Tech Giants sued over child labor deaths in cobalt mining

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm not sure vexatious litigation that is more likely to be a stunt to promote donations to the 'cause' than a legitimate effort at helping the kids in the Congo really counts as "holding companies accountable", myself. Certainly you want to pressure these companies, but this isn't a method that's going to be viewed as serious.

I'm not sure this type of lawsuit is necessarily the best vehicle either, but it's something. Sometimes the simple act of garnering enough attention to a terrible practice is enough to set the wheels in motion. It's certainly better than ignoring it and waving it away as frivolous.

Although it's not a perfect comparison, Sarbanes Oxley held major corporations accountable for shady practices that had been going on for years and were often seen as baked into the system. It's wasn't until the Worldcom and Enron scandals that there was enough political will to do something about it. But political will doesn't manifest from nowhere. More often than not pressure has to be brought to politicians who would otherwise be comfortable with the status quo, particularly if it meant that lobbying and contributions were involved to maintain the status quo, as is often the case.

Also, as far as being willing to pay more for a more ethical smart phone, here's the key question: how much more? Because we're not talking about raising the price by a few dollars. We're talking about a few hundred dollars. Or more. And if we're being honest with ourselves, if Samsung and Apple felt they could get away with asking $4-500 more for a phone, they'd already be doing it, with or without any justification of ethics.

You may be right. But I'm guessing that your estimated numbers are based on the tech giants continuing to maximize their profits with the additional cost risks passed directly to the consumer. Why should that be the case? Why can't there be legislation that, at a minimum, doesn't allow the enforcement of basic human rights to be covered by the consumer? If a company can't make a profitable product without violating human rights than they shouldn't be in business.

The US used slaves for the textile industry for almost a hundred years and there were straight-faced arguments at the time that abolishing slavery would make cotton unaffordable for the average American. Now some multi-nationals have exported the modern version of slavery to far-away, out-of-sight, poorer corners of the world. They've rebranded them as "low cost centres" that help these poor nations build their middle-class while conveniently making shareholders more profit but inconveniently destroying the manufacturing base (and middle class) in the west. Putting aside for a moment that this is an unethical practice, it is also unsustainable in the long run. When multi-nationals first moved East, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, Korea and others were the low cost centres until they became too expensive and it moved to China. We're likely to see a lot of manufacturing move from China to India and Africa as working conditions are forced to improve, wages rise and profits fall. Eventually, we will run out of poor #### hole countries to take advantage of to pay $1.50 less for a fidget spinner.

I think a lot of people would pay substantially more for what has become an indispensable part of our lives.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by jayswin

No, I think Table5 has it right. It's not that someone shopping at Walmart or trampling old ladies to save $20 can't afford to spend $10 more for one product for ethical reasons. Almost everyone could.

The real issue is that everyone feels entitled to own everything that is awesome. If a person can choose between these scenarios of completely unnecessary, but convenient/fun products...

a) two $100 items, well crafted, locally produced and sold, will last awhile or;
b) three $33 items, cheap, delivered to the door tomorrow and you have THREE THINGS that you want for $100

85% of the lower/middle class is going for option A. The way she goes boys, the way she goes.

I'd agree.

Aside, the sort of places that sell local, homegrown, fairtrade, [insert more socially/environmentally responsible buzzwords here] wares know who their demographic is; people of means who can afford to pay for it as a way of feeling good about their purchases.

The rub here is that most people often view paying an excessive amount for something that could otherwise be acquired for a lesser sum of money as pretentious and absurd. For example, who in their right mind would pay the equivalent of $40 for a pound of ground coffee no matter how ethical / sustainable / etc. it is, when you can buy a pound of generic ground coffee for as low as $7 at Walmart? (I buy Kicking Horse "Smart Ass" for my ground coffee, so there's your answer where I'm concerned.)

On one hand, you have people who would say that regularly supporting a business like Walmart is socially irresponsible for their questionable ethical record. On the other, you have people that would say spending more money on something than you need to is wasteful and excessive and you can get the same thing at Walmart for cheaper.

[GGG]

I think the problem is that the middle has been carved out.

You could ethically manufacture reasonable quality goods for a reasonable price. If you applied Walmart supply chain but paid a fair price for labour the price of everything doesn’t double.

Right now you have this ethical / craft market that uses inefficient means of production and charges a premium. If instead you just had minimum labour standards for goods to be sold in Canada capitalism and competition would drive down the price.

[bizaro86]

I agree large businesses have supplier verifications. But in the case of batteries for electronics, they probably verify the supplier's practices. Then they ask where the cobalt came from, and the supplier says, we bought it from the London Metals Exchange. It came out of a giant warehouse full of physically indistinguishable cobalt...

[Red Slinger]

You can ask for material certification for wood, steel or just about any material. Doesn't mean it's accurate necessarily but that can also be verified. It boils down to a matter of political will.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

You can ask for material certification for wood, steel or just about any material. Doesn't mean it's accurate necessarily but that can also be verified. It boils down to a matter of political will.

Sure, but LME metals are fungible. You have a warehouse receipt, you can take out that quantity. Since they are all exactly the same, they will give you what they have, with no indication where it came from originally.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I think this is also the ESG movement (using techniques honed on oil and gas) starting to broaden their reach.

At the end of the day there are a lot of processes used to create goods for consumers where the negative externalities (eg slave labour, pollution) have been left out of the final price. If we want a capitalist economy that doesn’t collapse for ethics or environmental reasons there needs to be transparency about these externalities and the cost of addressing needs to be included in the prices.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

You may be right. But I'm guessing that your estimated numbers are based on the tech giants continuing to maximize their profits with the additional cost risks passed directly to the consumer. Why should that be the case? Why can't there be legislation that, at a minimum, doesn't allow the enforcement of basic human rights to be covered by the consumer? If a company can't make a profitable product without violating human rights than they shouldn't be in business.

It would be the case because that's how it works. Pricing is set based on the supply/demand curve. Driving the price up considerably will reduce demand considerably. Or, if they can't raise prices, then the handsets become unprofitable and that's an excellent way to kill a product line - or drive the company out of the industry.

I think a lot of people would pay substantially more for what has become an indispensable part of our lives.

For a phone, maybe. But what about the hundreds of other products we buy from these places? We're talking, without hyperbole, about a massive price shock and perhaps even a partial or total collapse of our economy.

Society might speak a good game on this front, but I think it's a lot like so many other things - we all think that someone else will face the consequences while our own world continues relatively unchanged.