. But Apple has been one of the most valuable companies in the world for over a decade. In other words, if smaller companies can find new suppliers, Apple, sitting on all of their capital, clearly could have gotten another supplier for any parts.

Still, Apple’s standards make finding new suppliers more difficult. Many employers have underage workers, force employees to work long hours, or have unsafe conditions. When Apple comes to them with new standards, it can take them months, even years, to start meeting those standards. Then they have to ramp up production, trying to meet Apple’s lofty demands for the number of parts required and the quality of those parts. Apple puts stress on their suppliers. They reward them, to be sure, but suppliers, especially smaller ones, have to change dramatically when accepting a contract from Apple. That can take time.

It’s possible that Apple wanted to leave Suyin behind in 2013, but couldn’t for years because other suppliers just weren’t prepared yet. It’s possible, although unlikely, that Apple had two options: continue to use the supplier and keep producing MacBooks, or cancel their most popular Mac line.

Former Apple employees say that, when Apple was faced with a tough-to-replace supplier, they would delay ditching them until a replacement could be found. While Apple has strict standards, they aren’t forceful in implementing those standards if it could hurt profits.

Inefficient Audits

Apple rarely employs surprise audits. Instead, they tell companies months in advance that they’ll be doing an audit. This gives suppliers ample time to hide their labor violations. After all, changing suppliers can be difficult. The team responsible for taking action after a failed audit isn’t Apple’s supplier responsibility team alone. The responsibility team is only able to make suggestions. It’s up to Apple’s business unit to decide to remove a supplier. Over 13 years, between 2007 and 2020, that only happened 22 times, about 1% of Apple’s suppliers.

Either Apple’s suppliers are the best around, or they know to hide things well when Apple comes around. Or, in the case of Suyin Electronics, they know that if they have a monopoly on the supply of a particular component, Apple won’t let them go for years if they’re found in violation of Apple’s guidelines anyway.

Apple Isn’t Your Friend

Listen, I love Apple products. Enough that I started writing about Apple news in college and haven’t stopped since. They are fantastic. But, as people frequently point out, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. Someone is always abused. From clothing manufacturers paying workers a wage that keeps them working all day just to live in a state of poverty, to factories employing undocumented underage workers, there is no ethical consumption. That’s not to excuse it. Make no mistake, my criticism of the system is to change it, not become complicit. Still, if you want a smartphone, Apple is likely better than their competitors. I’d recommend the Fairphone, but you can’t even get one in the U.S. now.

The only way to influence change is to push for it. Companies react to their bottom line, nothing else. So, when people are reluctant to upgrade their phone because they know the true cost of the device isn’t a financial one, they’ll hurt Apple’s bottom line. They’ll send a message to Apple. Hopefully, Apple receives that message as, “We don’t like child labor,” and not, “The price is too high.” Because the latter could lead to an increase in the behavior we don’t want to see.

Apple has already worked in China to create new legislation to protect workers. They’ve helped bring attention to the problems within the industry by working to fix them. Still, their standards are much lower than they’d be in most of the developed world. While Apple has helped improve things in the industry, they sometimes don’t live up to the standards they introduced themselves. If Apple doesn’t lead by example, no one else will follow.

---

Sources:

• Ben Lovejoy, 9to5Mac
• Wayne Ma, The Information
• Tyler Sonnemaker, Business Insider
• Joe Wituschek, iMore