# data[].attributes.body
In november, 2012, appropriately 200 fastfood workers belonging to the McDonalds industry, went on strike to demand hourly wages of 15 dollars and the right to form a union. This was a major concern seeing as the minimum wage was 15$+ per hour which obviously Mcdonalds did not pay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Corporate Social Responsibility refers to the extent that a business bases their actions in account of wider world situations outside of their business.

McDonalds is an international fast-food chain, who's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is written as:
'At McDonald's®, giving back to the community has always been a key mission and part of our heritage. And in Hong Kong, we are proud to be part of the communities we serve and community involvement has always been a part of our culture.'
McDonalds works with a variety of Charities to sustain their CSR and work with the heart of their community, and they specialize in their own charity titled 'Ronald McDonald house charities'.

By working with various charities, McDonald's appears to have a relatively large CSR, by involving themselves with communities and charities outside of the company. This makes them appear like a company who like to involve themselves with their customers and communities, in order for them to appear ethical and socially active.

One of the issues rising from McDonald's CSR work, revolves around the Ronald McDonald house charity. Ronald McDonald was a fictional character designed to represent the McDonald's industry; who has now been removed as their company representative mascot, due to child exploitation issues. This charity has now lost much of its recognition due to the mishap. In addition to this, all the charities McDonald's work for, revolve around a small demographic; young children. To widen their demographic and their CSR, McDonald's needs to increase the amount of CSR revolved work; which could mean donating and representing more charities, or involving themselves in more community work.

However, what McDonald's has done positively, is involving themselves in several charities, demonstrating their interest and longing to help the community and other people in need.

Sources:
http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/Ourworld/Ronald-McDonald-House-Charities.html

The Guardian published an article titled 'You want fries with your poverty wages and exploited McDonald's workers?', which was based off of the fact of McDonalds treating their employees in illegal and criminal manner. In New York City, november 2012, approximately 200 fastwood workers belonging to the McDonalds industry, went on strike to demand hourly wages of 15 dollars and the right to form a union. This protest arose strikes, organizers and protests in 150 US cities, and at least 33 countries.

In Brazil, the Food and Hospitality Workers Union (Sinthoresp) has been battling McDonald's over issues including wage theft, poverty-level pay and mistreatment of pregnant workers. Demonstrations were planned for Thursday at McDonald's in five Brazilian states. Fast-food workers in Japan will protest at 30 McDonald's locations in 30 prefectures, calling for an hourly wage of ¥1,500 - about the equivalent of the US $15 per hour. In South Korea, a protest was planned in front of a major Seoul McDonald's.

South Korean labor leader Cheong Ok-soon explained the action to the Local Press: "Everywhere you go in the world, fast-food workers are suffering with low wages, long hours and unstable employment. They can't live a normal life under the working conditions they face now, so they have no option but to fight in solidarity." This shows that McDonalds is underpaying and abusing their workers on an international basis.

Based off of these situations, it appears that McDonald's lacks ethical aspects by abusing the right's of their employee's and co-workers in various countries; particularly less-developed and third world or second world countries. They appear to give poor working hours; therefore decreasing their employees health rates significantly, as well as underpaying them; leaving the company wealthy, but leaving their employees on a low-wage.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/15/poverty-wages-exploited-workers-mcdonalds-protests

Corporate Governance defines the people and the procedure that occurs when a company has to make a major decision. The major decisions within McDonald's would be made by the owners, and the higher ranked positions within the business.

McDonald's Corporate Governance is written on their official company website that their 'success is built on a foundation of personal and professional integrity. Hundreds of millions of people around the world trust McDonald's. We earn that trust everyday by serving safe food, respecting our customers and employees and delivering outstanding Quality, Service, Cleanliness and Value (QSC&V). We build on this trust by being ethical, truthful and dependable.'

The McDonald's corporate Governance lacks validity, due to the vast number of negative issues founded in the past revolving around their industry. In one of the most recent scandal's the industry had in 2014, McDonald's global sales dropped 2.5 percent. The decline included a 3.2 percent drop in the US, and a 7.3 percent drop in the unit encompassing asia, the middle east and africa. These mass drops followed in July 2014, when a TV report showed workers at a McDonald's supplier repacking expired meat. McDonald's is now unable to serve much from its menu, including Big macs and Chicken McNuggets- two of the most famous McDonald specialities.

A CNBC report was released about the fast-food joint, claiming that the results 'were the worst worldwide month in the last 10 years, once trading-day adjustments are taken into account.' These reports demonstrate that McDonald's Corporate Governance is indeed conflicted with McDonald's latest food catastrophe, and their actions are extremely unethical towards their customers, and they are now losing their customers because of this.

In order to gain their customers back after these significant drops, they would need to change their supplier in order to have more substantial and healthy food, and they would need to insure that they have constant health checkups in order to ensure that this does not repeat.

Sources:
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/mcdonalds-global-sales-drop-amid-china-food-scandal-n176231
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/corporate_governance.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884114

McDonald's has been accused of having a negative impact on the environment in more than one way; revolving around the fact that they have built hundreds of factories around the world to produce their products; therefore leading to pollution. McDonald's is distributed amongst 119 countries; therefore the amount of factories and work involved to make their products, will significantly impact the air and the environment around them.
McDonald's also continue to use paper and plastic based cutlery and eating utensils, such as paper plates and plastic forks, which means they are continuing to abuse the environment by tearing down their trees to help make their eating utensils, as well as throwing out their plastic wastes, which is also very damaging, as plastic is difficult to break down.

Sources
http://www.donellameadows.org/archives/bad-and-good-environmental-marks-for-mcdonalds/

The McDonalds food industry has been criticized throughout their business career in terms of the ingredients within their products. In Mid-July, 2014, there was a scandal in Hong Kong, involving the McDonald's industry, which resulted in Hong Kong having to remove their famous 'Chicken McNuggets' and 'Chicken McBurger's' from their food menu. This was done after a chinese food supplier was found to be taking poultry that had expired, then re-processing the meat and serving it up for customer consumption. The operation 'Shanghai Hsui' is where McDonalds is known to have their ingredients flown in from, and it has now closed down due to health and safety violations.

McDonald's said: "We reiterate that until today, all the food sold at McDonald's restaurants conform to the food safety standard under Hong Kong legal regulations."

In 2009, an experiment was done on some of the McDonald's products, in order to give viewers an idea of the chemicals and toxins that went into their food. Morgan Spurlock, who is an American entertainer, reporter and documentarist, recorded his experiment of McDonalds french fries and burgers, alongside a regular burger and french fries, in order to gain an understanding of which food would expire the fastest. After a ten week period, the McDonald's french fries appeared to still be edible; suggesting that the ingredients were not natural nor real potato. This caused questioning amongst viewers and customers, and caused McDonald's an extremely unsanitary, unhealthy, and very unethical reputation.

Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udnYdSy0tMQ
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/mcdonalds-removes-chicken-nuggets-from-the-menu-in-hong-kong-amid-major-food-scare-9627721.html

On the McDonald's official website ( http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd.html), McDonald's claims to have purchase certified (and verified) coffee.
'Globally in 2012, about 25% of our total coffee bean purchases were from Rainforest Alliance Certified™, Fair Trade USA or UTZ Certified farms. The majority of our certified coffee purchases are from Rainforest Alliance Certified™ farms, including 100% of our espresso in the US and Canada, and all of our coffee in Australia and New Zealand. McDonald's markets in Europe source 100% of their coffee - with the exception of decaf - from farms that are Rainforest Alliance Certified, UTZ Certified, or Fair Trade International.'

McDonald's also claim to invest in farmer training. In the USA and Canada, their franchisees are investing over $6 million in a farmer technical assistance program.
In addition to this, McDonald's claim to support 'small holder' farmers in Guatemala. The effort includes collaborating with TechnoServe, an international non-profit and leading provider of agricultural technical assistance, as well as SCAN (sustainable commodities assistance network). They train up to 13,000 farmers in Guatemala and Central America. They train and provide farmers with technical assistance to produce their coffee in a more sustainable manner. Mcdonald's give farmers the tools the need to improve their production, so they can deliver more consistent, high-quality coffee beans, and increase their chances of their yield being sold for an improve price, which will also improve their livelihood. and to purchase a majority of their Arabica bean coffee from countries such as Columbia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Brazil. Their fair trade therefore demonstrating international reaches, particularly in countries less developed than the U.S, where McDonald's originated.
However, in spite of having fair trade coffee- McDonald's do not offer fair trade ingredients for their other products; including both food and beverage. Therefore, their fair-trading is rather limited in terms of their product majority. Improvements should be made in terms of increasing the amount of fair trade, in order for them to increase their ethical morality and company reputation.
However, what McDonald's has done extremely well, is including fair-trade products from a wide variety of countries.

Sources:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd.html
In April 2009, a Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption had reported a case where a McDonald's restaurant executive was getting additional money slipped to him between his all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, and cheese.
Lau Si-sing, the managing director of McDonald's Restaurants (Hong Kong) Limited, was convicted at Hong Kong's District Court, due to him having took approximately 2.5 million Hong Kong dollars, in illegal kickbacks from a Thailand-based corn supplier, and asking the supplier to lie to investigators.

This is one case which demonstrates Corruption amongst the employers and suppliers of the McDonald's corporation, and violates the 'Standards of Business Conduct for Employees':

McDonald's is committed to conducting business ethically and in compliance with the letter and spirit of the law. This commitment is reflected in McDonald's Values. Inherent in each value is our commitment to be ethical, truthful and dependable and this is reflected through our Standards of Business Conduct which serves as a guide to making good decisions and conducting business ethically.

Sources:
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/investors/corporate_governance/codes_of_conduct/standards_of_business_conduct.html
http://www.chinacsr.com/en/2009/04/16/5023-corrupt-mcdonalds-executive-convicted-of-taking-fast-money-for-fast-food/

McDonald's announced in January, 2014, that they will begin purchasing verified sustainable beef in 2016; the first step on a quest to purchase sustainable beef for all its burgers worldwide. Although McDonald's has claimed they will start this in 2016, they have not given any further information in terms of the pricing of their newly founded 'beef', nor have they stated what they would define 'sustainable beef', as. McDonald's also haven't offered any information in terms of what their goals are, and the percentage of its beef might come from such sources by then. Langert, the CEO of the corporation, reported to GreenBiz/com that the chain isn't ready to commit to a specific quantity. With this little amount of given knowledge, the consumers are still left to eat unsustainable meat for the next two years, and aren't given any knowledge of what to expect in the future.

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mcdonalds-commits-to-sustainable-beef-whatever-that-is/
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/01/07/inside-mcdonalds-quest-sustainable-beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corporate Social Responsibility refers to the extent that a business bases their actions in account of wider world situations outside of their business. McDonalds is an international fast-food chain, who's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is written as: 'At McDonald's®, giving back to the community has always been a key mission and part of our heritage.

# data[].attributes.body
apple admits to using child labor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sixty-two workers at a factory that manufactures Apple products were poisoned by n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause muscular degeneration and blurred eyesight.

Reprinted from Straigthgoods.ca

The computer giant company, Apple, has admitted that child labor was used at the factories that built its computers, iPods and mobile phones. At least eleven 15-year-old children were discovered to be working last year in three factories, which supply Apple. The company did not name the offending factories, or say where they were based, but the majority of its goods are assembled in China.

Apple also has factories working for it in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, the Czech Republic and the United States. The company said the child workers are now no longer being used, or are no longer underage. "In each of the three facilities, we required a review of all employment records for the year, as well as a complete analysis of the hiring process, to clarify how underage people had been able to gain employment," Apple said in an annual report to its suppliers.

Apple has been repeatedly criticized for using factories that abuse workers and where conditions are poor. Last week, it was revealed that 62 workers at a factory that manufactures products for Apple and Nokia had been poisoned by n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause muscular degeneration and blurred eyesight. Apple has not commented on the problems at the plant, which is run by Wintek in the Chinese city of Suzhou.
NUPGE
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sixty-two workers at a factory that manufactures Apple products were poisoned by n-hexane, a toxic chemical that can cause muscular degeneration and blurred eyesight. Reprinted from Straigthgoods.ca The computer giant company, Apple, has admitted that child labor was used at the factories that built its computers, iPods and mobile phones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Finished products tested on animals

Yes, where required by law

Ingredients tested on animals

No, with possible exceptions

Suppliers test on animals

Uncertain

Third party animal testing

Yes, where required by law

Sold where animal testing is required by law

Yes

Official Animal Testing Policy:

L'Oréal no longer tests any of its products or any of its ingredients on animals, anywhere in the world nor does L'Oréal delegate this task to others. An exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes.

The Truth About Maybelline's Animal Testing Policy

Maybelline is owned by L'Oréal, and inherts their animal testing policy. Not all brands owned by a company that tests on animals inherit their policy, but in this case L'Oréal's policy is displayed in the FAQ (see below).

Maybelline's animal testing policy claims that (1) they don't test finished products or ingredients on animals, and (2) no third parties test on animals on their behalf unless required by law.

There's no clear mention of their suppliers in this short policy, however we know based on L'Oréal's full animal testing policy that they do make exception for some ingredients tested on animals by their suppliers.

Because they allow third-party animal testing where required by law, Maybelline can not be considered a cruelty-free brand. This means that Maybelline's finished products were likely tested on animals in mainland China by the Chinese authorities. In order to be sold in mainland China, foreign cosmetics must be tested on animals as part of their pre-market animal testing laws. The brand in question, in this case Maybelline, must agree not to have their finished products tested on animals, but they must also pay for these animal tests.

Since Maybelline is in fact available for sale in mainland China, and clearly states that they do test on animals where required by law, we conclude that Maybelline is not a cruelty-free brand and has likely financed animal testing.

From Their FAQ

On their website, Maybelline lists their animal testing policy in the FAQ. Under the "animal testing policy" tab, they claim that they don't test their products or ingredients on animals anywhere in the world, unless it's required by law.

They also link to L'Oreal's full animal testing policy. We've already covered why this policy is so misleading, and you can read the post if you're interested.

In short, L'Oreal claims to "no longer test on animals", though this is false for two reasons. The first reason is clearly stated above: they still test on animals where required by law, and their products are distributed throughout mainland China ( read more about China's animal testing policy here).

The second reason is a very fine print in their full animal testing policy, which states that animal testing could still be a resort for new ingredients under certain conditions.

So even though Maybelline only tests on animals under certain conditions, they no less test on animals.

About Maybelline

Maybelline is one of the most popular drugstore makeup brands, and can be found at Target, Walmart, Ulta, CVS, Walgreens, and more. It was founded in 1915 in New York City, and was acquired by French company L'Oréal in 1996.

Is Maybelline owned by a parent company that tests on animals?

Maybelline is owned by L'Oréal, a company that tests on animals. Not only is Maybelline not cruelty-free but neither is their parent company.

Is Maybelline sold where animal testing is required by law?

Yes, Maybelline is available for sale in countries with mandatory animal testing. This means that their products were likely tested on animals.

Is Maybelline certified cruelty-free by any organizations?

No, Maybelline is not certified by any organizations.

Is Maybelline vegan?

Maybelline might offer some vegan products, however because this company is not cruelty-free, we recommend avoiding any products they offer even if they are vegan.

How do you determine that brands like Maybelline are not cruelty-free?

Most brands don't publicly display their full animal testing policies. We contact brands directly with our questions in order to get their complete policy. If any brand states that they, their suppliers, or any third party test on animals, the brand is listed as "not cruelty-free."

Get our free 2021 guide and go cruelty-free for good.

Includes the complete and updated list of 350+ cruelty-free brands.

How to shop cruelty-free at drugstores, Sephora, and more.

Bonus: How to find out if a brand is cruelty-free.

Click the button below to join our mailing list and download our guide.

Get The List

The CFK March box is sold out! Sign up for April today. Join Now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Maybelline Cruelty-Free? * Latest Cruelty-Free Kitty Update

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Official Animal Testing Policy: L'Oréal no longer tests any of its products or any of its ingredients on animals, anywhere in the world nor does L'Oréal delegate this task to others. An exception could only be made if regulatory authorities demanded it for safety or regulatory purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
https://ethicalelephant.com/is-dior-cruelty-free/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Dior Beauty Products Tested On Animals?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is Dior Makeup tested on animals? or is Dior cruelty-free in 2021? Here's everything you need to know about Dior's cruelty-free status

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Apple Together,' a group of about 200 Apple employees, wrote an open letter on Friday condemning the company's choice to bring staffers back to its offices

CEO Tim Cook wrote in an email to staffers that they would need to work in the office one day a week, gradually ramping up to three days a week by mid-May

The group said that the shift back to in-person will make the company 'younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative [and] more able-bodied'

They said it will lead to 'privileges' - like location, age, race and gender - 'deciding who can work for Apple, not who'd be the best fit'

A group of Apple employees have accused the big-tech giant of only benefiting privileged staff with its push for corporate workers to return to the office, saying that the shift back to an in-person model will make the company 'younger, whiter, [and] more male-dominated.'

The employees, organized under the newly-formed group Apple Together, petitioned the company on Friday in an open letter after CEO Tim Cook told staffers that they would need to work from the office one day a week starting on April 11, two days per week after three weeks, and three days per week after May 23.

They wrote that the decision to bring employees back to the office was not motivated by a 'need to commune in person,' as Cook wrote in his letter to staff, but rather was driven by the company's 'fear of the future of work, fear of worker autonomy [and] fear of losing control.'

Although Apple will 'likely always find people willing to work here,' the group wrote, the shift back to working in the office will 'change the makeup of [the company's workforce].'

'It will lead to privileges deciding who can work for Apple, not who'd be the best fit,' the group wrote.

'Privileges like "being born in the the right place so you don't have to relocate", or "being young enough to start a new life in a new city/country" or "having a stay-at-home spouse who will move with you."'

'And privileges like being born into a gender that society doesn't expect the majority of care-work from, so it's easy to disappear into an office all day, without doing your fair share of unpaid work in society. Or being rich enough to pay others to do your care-work for you.'

Rather than 'throwing money at the problem and just increasing referral bonuses to replace those of our colleagues who left over the executive team's inflexibility,' the group advocates for continuing a remote work model so that 'everyone who wants to work at Apple is able to do so.'

There has been a marked uptick in diversity at Apple amid the pandemic, although it is unclear whether this was driven by the company's shift to remote work.

In 2014, the company's workforce was made up of 70 percent men and 30 percent women, but those percentages have shifted - according to Apple's 2022 Inclusion and Diversity Report, 65.2 percent of the workforce is now male and 34.8 percent are female.

Apple's leadership saw an 87 percent increase in female employees worldwide, the company boasted, and its total female workforce grew by 89 percent.

The company hired more minorities than ever before in 2021 - that wasy, 25 percent of Apple's leadership roles and 41 percent of its retail positions were filled by Black and Hispanic workers.

Apple Together's qualms extended past diversity, however - the group laid out five additional reasons for their displeasure with the company's return to in-person work.

They bemoaned that the company would force employees to make unnecessary commutes to work, and called out a disconnect between the company's marketing to customers using its products to work remotely from around the world and its treatment of staffers.

'How can we understand what problems of remote work need solving in our products if we don't live it?' reads the letter.

They also mocked Cook's description of 'the serendipity that comes from bumping into colleagues,' arguing that this fanciful vision was impossible between the company's 37 US offices even before the company went remote during the pandemic.

'We are not all in one place. We don't have just one office, we have many. And often, our functional organizations have their own office buildings, in which employees from other orgs cannot work,' they wrote. 'This siloed structure is part of our culture.'

In September, while tensions over the company's return to in-person work were still brewing before Apple's plans to bring workers back were thwarted by the onset of COVID-19's Delta variant, Apple engineer Cher Scarlett spoke out to Vox about this expectation of in-person collaboration.

'There's this idea that people skateboarding around tech campuses are bumping into each other and coming up with great new inventions,' said Scarlett, who joined the company during the pandemic and became a leader in organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work. 'That's just not true.'

Scarlett, one of two founding members of Apple Together when it was first formed in August under the name 'Apple Too,' left the company in November and has pending complaints with the labor board.

She and Janneke Parrish, who was also fired and has also filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board, encouraged staffers to come forward with stories of racism, sexism or discrimination in their workplace.

A spokesperson for Apple Together told CNN Business, an employee who works on hardware engineering in the Bay Area and asked to remain anonymous, told the outlet that there are about 200 workers within the group - in total, Apple has more than 100,000 employees in the United States.

'There is such a huge disconnect between executive leadership and the individuals,' the employee said, 'The further you go up in the chain, the more that empathy erodes.'

Apple Together said in its letter that it was much easier to collaborate with coworkers from their home offices, rather than Apple's newer offices with open floor plans.

They also hit out at the company's recent decision to keep employees in different departments and locations of the company in separate Slack workplaces, making it 'impossible to create shared community spaces where serendipity could have happened.'

'We are not asking for everyone to be forced to work from home,' the letter read. 'we are asking to decide for ourselves, together with our teams and direct manager, what kind of work arrangement works best for each one of us, be that in an office, work from home, or a hybrid approach.

Apple's correspondence to employees comes after other Big Tech giants, like Twitter and Facebook, have told its employees that they can work from home indefinitely.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apple staff say ending WFH only benefits privileged workers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Apple Together,' a group of about 200 Apple employees, wrote an open letter on Friday condemning the company's choice to bring staffers back to its offices CEO Tim Cook wrote in an email to staffers that they would need to work in the office one day a week, gradually ramping

# data[].attributes.body
Lots of companies still don't recycle their waste, the benefits of waste management outweigh no waste management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
4. Check government requirements

Australian, state and local governments jointly administer the environmental protection laws in Australia. Environmental laws that affect your business will depend on your business type. As a business owner, you need to understand which laws apply to your business and make sure you meet requirements.

Government agencies and industry groups also develop voluntary codes of practice to guide industry's impact on the environment.

Licences and permits

You may require environmental licences and permits for certain business activities.

If an activity might affect areas of national environmental significance, you'll need to get licences or permits from the Australian Government. You can check for areas of national environmental significance with the Protected Matters Search Tool.

If your activity is likely to impact on the local environment, such as parks, heritage sites, air and water, check for licence and permit requirements through your state, territory or local government.

Government legislation, approvals and guidance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Manage your environmental impact | business.gov.au

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
4. Check government requirements Australian, state and local governments jointly administer the environmental protection laws in Australia. Environmental laws that affect your business will depend on your business type. As a business owner, you need to understand which laws apply to your business and make sure you meet requirements.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Thomas Clarke, University of Technology Sydney and Martijn Boersma, University of Technology Sydney

Apple has become the first American company to reach US$1 trillion in market capitalisation: US$1,000,000,000,000 in stockmarket value. Behind this glittering success, however, lies a series of unresolved ethical dilemmas.

The approaches of Apple and the other giant US platform technology companies (Google, Facebook and Amazon) to corporate taxation, concentration and privacy have attracted widespread criticism.

But manufacturing company Apple faces a more deep-seated problem. This involves the millions of people employed in its supply chain, which is largely located in China with the major contractor Foxconn.

Our research shows human rights, environmental and ethical problems persist inside Apple's vast global supply chains.

Low pay, poor working conditions and environmental hazards in supplier factories in China and across Asia are sources of long-running controversies. In the past, suicides of workers subject to intensive work regimes in these factories shocked Apple into action.

Apple does address these disturbing issues in its annual Supplier Responsibility Progress Report. Progress has been uneven and limited, but the company has created the appearance of corporate social responsibility. Any reputational damage does not seem to undermine financial results.

Still, for a company as successful as Apple, the failure to find a permanent solution to recurrent environmental and labour issues in its global value chain is not acceptable.

What makes Apple successful

Apple is not the largest smart phone manufacturer in the world (the increasingly sophisticated Samsung and Huawei are) - it is just the most profitable. Apple's profit margins have topped 20% for more than a decade. While its profit has slipped in recent years, it is much higher than its competitors.

The result is a huge cash hoard. Apple holds more cash than most American industries combined - and even many countries.

Apple's sustained competitive advantage is not simply due to innovation, superior design and marketing. It's also a result of its domination of the advanced consumer electronics supply chain. Apple has effectively created a closed ecosystem, controlling every part of the supply chain from design to retail.

Disaggregating the global value chain enables the most profitable activities, including design, finance, marketing and sales, to be retained in the home country. The less profitable labour-intensive activities are given to contractors in developing countries, where wages and conditions are often much poorer.

Apple sources most of its components from manufacturers in Asia. The poor working conditions at the bottom of these value chains gave rise to the term " electronics sweatshop ".

According to activist Li Qiang, of US-based China Labour Watch: "Without China, Apple wouldn't be the company it is today. No other country can provide labour so cheaply and make its products so quickly."

But the interplay between global economic forces and local circumstances poses challenges for economic security, and business accountability, transparency and integrity.

Arm's-length morality

In its Supplier Code of Conduct, Apple states: "Apple suppliers are required to provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, act fairly and ethically, and use environmentally responsible practices wherever they make products or perform services for Apple ... Apple will assess its suppliers' compliance with this Code, and any violations of this Code may jeopardize the supplier's business relationship with Apple, up to and including termination."

This statement goes a long way in explaining the normative basis on which Apple operates: an arm's-length morality that imposes responsibility on others.

As Apple shifts the burden of cost and production, its suppliers make the labourers carry the burden through low wages and unsafe conditions.

Regrettably, workers receive little protection from government or regulatory authorities. Independent trade unions are forbidden in China. Labour strikes are illegal and considered counter-revolutionary (though they often occur in local disputes).

The result is a degree of labour flexibility that creates a race to the bottom, threatening the most basic labour standards and environmental standards in developing countries.

Ensuring integrity in the global value chain

It appears the beauty of Apple's brilliant design ultimately rests upon the suffering of workers in electronic sweatshops, where human rights, labour standards, environmental safety and business integrity are routinely ignored.

These abuses were first brought to Apple's attention in 2006. The company has made some efforts to eradicate problems and enforce higher standards.

However, there is evidence to suggest the intensity of the production regimes being enforced to meet product launches often overwhelms Apple's interventions to advance audit and management systems and improve standards in suppliers' factories. Bleak working conditions persist throughout much of the electronics supply chain in Asia.

With Apple's vast cash reserves, the obvious question is why doesn't it resolve these problems once and for all? The answer is that to a significant degree, Apple is held hostage by the capital markets to control costs and feels compelled to disgorge tens of billions of dollars in dividends and share buy-backs or face the wrath of the hedge funds. The laser focus is on Apple's share price, not the welfare of its contractors' employees.

The future innovative capacity (and ethical principles) of Apple are in jeopardy when value creation becomes defined as value extraction. Boards focus solely upon returning cash to shareholders who never provided the cash to develop the company in the first place.

As the market leader, and the most successful consumer electronics company in the world, Apple has a particular responsibility to ensure the integrity and responsibility of its value chain.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
NOW READ: Best and worst performers on ethical fashion revealed: Why company ethics policies alone aren't enough

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A hostage situation: Why Apple won't address its unethical supply chain - SmartCompany

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Thomas Clarke, University of Technology Sydney and Martijn Boersma, University of Technology Sydney Apple has become the first American company to reach US$1 trillion in market capitalisation: US$1,000,000,000,000 in stockmarket value. Behind this glittering success, however, lies a series of unresolved ethical dilemmas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Clearly recycling is a hot-button topic the world over, one reason why debates over plastic bag bans are so heated in so many corners of the world. Packaging processors and users certainly need to heed local regulations regarding waste management. One that didn't and now must pay is Red Bull, the Austrian supplier of the energy drink of the same name, which has been fined a record amount for packaging waste offenses in England. Red Bull Co. Ltd., its London-based subsidiary, was ordered to pay £271,800 (about $450,000) on July 27, 2009 by the country's Environmental Agency after failing to recover and recycle its packaging waste.

The beverage importer pleaded guilty to charges of failing to register with the Environment Agency as a producer of packaging waste, and charges of failing to meet its requirements to recover and recycle packaging waste with respect to each of the eight years between 1999 and 2006, a total of 16 charges. Red Bull's penalty is about £45,000 higher than the previous record EA fine paid by Western Wines Ltd.

The fine stems from the company's failure to adhere to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007, which states that businesses with an annual turnover in excess of a specified amount (£2 million since 2000) and that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging each year must be registered with the Environment Agency or a compliance scheme. Each year, obligated businesses must also provide evidence of payment for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The regulations make businesses take responsibility for the packaging waste they produce by making them pay towards overall recovery and recycling costs. By not registering it was estimated that Red Bull saved more than £180,000.

Red Bull Company Ltd. eventually approached the Environment Agency to say that it was not registered and admitted that its turnover and packaging handled were more than the threshold limits allowed by the regulations.

Red Bull Deutschland (Germany) and Alpla, its packaging supplier there, have been taken to court by PET supplier M&G for what it claims are patent infringement violations of its patents for processing of barrier preforms, as reported earlier by PlasticsToday.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Red Bull fined $450k for avoiding recycling regulations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Clearly recycling is a hot-button topic the world over, one reason why debates over plastic bag bans are so heated in so many corners of the world. Packaging processors and users certainly need to heed local regulations regarding waste management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 2020

"H&M is under fire for contracting with factories that allegedly violated child-labor laws." 1 H&M is owned by Stefan Persson, Sweden's richest person. In Myanmar, H&M has kids who are between the ages of 14 and 17 slaving away in sweatshops. H&M is not the only company that violates the child slave labor laws, Gap, Old Navy, Intermix, Hill City, and Athleta.
How does H&M break the child slave labor laws?
They had kids working there as young as 14, but they were working 12 hours or more a day. "They employed anyone who wanted to work," Zu Zu, one of the girls who started work aged 14, told the authors of Modeslavar, or Fashion Slaves in English. 2 Even though the age doesn't fall into the child labor, the hours do. A PIECE OF WORK: H&M'S TAKE ON CHILD LABOUR IN MYANMAR statest that,
Moreover, the interpretation of 'exclusion of work' by H&M is neither straightforward at the inter-country nor at the intra-country level. To begin, H&M's interpretation does not hold water at the inter-country level. H&M started contracting with manufacturers in Hlaing Thar Yar Township only last year, after the European Union lifted many trade sanctions (which were mainly installed for political reasons). The reason is that Myanmar is an attractive country for H&M, a company that made it its mission to offer fashion at the 'best' price. Myanmar has a competitive advantage compared to other countries that offer low-skilled factory labour. The labour costs in Myanmar are among the cheapest in the world. This competitive advantage is further strengthened by patchy human rights regulation and little enforcement. For instance, only last year, the minimum age to work was raised from thirteen to fourteen years in the new Minimum Wages Law.³ How does the Gap violate the child slave labor laws?

"Gap simply wants to get its clothes produced as cheaply as possible, the advocates argue, and it's dressing up the move as global philanthropy." 4 The reason it is so cheap is because they don't have to pay the workers.

"The attraction for Gap is obvious: the lowest wages in the region, anemic regulation and weak labor unions," said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium, an independent labor rights monitoring organization. "This adds up to cheap garments for Gap, at the price of a lot of misery for the workers who will make those garments." ⁵

If you look up If gap uses child labor it will say that they no longer do. This is because they go through a third party. "We purchase private label and non-private label merchandise from over 1,000 vendors. Our vendors have factories in about 40 countries." ⁶

Gap Inc revealed supplier information, including the factory name and full address, in a 47-page document published last week, that includes facilities in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Turkey, the US, and Vietnam. ⁷

Just because Gap factories do not use child labor doesn't mean that where they get their cotton from doesn't. China, Myanmar, Indonisia, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Turkey, Egypt, El Salvador, Lesotho and Guatemala. These are just few of the countries the use child labor for clothing and other things.

Children are forced to work 28 days a month, don't get paid until the end of year and are beaten when they misbehave. One 15-year-old worker from Wenshan, Yunnan, was quoted as saying he works at least 28 days a month, starting work each day at 7.30am and never finishing before 10pm. ⁸

Children in Indonesia engage in the worst forms of child labor, including in commercial sexual exploitation, sometimes as the result of human trafficking. Children also perform dangerous tasks in the production of palm oil and tobacco. ⁹

"We thought that brands were getting the message on child labour but this investigation shows the risks involved in constantly trying to cut labour costs," said researcher Pauline Overeem. "The widespread use of children in Myanmar to manufacture clothes for western brands is alarming and depressing and we urge all companies to take responsibility and to ensure that children are getting the education they need and deserve." ⁹

Tens of thousands of Cambodian families - including children - are trapped in bonded labor, forced to make bricks in return for kiln owners settling their debts, British researchers said in October.Child workers are often from families who have had to migrate because climate change has hit their harvests, said Dy The Hoya, a program officer with the Phnom Penh-based Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights. ¹⁰

Children in Nicaragua engage in the worst forms of child labor, including in commercial sexual exploitation, sometimes as a result of human trafficking. Children also perform dangerous tasks in agriculture. National policies to eliminate child labor and protect children have not been fully implemented, and the government lacks a specific and consistent mechanism to coordinate efforts to address child labor. In addition, the government does not dedicate sufficient resources to child labor law enforcement and does not publish complete criminal law enforcement data on child labor. ¹¹

Children in Turkey engage in the worst forms of child labor, including commercial sexual exploitation and recruitment by non-state armed groups. Children also perform dangerous tasks in seasonal agriculture and in small and medium manufacturing enterprises. ¹²

Squished inside a second-story room in Dhaka, Bangladesh, flanked by 20 other women, the girl hunches over her machine, illuminated by harsh fluorescent lights. She is making pockets for blue jeans - one of thousands of child workers in Bangladesh piecing together designer clothing she'll never be able to afford herself. ¹³

Some girls are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation under the pretext of temporary marriage to wealthy foreign men, mostly from Persian Gulf countries. In the past 2 years, Egyptian children were trafficked to Italy, where they were used for bonded child labor, commercial sexual exploitation, and illicit activities. Although the numbers decreased in 2017, and further in 2018, approximately 930 unaccompanied Egyptian children were registered in Italy in 2018 and another 300 had escaped from their shelters in Italy. Some Egyptian children continued to fall victim to labor exploitation in agriculture and food services, and some were sexually exploited. ¹⁴

Children in El Salvador often lack economic and educational opportunities and are vulnerable to the worst forms of child labor, including commercial sexual exploitation. They are also recruited by gangs for illicit activities such as delivering threats, collecting extortion money, serving as surveillance, trafficking drugs, and committing homicides. Children often emigrate to escape violence, extortion, and forced recruitment by gangs, in addition to seeking economic opportunities and family reunification. Once en route, they become vulnerable to human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. El Salvador's Trafficking in Persons Special Prosecutor indicated that girls between the ages of 10 and 17 were the most at risk of being trafficked. ¹⁵

Indigenous children account for more than half of child laborers in Guatemala, and children in rural areas are more likely to work than children in urban areas. In agriculture, working conditions for children involve using machetes and other dangerous tools. Children as young as age 5 work in coffee fields picking coffee beans and mixing and applying pesticides. Children, both Guatemalan-born and from other countries, are engaged in commercial sexual exploitation, including in sex tourism. Girls, LGBTI persons, and indigenous Guatemalans are particularly vulnerable to trafficking. Traffickers are increasingly using social media to recruit children. Multiple sources indicate that children are recruited into gangs to serve as lookouts, couriers, and drug dealers. ¹⁶

Lesotho is a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking. Children in Lesotho are subjected to commercial sexual exploitation and forced to work as domestic workers and animal herders, each sometimes as a result of human trafficking. Children involved in animal herding are exposed to harsh weather conditions, sometimes leading to death. Children, especially orphans, sometimes voluntarily travel to South Africa for domestic work, and upon arrival are subsequently detained in prison-like conditions and sexually exploited. During the reporting period, one case of child trafficking was reported. ¹⁷

H&M and Gap industries are both terrible companies because they both uses child labor. Just because they do not use it in their factories doesn't mean where they get their supplies from doesn.t either.

Notes

Bain, Marc. "H&M Reportedly Used Garment Factories That Worked Teens for 12-Hour

Shifts." Quartz. Quartz, August 22, 2016. https://qz.com/763384/hm-reportedly-used-garment-factories-that-worked-teens-for-12-hour-shifts/.

1. Butler, Sarah. "H&M Factories in Myanmar Employed 14-Year-Old Workers." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, August 21, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/21/hm-factories-myanmar-employed-14-year-old-workers.

2. "A Piece of Work: H&M's Take on Child Labour in Myanmar." Human Rights In Business. Accessed February 12, 2020. http://humanrightsinbusiness.eu/portfolio/a-piece-of-work-hms-take-on-child-labour-in-myanmar/.

3. Bhasin, Kim. "Gap Is Starting To Make Clothes In Myanmar, Where Workers Are Horribly Mistreated." HuffPost. HuffPost, June 11, 2014. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gap-myanmar_n_5481484.

4. IBID

5. "Gap Inc's Suppliers Performance." CSIMarket. Accessed February 13, 2020. https://csimarket.com/stocks/suppliers_glance.php?code=GPS.

6. Wright, Beth. "Gap Reveals List of Factory Names and Locations." just, September 12, 2016. https://www.just-style.com/news/gap-reveals-list-of-factory-names-and-locations_id128784.aspx.

7. "Under 16 and Working 16 Hours a Day ... Chinese Clothes Factories Import Cheap Child Labour from across China." South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2048231/clothing-factories-eastern-china-import-child-labour-migrant.

8. Chamberlain, Gethin. "How High Street Clothes Were Made by Children in Myanmar for 13p an Hour." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 5, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/05/child-labour-myanmar-high-street-brands.

9. Ferrie, Jared. "'Major Strides' to Cut Child Labor in Cambodia's Fashion Factories." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, December 11, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cambodia-childlabour-garments/major-strides-to-cut-child-labor-in-cambodias-fashion-factories-idUSKBN1OA1P1.

10. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Nicaragua." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 14, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/nicaragua.

11. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Turkey." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/turkey.

12. Nonkes, Mark. "A Look at Child Labor inside a Garment Factory in Bangladesh." World Vision, January 18, 2019. https://www.worldvision.org/child-protection-news-stories/child-labor-garment-factory-bangladesh.

13. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Egypt." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/egypt.

14. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - El Salvador." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/el-salvador.

15. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Guatemala." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/guatemala.

16. "Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Lesotho." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/lesotho.

Biography

"A Piece of Work: H&M's Take on Child Labour in Myanmar." Human Rights In Business. Accessed February 12, 2020. http://humanrightsinbusiness.eu/portfolio/a-piece-of-work-hms-take-on-child-labour-in-myanmar/.

Bain, Marc. "H&M Reportedly Used Garment Factories That Worked Teens for 12-Hour Shifts." Quartz. Quartz, August 22, 2016. https://qz.com/763384/hm-reportedly-used-garment-factories-that-worked-teens-for-12-hour-shifts/.

Bhasin, Kim. "Gap Is Starting To Make Clothes In Myanmar, Where Workers Are Horribly Mistreated." HuffPost. HuffPost, June 11, 2014. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gap-myanmar_n_5481484.

Butler, Sarah. "H&M Factories in Myanmar Employed 14-Year-Old Workers." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, August 21, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/21/hm-factories-myanmar-employed-14-year-old-workers.

Chamberlain, Gethin. "How High Street Clothes Were Made by Children in Myanmar for 13p an Hour." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, February 5, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/05/child-labour-myanmar-high-street-brands

Ferrie, Jared. "'Major Strides' to Cut Child Labor in Cambodia's Fashion Factories." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, December 11, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cambodia-childlabour-garments/major-strides-to-cut-child-labor-in-cambodias-fashion-factories-idUSKBN1OA1P1.

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Egypt." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/egypt.

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - El Salvador." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/el-salvador.

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Guatemala." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/guatemala.

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Lesotho." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/lesotho.

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Nicaragua." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 14, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/nicaragua

"Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor - Turkey." U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed February 17, 2020. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/turkey.

"Gap Inc's Suppliers Performance." CSIMarket. Accessed February 13, 2020. https://csimarket.com/stocks/suppliers_glance.php?code=GPS.

Nonkes, Mark. "A Look at Child Labor inside a Garment Factory in Bangladesh." World Vision, January 18, 2019. https://www.worldvision.org/child-protection-news-stories/child-labor-garment-factory-bangladesh

"Under 16 and Working 16 Hours a Day ... Chinese Clothes Factories Import Cheap Child Labour from across China." South China Morning Post, July 20, 2018. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2048231/clothing-factories-eastern-china-import-child-labour-migrant.

Wright, Beth. "Gap Reveals List of Factory Names and Locations." just, September 12, 2016. https://www.just-style.com/news/gap-reveals-list-of-factory-names-and-locations_id128784.aspx.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H & M and The Gap : Fashion Made by Children – Child Slave Labor News

# data[].attributes.body
Amazon has subjected their workers to poor conditions for many years now, making them piss into bottles and have extremely short breaks.

# data[].attributes.body
Neuralink uses animals to test their products and recently a monkey has died because of this

# data[].attributes.body
Coles has underpaid staff about 150 million

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coles workers claim they were underpaid $150 million in new class action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Employment law firm Adero Law has launched a class action on behalf of 130 Coles workers who allege they were underpaid.

# data[].attributes.body
Volkswagen tricked emissions testing to get there cars in more countries to make more profit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Volkswagen emissions damages are still rolling in 5 years later

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Another former top Volkswagen executive went on trial recently, just over five years after the scandal broke —and it’s still nowhere near over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is Coca-Cola ethical?

Our research highlights several ethical issues with Coca-Cola. The company has therefore been marked down in our rating system in a number of categories, including: climate change, habitats & resources, palm oil, pollution and toxics, human rights, workers' rights, irresponsible marketing, animal rights, controversial technologies, anti-social finance and political activities.

People

Coca-cola is the target of several trade union campaigns.

In 2019 The International Union of Food (IUF) severed its 15-year partnership with Coca-Cola, accusing it of attacking union leaders and intimidating members through dismissals and disciplinary action.

Ireland's largest trade union, Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union ( SIPTU), told Ethical Consumer that Coca-Cola had refused to engage with representatives at the company's plant in Ballina.

Coca-Cola received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Supply Chain Management. The company and its subsidiaries have also been accused of contributing to water shortages in Mexico, appropriating Guarani culture, and using child labour in its Mexican recycling system.

Politics

Coca-cola received our worst rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies, and its highest paid executive was paid an incredible £13.9m in 2019.

When we checked in November 2019, Coca-Cola was involved in a plethora of corporate lobby groups: the Business Round Table, National Foreign Trade Council, American Chamber of Commerce, USCIB and World Economic Forum. These were considered to lobby for free trade at the expense of issues like animal welfare, human rights or the environment.

In total, the company was said to have spent nearly $7m on lobbying in 2019.

Environment

Coca-Cola received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Carbon Management and Reporting and its Palm Oil policy.

It's also a leading plastic polluter. In October 2020 Coca-Cola was facing a lawsuit for plastic pollution from the Earth Island Institute and Plastic Pollution Coalition. It was labelled the world's biggest plastic polluter in a 2019 survey by Break Free From Plastic, and Greenpeace too labelled the company a top plastic polluter. A Guardian article stated that the company was responsible for around 3m tonnes of plastic packaging per year.

Coca-cola is also involved in environmentally damaging industries such as motor sports and sale of fish.

Animals

Several Coca-Cola products, including popular soft drinks, contain animal products, including fish gelatine, honey, vitamin D sourced from lanolin in sheep's wool and milk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How ethical is Coca-Cola Company, The? | Ethical Consumer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coca-cola owns an astonishing 500 brands and is sold in over 200 countries and territories. This is the definition of 'global reach' considering the UN only recognises 195 states. This single company has a higher annual income than two thirds of the world's countries. Is this massive revenue earned through ethical means?

# data[].attributes.headline
Family dollar store - Legally overworking employees.

# data[].attributes.subject
Family dollar store - Legally overworking employees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Happy employees usually equal a bigger bottom line, but even though there's plenty of research around to convince business owners and corporations to treat their workers well, an astounding number of them not only pay poor wages but implement horrific work conditions.

From human rights violations to low ethical standards and abuse of employees, it's always disturbing to hear about a huge company taking advantage of the people who work for them.

What's worse, even though social media and the internet have made it easier than ever for people to share their job experiences and warn others, workers for these companies are forced into silence in fear of retaliation and losing their jobs.

To expose the workplaces with the most horrible working conditions, it often takes a media expose or a brave whistle blower to come forward. Here are companies that are known for having terrible work conditions.

1. Tyson Foods

In a recent Oxfam America report, it was revealed that many of the largest poultry producers in the US subject their employees to ruthless treatment. One of the biggest culprits is food mega corporation Tyson Foods -- yes, the ones who make the chicken nuggets and such that line grocery store frozen food aisles.

Not only are Tyson Foods' workers poorly paid, but they're forced to stand dangerously close together while working on the assembly line. Imagine standing shoulder to shoulder with your colleagues while wielding sharp knives and tools, repeatedly ripping apart chickens, and operating dangerous machinery. It doesn't stop there: management at Tyson Foods routinely deny workers restroom breaks.

The report, "No Relief: Denial of Bathroom Breaks in the Poultry Industry", found that an overwhelming majority of workers admitted to being denied these breaks or being mocked and ridiculed by their managers for even asking.

This is against the law and inhumane. As a result of being denied this basic need, many of the company's workers have resorted to wearing adult diapers to contain their own waste.

2. Apple

It's not a huge secret that Apple outsources the manufacture of its products and components -- no, that iPhone you love will never be made outside of a foreign country with deplorable working conditions.

The terrible thing, however isn't that they outsource the production of their electronics but the fact that Apple doesn't care about monitoring how overseas workers are treated. With the billions they have, you'd think it would be no problem to make sure workers aren't being abused or underpaid, but the company isn't bothered at all about it.

When Apple found out that some of the factories in their supply chain had high suicide rates among the workers, with many jumping from the windows during their shifts, what did Apple do?

You're wrong if you think they investigated how the factories ran and demanded change. No, they simply told the factory management to put nets outside the windows to catch would-be jumpers and send them back to the production line.

No word on just what makes workers in those factories want to kill themselves on the spot, but the factories that Apple uses also have other problems such as demanding overtime of up to 200 hours per month.

Seriously, that's abuse beyond words and highly illegal. Apple's factories also deny workers breaks and the machinery and chemicals used to produce the electronic components is not well kept or particularly safe. This became even more evident when there was a major explosion in a Shanghai factory used by Apple that injured over 60 workers.

3. Sears

Sears has been known to use sweatshop labor for years, but the clothing retailer isn't alone. What they are, however, is heartless. In 2012, one of the Bangladesh factories that they outsource to exploded in flames and 112 workers were killed.

That's not the worst, however. When it was discovered that one of the Samoan factories that Sears uses abuses its workers, the company did nothing. The factory employees receive only about $500 for working nine months -- yes, just $500 for the entire nine months -- and their pay is frequently cut at the whim of management.

The workers are forced to live in the factories because of their working hours, and over 250 of them share just two pounds of chicken total at mealtimes. Complaints from the workers about their treatment often results in the electricity being shut off and temperatures in the factory rising to dangerously high levels.

In yet another overseas sweatshop used by Sears, this time in Vietnam, management admitted to literally dragging a seamstress from her work area, sitting her in front of all the other workers, and gouging out her eye with a plastic pipe. Why? To make an example out of her. Coincidentally, retailer JC Penny used the same Vietnamese sweatshop that Sears does.

When JC Penney learned what was going on, they at least feigned remorse and compensated the abused workers. Sears acknowledged what had happened, but refused to do anything about it or pay anything to the workers.

4. Walmart

Walmart not only has unsafe working conditions in the overseas factories that it uses to produce its cheap goods, but here in America as well. The dirty, unsafe warehouses and long shifts for pay so low that a significant number of its employees rely on government aid is pretty bad, but the people working in Walmart's sweatshops literally put their lives on the line each day.

In 2013, a factory in Bangladesh that Walmart used collapsed and killed over 1,000 people, all due to how unsafe and shoddy the building was.

After this horrible incident, retailers from countries all over the world signed a pact to help bring their sweatshops up to a reasonable safety standard. Walmart refused to sign the pact, but did say they'd provide their own inspections.

Anyone who thinks this bit of self regulation will actually do any good obviously hasn't been paying attention to Walmart's track record.

5. Family Dollar Store

Since 1938, it's been required by law that hourly employees be paid time and a half when working overtime. How does discount retail giant Family Dollar get past this? By giving their low wage workers a fixed salary, calling them "managers", and working them into the ground.

See, with a fixed salary and a promotion, it doesn't matter that these particular employees are made to work 60 or 70 hours per week -- the company doesn't have to pay them overtime because they're not hourly workers. Very crafty, Family Dollar.

After a group of these so-called managers sued the company, it was revealed that some of them work so many hours that they have to sleep at their stores overnight. One person reported doing backbreaking labor hauling boxes for 60 hours a week with no overtime, while another was refused medical attention after he sliced off his finger during his shift -- he was made to wait until after work to go to the hospital.

You can also read:
The 20 Worst Companies to Work for in 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Huge Companies Known For Implementing Horrific Working Conditions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Happy employees usually equal a bigger bottom line, but even though there's plenty of research around to convince business owners and corporations to

# data[].attributes.headline
Weetabix - pollution of the river ways with fuel

# data[].attributes.subject
Weetabix - pollution of the river ways with fuel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Weetabix has been fined £140,000 for polluting a river with thousands of litres of diesel fuel and putting at risk fish and plant life.

The Environment Agency brought a prosecution against the cereal maker for polluting the River Ise, which is close to the company's plant in the town of Burton Latimer, near Kettering, Northamptonshire. The clean-up operation cost Weetabix £500,000.

The firm, which uses locally grown wheat, has been manufacturing the breakfast cereal in the area since 1932. Weetabix was bought by the US company Post Holdings in 2017 in a deal worth £1.4bn. The company has an annual turnover of £300m.

Judge Rupert Mayo, recorder for the borough of Northampton, issued the fine of £139,694.72 in Northampton crown court on Thursday after the cereal company pleaded guilty.

Sailesh Mehta, prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency, referred to "corporate amnesia" by Weetabix in its failures to carry out appropriate checks on pipes and valves in storage facilities on the site.

Mayo said in his ruling: "My considered conclusion is that this corporate amnesia amounted to a negligent failure ... Weetabix failed to keep records of what was on their site. Their plea recognises this failure."

The pollution happened on 10 November 2016 when 23,000 litres of diesel road fuel leaked from tanks contained in a bund on the Weetabix site and entered the river.

Wet weather combined with the way the river was flowing at the time limited the amount of damage to fish and plant life.

The judge said: "Had the diesel permeated the river in drier conditions there could well have been a significant adverse effect on animal health or flora."

The leak occurred because of a problem with secondary valves which controlled the flow of the diesel fuel from five storage tanks overground.

There is a disused fuel storage facility onsite which was decommissioned approximately 20 years ago. In 2007 the Environment Agency sent Weetabix notices advising them to remove the pipework from the decommissioned tank but the company did not do this. When the valves in the fuel tanks overground were left open the fuel drained through these pipes into the river.

In his ruling Mayo said Weetabix should have had proper records of the valves and underground pipes in the former storage facility but the company's risk assessment did not contain information about these secondary valves.

The judge accepted that before the incident Weetabix had a near spotless record on environmental compliance, employing highly qualified people to monitor health, safety and environmental factors. Jokes were made in court about the company not being a "cereal offender".

A spokesperson for Weetabix Food Company said: "We respect the court's decision and regret the circumstances of the incident. We have worked closely with the Environment Agency during their investigations, and our plea reflects how seriously we take our responsibility to the local environment.

"We have operated safely and securely from our site in Burton Latimer since 1932 and are proud of our local record which includes promoting sustainable farming through our Wheat Grower's Group."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court fines Weetabix £140,000 for polluting river near factory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Weetabix has been fined £140,000 for polluting a river with thousands of litres of diesel fuel and putting at risk fish and plant life. The Environment Agency brought a prosecution against the cereal maker for polluting the River Ise, which is close to the company's plant in the town of Burton Latimer, near Kettering, Northamptonshire.

# data[].attributes.body
Nestle uses child labor to this day and lots of products we all consume are owned by nestle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite global efforts and petitions from humanitarian groups, there are still many major companies around the world that employ child labour - knowingly or otherwise - in order to make a profit. As business rely on increasingly globalised supply chains, the ethical and legal practices of the contractors and subcontractors that they use can become murky, and while many of the organisations on this list make the right noises about ending such practices, the reality is that they need to take a lot more responsibility for how their products are sourced and manufactured.

We, as consumers, also have a responsibility, too. Although it might be easy to turn a blind eye to the world of child labour, it is something that continues to deserve our scrutiny and concern. These companies might be doing great things in their field, but by using work crews that include children, they are enabling the growth of an illicit and miserable industry. Drawing public attention to their activity - or lack of, in many cases - might be our best hope of making a real and lasting change.

With this in mind, here are 10 companies that use child labour.

1. Nestlé

Despite signing an industry agreement in 2001 to eradicate child labour from their Ghana and Ivory Coast-based cocoa farms, Nestlé - one of the largest and most recognisable consumer brands in the world - continues to receive criticism for the ongoing employment abuses in their supply chain. In 2005, a lawsuit bought against the company by former child workers lead to a damning investigation by the Fair Labor Association (FLA), and although the confectionary giant subsequently introduced new measures to tackle the problem, clearly they have not worked.

Terry Collingsworth, the human rights lawyer who filed the original lawsuit, alleged in October 2018 that Nestlé has since failed to meet its own eradication targets, with the US appeals court allowing his longstanding legal challenge to proceed; the Swiss-based food producer are now also facing a separate class-action lawsuit from US human rights activist Dannell Tomasella, who claims that the company are lying to consumers by failing to disclose their ongoing involvement in child labour. For their part, Nestlé acknowledges that the 'risk of child labour' in its supply chain cannot be 'fully removed' but that they are 'determined to tackle the problem'.

2. H&M

Swedish fashion retailer Hennes & Mauritz - better known as H&M - are no strangers to human rights controversies; it has faced allegations of neglect in regards to workers' rights across its various production factories, while its sustainability practices have also drawn criticism in recent years. Perhaps the most alarming charges levelled at the fast fashion giants, though, concern the reports that they have been using child labour in Myanmar, Bangladesh and Cambodia - and paying as little as 13 pence an hour for the privilege.

An alarming drop in their 2018 profits suggests that customer patience may be growing thin, but H&M seems undeterred about their ethical and moral role in this process; in a public statement, the company was quick to point out that the legal working age in Myanmar is 14. Unfortunately, despite the issuing of a token condemnation of general child labour practices, this blaise attitude suggests that H&M are unlikely to change their ways anytime soon.

3. Philip Morris

The tobacco industry has long been comfortable in its role as public enemy number one, and it's therefore unsurprising to find no less than three of its biggest players on this list; one of them, the US cigarette giant Philip Morris - which owns Marlboro - has a long history of exploiting children.

In 2010, the company admitted that children as young as 10 had been forced into labour on its contracted tobacco farms in Kazakhstan, with allegations by the Human Rights Watch (HRW) suggesting that passports had been confiscated in order to prevent them escaping; the HRW also claims that Philip Morris was then 'slow' to implement their suggestions for tackling the issue. Clearly, there are still ongoing issues with their providers elsewhere in the globe, too, with a Guardian investigation published in June 2018 alleging that child labour on the company's contracted farms - particularly in Malawi - is 'rampant'.

4. Microsoft

Despite Microsoft's global reputation as both a top employer and a philanthropic pioneer, allegations surfaced in October 2018 that child labour was being used to extract cobalt for the company in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); investigators for Amnesty International claim that children as young as 7 are mining the product in toxic and hostile conditions for 12 hours a day.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft has moved quickly to address the allegations, producing a report in late 2018 that details the actions they have taken to eradicate this practice; Amnesty remains sceptical, though, stating that while there is 'real evidence of change' on the ground in the DRC, there is still a 'long way to go' to meet both their own concerns and international standards in general.

5. Sports Direct

Another global company that has struggled with its public image and perception, Sports Direct - and, in particular, its controversial owner, Mike Ashley - have repeatedly come under fire for dubious employment practices; the UK-based clothing and sports equipment giant can now add child labour to its charge sheet.

The company's Lonsdale clothing line - a key part of Sports Direct's public brand - is produced in factories in Myanmar, with testimonies from workers detailing how the practice is rife. The company doesn't seem too bothered, though, describing the workers' statements as 'anecdotal and uncorroborated', before later claiming to condemn child labour practices.

Grab your FREE career planner

6. British American Tobacco (BAT)

Glassdoor

Despite being the biggest listed tobacco company in the world (Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Rothmans are among its brands), BAT has faced numerous accusations of enabling child labour practices; in 2016, reports surfaced of children working in hostile conditions on BAT tobacco farms in Bangladesh, something that the company stringently refutes.

In spite of their protestations, concern is still present over the welfare of children and their labour use on BAT's tobacco farms all over the world; Marty Otanez, an academic at the University of Colorado, claims that child labour is present 'in every segment [of] the tobacco production process', and that BAT see any proposed changes as a threat to their annual profit sheets. The company itself, meanwhile, is happy to continue turning a blind eye, despite the accusations put to them; speaking at its AGM in April 2018, chairman Richard Burrows claimed that BAT has 'not got any questions to answer in respect of these issues'.

7. Apple

Apple has cultivated a reputation as an innovative brand, always at the forefront of technology and a dream job for many graduates and interns. But, perhaps unsurprisingly for a company that produces so many units, questions have been raised about what exactly goes on in its supply chain; following the discovery that a Chinese contractor was employing 74 minors in 2013, the company also admitted that its bestselling iPhone X product was being made by schoolchildren.

There were fresh claims in October 2018, too, of school students under the age of 18 being made to manufacture Apple Watches under the guise of a company 'internship'. The contractor in question, based in southwest China, also manufactures products for other tech giants such as Dell, Amazon and Siemens. The company says that it wants to end all child labour practices, although its contractors are still permitted to hire 'interns' to work in such a way.

8. New Look

Penny Cross / Plymouth Herald

The UK-based fashion retailer is also involved in the Myanmar factory scandals that have bought H&M and Sports Direct into disrepute; unlike its competitors, though, New Look is at least willing to accept that there is an issue and have pledged to 'work with suppliers and partners in Myanmar to address the findings'. This includes a remediation programme in which underage workers are removed from factories, returned to school and reimbursed with a similar wage.

The company also claims to have let their suppliers know that they are 'against' the use of Uzbek raw cotton due to child labour exploitation there, although by their own admission, they still place responsibility for the investigation of cotton sourcing in the hands of their contractors - not themselves.

9. JTI

Glassdoor

Japan Tobacco International (JTI) are also involved in the child labour cases involving tobacco farmers in Malawi; unlike their competitors, though, JTI buys the tobacco leaf directly, meaning it has a key say in the prices that are set and the conditions that workers operate in. In the Guardian's June 2018 report, researchers found that children work at their family's behest on the tobacco farms, a practice that is condoned by JTI (and other leaf buyers) with the justification that 'handling dried tobacco is not considered as hazardous [as working with wet leaves]'.

Indeed, according to the report, JTI (and BAT) consider it not just acceptable, but even beneficial, for children between 13 and 15 to work on the farms, provided it is 'light work, permitted by local law'. It also points out that its internal ARISE scheme has removed more than 39,000 children from labour exploitation across the world.

10. Hershey's

Like Nestlé, the US-based confectionary giant, Hershey's, has run into serious labour explotation problems on their west African cocoa farms; like Nestlé, they are also now facing legal action for their practices from Dannell Tomasella, who has also targeted Mars. Tomasella's lawsuit - filed, as with the Nestlé case, by law firm Hagens Berman - claims that Hershey's have repeatedly abandoned any serious attempt to implement the Harkin-Engel Protocol of which they are signatories, resulting in widespread child labour practices on their supply farms.

The company, which sells popular confectionary including Kit Kats, Peppermint Patties and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, argues that it 'does not tolerate, and is committed to preventing, child labour across the entire supply chain', but according to Tomasella and his legal advisors, Hershey's is simply not doing enough.

Child labour remains one of the biggest issues of our time and while international humanitarian companies might be doing their best to turn things around, many companies continue to fund cheap labour and sweatshops in the production of their goods. While amnesty groups draw attention to the very worst cases, there is still an alarming rate going on and if we really want to make a change, we should pay attention to the products we buy, and the factories we fund as a result.

Join the conversation! Are there any companies that you think should be added to the list? Let us know in the comments section below.

Any views or opinions expressed within this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of CareerAddict and/or DeltaQuest Media Ltd. This article is an updated version of an earlier article originally published on 10 October 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Companies that Still Use Child Labour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You'll be shocked to learn that some of your favourite companies are using child labour. #ChildLabour

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our editors curate highly rated brands that are first assessed by our rigorous ratings system. Buying through our links may earn us a commission-supporting the work we do. Nike is one of the most popular activewear brands in the world, so just how ethical is Nike? Our research shows the brand is making a start, but the sportswear giant still has work to do across the board. In this article, we dive into the brand's "It's a Start" rating, which was published in May 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory. Learn more.
What's going on behind the Swoosh

Though it seems everybody has at least one pair of Nikes, that popularity has come in spite of a lot of ethical concerns raised throughout the brand's history. While it's known for its inspiring advertising that reflects the diversity of people in sports, the Just Do It brand has also come under fire in the past for links to sweatshops and unethical manufacturing.

So how does this brand rate today when it comes to its treatment of people, the planet, and animals? How ethical and sustainable is activewear brand Nike? Here's what Good On You's analysts found in their recent re-rating.

Nike sweatshops and its brand image

Nike had been accused of using sweatshops to produce its sneakers and activewear since the 1970s, but the issues really came into the spotlight in 1991 when activist Jeff Ballinger published a report detailing the low wages and poor working conditions in Nike's Indonesian factories. Soon after, the brand came under fire and became the subject of a sustained campaign by United Students Against Sweatshops .

Nike was initially slow to respond in the '90s-but under increasing pressure, it eventually made some changes by improving its monitoring efforts, raising the minimum age of workers, and increasing factory audits.

Since then, the brand has earned plaudits for many of its efforts. In 2016, for example, Business of Fashion reported that Nike has successfully transformed its tarnished image to become a "recognised sustainability leader." Morgan Stanley even ranked Nike "the most sustainable apparel and footwear company in North America for environmental and social performance, including its labour record."

While that all sounds like progress, is this actually the case?

Steps forward, steps backwards

Though Nike has successfully improved its reputation and has become a top-selling activewear brand globally, many of its practices are still problematic.

In 2017, Nike took a big step backwards, as the ). This move effectively blocked labour rights experts from independently monitoring Nike's supplier factories. In 2021 and 2022 Nike received a 51-60% score in International Labor Rights Forum reported that the company had turned its back on its commitment to the Worker Rights Consortium ( the Fashion Transparency Index (in the same scoring range as the previous year), suggested it started going in the right direction again for transparency.

But in May 2023, Nike was hit with a class action lawsuit over "greenwashed" sustainability claims. "The 47-page 'greenwashing' lawsuit charges broadly that Nike has illegally attempted to capitalise on consumers' preference for 'green' products by falsely claiming that certain apparel tagged with 'sustainable' claims and marketed as supporting the retailer's waste- and carbon-reducing 'Move to Zero' initiative are, unbeknownst to the public, made from non-biodegradable plastic-based materials," reports ClassAction.org.

It's like Nike is in an on-again-off-again relationship with doing the right thing, begging for some stability.

Environmental impact

We rate Nike "It's a Start" for the planet. Though Nike has made a few positive changes to its environmental practices and is a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition , it still has a way to go before it can truly be called a more sustainable brand. Nike uses some lower-impact materials, including organic and recycled cotton. The brand has also set a deadline to eliminate hazardous chemicals by 2025 and the good news is that it's on track to meet its target. But w hile Nike has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its operations and supply chain, there is no evidence it is on track to meet that target. And there's no evidence it's taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.

Labour conditions

Nike's labour rating is also "It's a Start". Though the brand has focused on female empowerment and inclusiveness in its advertising campaigns, the women who work for Nike-from factories to headquarters-are seemingly left out of this picture. In 2018, Nike was sued by two former female employees who accused the sneaker giant of creating a culture of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.

On a positive note, the company is Fair Labor Association (FLA) Workplace Code of Conduct certified. It also implements practices to encourage diversity and inclusion in some of its supply chain, and it disclosed adequate policies to protect suppliers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19 during the heights of the pandemic (though not workers).

The Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l'Etiquette shows just how far Nike has to go when it comes to living wages. It highlights the difference between the ever-increasing amount of money paid on sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared to the reduction of the share of the final price of your sports gear paid to workers in the supply chain. The report calls on both Nike and Adidas to commit to paying living wages across their supply chains by a specific date and other supporting action. Read more about living wages for garment workers here .

In previous ratings of Nike, we couldn't find evidence the brand ensured payment of a living wage in most of its supply chain. When we reviewed the brand in May 2023, we found that Nike now claims to have a program to improve wages but found no evidence it indeed ensures its workers are paid living wages in most of its supply chain.

Animal welfare

Nike does not use fur or angora in its products, which may not be that surprising given its activewear category. However, it does use wool, down, exotic animal skin, shearling, exotic animal hair, and silk without specifying sources. It uses some recycled leather in its leather products. This lack of transparency is problematic as the welfare of animals and workers is unknown. Because of this, we have given the brand a rating of "Not Good Enough" for animal welfare and hope for more progress soon.

Overall rating: 'It's a Start'

So, how sustainable is Nike? Overall, we rate Nike "It's a Start" based on information from our own research. Though Nike has a few promising environmental measures in place, it's clear that the company is not doing as much as it should and needs to make serious changes in most areas. With an annual revenue of over $46.7bn in 2022 , the sportswear giant can certainly afford it.

Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand's performance. For more information, see our page and our .

See the rating.

Good swaps

If you love the Nike vibe but prefer to support brands doing "Good" or "Great", we've rounded up some more sustainable alternatives to Nike for you below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not so long ago the Nike image was synonymous with sweatshops and unethical manufacturing. So how does the brand rate today? How ethical is Nike?