Still, by comparing Apple’s latest findings for its 15 categories of labor practices to the

results in its previous three annual reports, it is possible to draw some conclusions:

 The likelihood of various labor practice violations remains far too high. For
example, in more than 1 in 4 cases (28 percent), Apple itself finds that the
practices of its suppliers are not in compliance with its wage and benefit
standards. In nearly 4 in 10 cases (38 percent), supplier practices are not in
compliance with juvenile protection standards. In more than 4 in 10 cases
(41 percent), supplier practices fail to comply with ergonomic standards.
 There has been mixed progress in practices in the broader “labor and
human rights” category, with the most notable progress a sharp reduction in
the number of workers in Apple’s supply chain working more than 60 hours a
week (although Apple does not indicate how many workers have workweeks
that still exceed the legally relevant standard in China, which sets a
maximum limit of 49 hours a week; Apple’s own code of conduct makes
clear it is obligated to ensure that its suppliers obey the law).
 There has been no overall progress in practices related to health and safety.

In other words, this latest report confirms that many workers in Apple’s supply chain
continue to work in deplorable situations and that Apple has not yet spurred many of the
fundamental reforms necessary to protect workers’ basic rights.

In addition to the reduction in workweeks of more than 60 hours, this analysis also
discusses two other signs of claimed progress flagged by Apple’s most recent report:
large increases in the number of factory audits occurring and in the number of workers
undergoing training related to labor rights. The reported progress in all three areas may
be significantly less than appears at first blush.

Treat Apple’s report with caution

The information in Apple’s suppliers reports should be treated with great care, for
several reasons. First, the reports are not compiled in an independent manner. The
standard audits are carried out by Apple itself, and are directed by an Apple auditor.

Second, transparency and detailed information are lacking. The data are presented in
aggregate form, with very little information on how they are assembled and without
releasing the individual audits.
Third, the audits do not provide an accurate picture of certain practices. In the labor and
human rights area, for instance, in all four years the factories are scored as being near-
perfect when it comes to “freedom of association,” yet it is recognized by virtually all
observers that no such freedom exists in Apple’s factories in China, where the only legal
union is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Workers in China cannot organize
independent unions and usually have no voice or ability to change practices in their
workplace, including through collective bargaining.

Fourth, the reports include rhetorical claims that are both self-serving and inaccurate.
For example, Apple states in the latest report (in 20-point type), “If companies want to
do business with us, they must act fairly and ethically at all times.” Foxconn, Apple’s
largest supplier, has, by Apple’s own acknowledgment, engaged in a pattern of labor
rights violations for at least seven years, including rampant violations of overtime and
wage laws and failure to maintain safe working conditions. Foxconn has not acted “fairly
and ethically at all times” and yet it has been able to “do business” with Apple, year after
year, without interruption. The same is true of other Apple suppliers in whose factories
serious labor rights violations have been documented over the years. While the data
Apple provides in these reports have some probative value, rhetorical statements like
the one noted here should be ignored.

Last, since the number of Apple audits has increased significantly over time, the
sampled factories have changed over time. Thus the findings from year to year are not
precisely comparable.