Huy Nguyen-Hong

Professor Rodriguez

MCOM 100W-81

12/12/2022

Word Count: 2307

In the past decade, we as a society have become more aware of the environmental impact on our planet. This is a good thing;  however, this phenomenon has also transformed into a trend and concept that companies are using to gain more revenue.

The greenwashing concept was conceptualized in 1986 by activist Jay Westerveld and is now defined as “the practice of promoting environmentally friendly programs to deflect attention from an organization’s environmentally unfriendly or less savoury activities” by Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English. 

This is dangerous because companies are tricking consumers into spending their money on a brand aspect that is not true.

According to the Nielsen Media Research, they discovered that 66% of global consumers are willing to spend more money on a brand if its products are environmentally friendly. 

In the article “Concepts and Forms of Greenwashing: A Systematic Review” writers Sebastião Vieira de Freitas Netto,  Marcos Felipe Falcão Sobral, Ana Regina Bezerra Ribeiro, and Gleibson Robert da Luz Soares, explained that business leaders are investing more time in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), where brands incorporate social and environmental concerns into business operations to reach their goals surrounding the people, planet, and profit. 

In cases of greenwashing, companies have poor CSR but still promote environmentally positive messages about the brand. 

I want to focus on Apple, one of the largest tech companies in the world, because it blatantly greenwashes its brand but is still able to be a monopoly in the industry. 

For reference, Apple is a technology company based in California, with its founder Steve Jobs, gaining worldwide attention in 2007 with its first iPhone product.

Currently, the CEO of Apple is Tim Cook, and according to Apple's official fiscal report for the September 2022 quarter, the company made $90.1 billion in revenue. 

Being one of the top tech companies, I struggle to understand some of the hardware decisions that were made, and their claims for simplicity and being green. 

The first time I noticed Apple’s problem was back in 2016 when it decided to remove the 3.5mm headphone jack from its iPhone 7 lines. 

Upon removing the headphone jack, Apple was able to capitalize on mass-producing an adapter from a 3.5mm headphone jack to Lightning, which was charged separately. 

Apple did include a headphone that was compatible with the phone, but by introducing the “dongle,” it created an increase in e-waste and carbon footprint.

Apple did the same thing with its MacBook lines in the same year by removing the High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) port, which is essential for connecting with projectors. 

Especially on the MacBook Pro version, which was marketed as Apple's most powerful laptop at the time and retailed for $1,499, and yet does not have an HDMI port that even cheaper laptops have.

And once again, Apple’s solution is to create an external hardware HDMI adapter that is charged separately, to get a thousand-dollar laptop to connect to a projector, which most laptops can do without the extra charge.

Even Apple's newest iPad model, the 10th Generation that came out this year, required consumers to buy an adapter from USB-C to Lightning if they want to use the Apple Pencil 1st Generation.

Apple didn’t even give the consumer the option to use the Apple Pencil 2nd Generation, which is more effective charging-wise because it uses magnets that are built inside the iPad. 

Apple's reason for this was because of the camera placement on the iPad, which made it “impossible” for Apple to install the magnet. 

In 2019, Apple released its new iPhone, but has now decided not to include a power brick in the iPhone 11 line, but upgraded the power brick to 18W (watts) for the iPhone 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max line only, which is more expensive.

The issue was never addressed in the presentation, and Apple used the fact of the 18W upgrade as compensation for not providing the tools to charge the iPhone. 

Agree that you can most likely use your old power brick, but at the same time, Apple switched the cable from USB-A to Lightning to USB-C to Lightning.

Without providing a compatible power brick, consumers now have to choose between buying a cheaper iPhone without the brick.

Apple prides itself on simplicity with its UX (user experience) software design. However, its hardware falls short compared to Android.

Minh Tran, a past Android user who recently switched to an iPhone, said, “I do prefer the UX design of Apple way more than Android, but I miss being able to charge my laptop, iPad, and phone with just one cable.”

In 2020, Apple addressed the issues and completely removed the power brick from all iPhone lines in the name of being environmentally friendly.

In the video, Apple stated that “there are also over two billion Apple power adapters out in the world, and that's not counting the billions of third-party adapters.”

That being said, there is a huge difference in compatibility with the cable that is provided with the phone. 

Apple was not clear about what types of adapters the world has or if it is compatible with the new USB-C cable, because the majority of the world still has USB-A chargers.

Furthermore, Apple refuses to switch completely to USB-C-only cables because consumers can then use only one cable for all their devices instead of buying another cable when needed. 

But that may change with the European law that will force Apple to convert to USB-C only if its devices are to be sold in Europe. 

Based on the decision, Apple is assuming that consumers already have a brick that is powerful enough to charge its newest iPhone.

However, each year Apple reported that the iPhone battery is also getting bigger, which means the devices need more power to charge faster.

So if a user is using the old bricks model, like the 12W to charge the iPhone 14 line, the charging time would be longer than just buying the current model on the market, creating a push factor that benefits Apple’s sales. 

Not only that, but when comparing the base iPad model vs the base iPhone model, it doesn’t make sense for the iPhone to not come with a charger. 

As of Dec. 10, 2022, the iPad 10th Generation with 64GB (gigabytes) Wi-Fi only retails for $449 on Apple's official website. 

While the iPhone 14 (6.1 inches) with 128GB, not including trade-in and is unlocked, retails for $829 on Apple's official website.

Both of these devices were released within the same year, but the price difference between the two is almost double. 

However, the iPad still came with Apple's most powerful brick of 20W, while the iPhone does not come with any power brick. 

The decision also led Apple to a lawsuit with the state government of São Paulo, Brazil.

Because it violated the Brazilian Consumer Defense Code by not selling a “functional” product to the consumers.

In the 2020 presentation, Apple also claims that by removing the brick, it can “Fit up to 70% more products on a shipping pallet”, and “Cut over two million metric tons of carbon emissions annually”. 

While this may be true for Apple itself on the supplier side, in practice, it is shifting the waste to the consumer side. 

By not including the power brick in the box with the phone, consumers are now forced to buy it separately, which comes in its own padding in a separate box. 

And not to mention that it is only when consumers buy it at the same time as the iPhone. 

If consumers were to buy it from Amazon, that means it would be another delivery trip, and the brick would come with an extra layer of packaging when sent out. 

By not including the power brick in the box, Apple cut down its carbon footprint, but has also created a domino effect that increases the footprint elsewhere, which Apple is not “directly” responsible for. 

With Apple's claims to be environmentally conscious, I find it weird for the company to switch back to its glass back cover design for its newest iPhone.

Glass production requires sand as the main ingredient, which is bad for the environment due to the exploitation of the resources. 

Moreover, because glass is much more delicate than aluminum, Apple’s past back cover model, it is more prone to breakage.

Meaning consumers are more likely to get it repaired, invest in casing, or spend money on Apple Care insurance services. 

This also means that Apple has to mass-manufacture parts for replacement, increasing its carbon emissions.

With this much production going toward manufacturing little parts, Apple is contributing to the e-waste (electronic waste) problems that are happening in developing countries.

According to “E-Waste: A Global Hazard” by Devin N. Perkins, BS, Marie-Noel Brune Drisse, MS, Tapiwa Nxele, MS, and Peter D. Sly, MD: “Eighty percent of e-waste generated in the United States reportedly contributes to the global “hidden flow” of e-waste; it is not registered meaning it is either unofficially exported, dumped into landfills, or incinerated”.

While recognizing that exporting EEE, electrical and electronic equipment, helps some developing countries in Asia and Africa economically, it is still only a short-term boost.

And the long-term health consequences for the people definitely outweigh the short-term economic boost.

The lack of protection and facility equipment, which most developing countries don’t have, is a health hazard for workers who are exposed to e-waste. 

The process of recycling e-waste varies from incinerating to acid bath to desoldering to recover rare and precious metals.

Besides the metals, other by-products, including mercury, lead, and cadmium, are released into the atmosphere.

Perkins et al. (2014) state that exposure to toxic chemicals in e-waste can result in health risks, including: “lung function, thyroid function, hormone expression, birth weight, birth outcomes, childhood growth rates, mental health, cognitive development, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity.”

These chemicals can contaminate the soil and water even in small doses, and they can be bioaccumulated, causing long-term effects like abnormal reproductive development.

Apple’s problems do not only lie at the end but also start at the beginning, the production stage. 

Since the release of the iPhone 14 lines, an increase in production has been hard to keep up with for Foxconn’s workers, one of Apple’s manufacturing facilities in China, especially under the country's Covid-19 lockdown.

It is being reported by The Wall Street Journal that workers are required to live inside the factory due to the lockdown and keep up with production. 

There has also been a delay in payment, where Foxconn has promised a bonus and higher pay to the workers who decided to stay.

Even before the lockdown, Foxconn had been criticized multiple times for its working conditions to the point where it had to install nets around the factory to prevent workers from committing suicide as a sign of protest.

Apple has not made any comment about the situation, but seeing as Apple is more concerned about the brand's environmental image than actual human beings is alarming. 

Brendan Lorenzana was an Apple seasonal intern from 2021 to 2022.

When asked about the situation in China, Lorenzana said, “I’m kinda surprised because my experience working with Apple was nothing like that, but instead the opposite, getting multiple employee benefits with a better work environment.”

Based on “The Seven Sins of Greenwashing” by TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm, I find that Apple is most guilty of the sin of the hidden trade-off.

This is when companies suggest a product is environmentally friendly based on an inadequate property without consideration of other environmental factors.

In this case, it is the removal of the power brick because Apple is only considering that its product is cutting down carbon footprint, but not the domino effect that was created. 

Apple also uses greenwashing tactics in its execution plans, like using the color green or environmental pictures to relate the brand image to being environmentally friendly, as stated by De Freitas Netto et al.

For example, Apple's environment website has a signature color green, which is not seen at all on its other websites.

And when talking about the charger removal decision in the 2020 video, Apple changed to a green landscape scenery. 

Besides the fact that Apple is not considering these environmental factors, it is also inspiring other companies to do the same.

Samsung also removed its power brick in 2021, just a year after Apple’s decision.

Samsung’s official statement also claims that it is doing this in the name of the environment.

This is dangerous because Apple is a monopoly in the tech industry, so when its sales for the iPhone 12 were doing well, companies are now using the same environmental reasons to cut back on expenses.

As for the solution, Arun Rupesh Maini, a YouTuber, suggests in one of his videos that we should switch to Gallium nitride (GaN) chargers. 

According to “GaN chargers are a game-changer: UGreen 200W and OneWorld65 show why” by Ben Lovejoy, there are multiple benefits to using a GaN charger.

First, the energy loss in GaN is low compared to silicon-based chargers, which means it generates less heat, making it less prone to damaging your devices and saving energy that is being wasted through heat excess.

Second, it is more efficient in conducting power, meaning it can contain more power in the same size as the silicon-based one.

With these two reasons alone, it means that we can get the same power as a 20W charger in a smaller size using a GaN charger.

This means that Apple can still have smaller packaging and still include a charger.

While that is a good idea, I also think that Apple should customize its packaging to fit each person's situation because we do need to cut back our carbon footprint while maintaining customer satisfaction.