Apple Inc. is one of the world’s most valuable companies, but it has also faced significant ethical criticisms across various domains. Below is an overview of major areas of concern, each with key points and examples backed by public reports and investigations.
Environmental Practices
- Electronic Waste and Repairability: Apple is praised for reducing hazardous chemicals and using renewable energy, but it is criticized for the short lifespan and low repairability of its products, which contribute to e-waste . The company long opposed “right to repair” legislation, effectively forcing customers to rely on Apple for fixes. Critics say this stance encourages a throw-away culture and high repair costs, exacerbating e-waste . (Apple only recently began offering a self-repair program under public pressure, but activists note it is limited in scope.)
- Carbon Footprint and Resource Use: Apple has pledged to use 100% renewable energy for its own operations and touts recycling initiatives (like its Liam/Daisy recycling robots). However, skeptics question its overall sustainability record. Manufacturing and shipping of iPhones and Macs (mostly in Asia) leave a substantial carbon footprint and rely on non-renewable raw materials. Apple has been commended for climate efforts, yet also accused of “wasteful use of raw materials” in its product cycles . The removal of chargers from iPhone boxes, for example, was presented as an eco-friendly move, but drew criticism as a cost-saving measure that shifts burden to consumers.
- Opposition to Right-to-Repair: Apple’s tight control over parts and repairs is seen as both an environmental and consumer harm. The company uses proprietary parts and software locks that thwart independent repairs, and it has aggressively lobbied against right-to-repair bills . This practice drives up repair costs and often makes fixing devices uneconomical, pushing consumers to replace devices more frequently. Sustainability researchers argue that Apple’s repair monopoly perpetuates a “culture of throw-away electronics” contrary to environmental ideals .
- Regulatory Fines for Environmental Violations: Apple has been penalized by authorities for environmental missteps. In 2016, it paid a $450,000 fine to settle U.S. EPA allegations of hazardous electronic waste mishandling . The company was also fined for air-quality violations at a California facility . More recently, in June 2024, a U.S. EPA report flagged 19 potential violations of environmental regulations at an Apple manufacturing plant in Santa Clara, California . These incidents suggest gaps between Apple’s public environmental commitments and on-the-ground practices.
Labor Practices (Factories and Working Conditions)
- Working Conditions at Suppliers (Foxconn and Others): Apple’s reliance on offshore manufacturing, especially in China, has brought intense criticism over factory labor conditions. Its main manufacturing partner, Foxconn, became notorious in 2010 when a spate of worker suicides drew attention to punishing 12-hour workdays, overcrowded dorms, and harsh management. In 2010 alone, 18 suicide attempts were recorded at Foxconn’s Shenzhen site, with 14 confirmed deaths . Investigations revealed excessive overtime and sweatshop-like conditions that human rights groups likened to “labor camps.” At least one Foxconn worker who died by suicide had been interrogated over a lost iPhone prototype, highlighting pressure from Apple’s secretive culture .
- Labor Rights Violations and Audits: Audits of Apple’s supply chain have consistently found widespread labor violations. A review reported by The Guardian found two-thirds of Apple’s inspected factories were failing to pay proper overtime or meet safety and environmental standards, and even discovered several 15-year-old underage workers employed at these sites . Although Apple has a Supplier Code of Conduct and publishes annual labor progress reports, critics note that problems — excessive working hours, underpayment, and workplace hazards — remain persistent. Apple’s dominance in the supply chain allows it to capture a majority of product value, while the factory workers who assemble iPhones often earn less than 2% of an iPhone’s sale price , raising questions of equity and exploitation.
- Child Labor and Slow Enforcement: Apple has faced allegations of child labor in its supplier factories. Notably, a 2020 investigative report found that Apple took three years to cut ties with a Chinese supplier caught using underage labor, indicating reluctance to swiftly enforce its ethics policies when they conflicted with production needs . The same year, Apple was named in an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report as potentially benefiting from forced Uyghur labor in China, via suppliers that participated in government labor transfer programs . Apple even lobbied against the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the U.S. (a bill barring products made with forced labor from Xinjiang), which drew heavy criticism from human rights advocates .
- Worker Suicides and Mental Health: The pressure-cooker environment in some Apple-linked factories has had tragic human costs. Besides the Foxconn suicides, media reports over the years have described employees collapsing from exhaustion and reports of others driven to self-harm. These incidents put a spotlight on Apple’s accountability for the human toll behind its sleek devices. While Apple did press suppliers to improve conditions after public outcry – for instance, it joined the Fair Labor Association to audit factories – progress has been mixed, and labor rights groups continue to report abuses.
- Recent Incidents (India Factory Riot): Labor issues are not confined to China. In December 2020, thousands of workers at a Wistron iPhone plant in India rioted over unpaid wages and abusive conditions. The unrest caused millions in property damage. Apple’s investigation found Wistron had violated its labor standards – workers were not paid for months and labor laws (on work hours and overtime for women) were breached . Apple put Wistron on probation, acknowledging failures in oversight. The episode illustrated that Apple’s rapid production expansions (in this case, a factory workforce doubling beyond what infrastructure could support) sometimes outpace proper labor compliance, resulting in serious worker mistreatment .
Supply Chain Sourcing and Transparency
- Conflict Minerals and Cobalt Mining: Apple’s products depend on minerals like tin, tantalum, tungsten, gold, and cobalt, which often originate in regions plagued by conflict and child labor. A 2016 Amnesty International report linked Apple to cobalt suppliers in the Democratic Republic of Congo using child labor (with some miners as young as 7) . In response, Apple announced it would temporarily stop buying cobalt from such sources until conditions improved , and it joined industry programs to certify “conflict-free” minerals. However, progress has been difficult. Families of child miners harmed in Congo filed a lawsuit in 2019 against Apple and other tech companies over profiteering from dangerous mines, though the case was dismissed on procedural grounds . Critics say that, despite Apple’s policies on responsible sourcing, the company cannot fully guarantee that its supply chain is free of child labor or forced labor.
- Responsible Minerals Initiative – Efficacy Issues: Apple is a member of the industry’s Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), pledging to audit and improve conditions at mineral suppliers. Yet investigative reporting in 2023 (by The Independent) found ongoing horrific abuses in tech supply chains, including mines supplying Apple . Reported issues ranged from miners (including children) being buried alive in pit collapses to workers suffering birth defects from toxic exposure . The RMI’s auditing was revealed to be largely paperwork-based with no site inspections, even when aware of grievous conditions . A leading researcher on modern slavery, Siddharth Kara, concluded that “not much of merit” is being done by companies (Apple included) to genuinely assist Congolese communities affected by cobalt mining . This raises ethical concerns that Apple’s vaunted supplier audits may amount to more box-checking than effective action on the ground.
- Supplier Responsibility and Transparency: Apple does publish an annual Supplier Responsibility Report and a list of its top 200 suppliers, touting commitments to workplace standards and environmental goals. It claims to terminate contracts with suppliers that consistently violate policies. However, transparency advocates argue Apple’s disclosures can be selective. For example, Apple generally does not reveal the full findings of third-party factory audits or name all offending facilities. The imbalance of power in Apple’s supply chain is often noted: Apple captures over half the value of an iPhone, whereas the laborers and local communities bear more of the social and environmental costs . This dynamic invites scrutiny of whether Apple is using its influence sufficiently to improve conditions. Some improvements (like Apple requiring smelters to be audited for “conflict-free” certification) have been made, but serious ethical questions remain about labor rights and environmental degradation deep down the supply chain.
- Rare Earths and Raw Materials: Apple also depends on rare earth elements (for components like magnets and cameras) mainly mined in China, a process infamous for pollution and weak labor protections. While not as publicized as conflict minerals, this reliance creates ethical dilemmas. In 2023, China’s export curbs on rare earths spurred Apple to invest in recycling and sourcing these materials from outside China, which might mitigate some harms. Still, the overall resource intensity of producing millions of new devices annually is seen as at odds with sustainability – an issue Apple is beginning to address by increasing recycled content, but one in which critics demand greater transparency and faster action.
Privacy and Surveillance Concerns
- Government Surveillance (PRISM Program): Apple markets itself as a privacy-forward company (e.g. “Privacy. That’s iPhone.” campaigns), but it hasn’t escaped allegations of aiding government surveillance. In 2013, leaked NSA documents (via Edward Snowden) listed Apple as a participant in the NSA’s secret PRISM program that allowed direct government access to user data hosted by U.S. tech firms . According to the leaks, Apple joined PRISM in 2012, enabling the NSA to collect data from Apple’s servers (reportedly including emails, photos, and cloud-stored content) without individual warrants. U.S. officials later confirmed the program’s existence . Apple vehemently denied knowing about PRISM , but the incident raised transparency issues – critics argued that Apple either complied with broad government data requests or failed to safeguard user data aggressively enough. This was at odds with its public stance that it protects customer information.
- Censorship and Compliance in China: Apple has been sharply criticized for bending its rules to appease authorities in China and other authoritarian countries, in ways that undermine user rights. In China, Apple stores iCloud user data on servers operated by a state-affiliated firm, which means data of Chinese users are accessible under Chinese law – privacy advocates see this as effectively handing user data to government censors. Apple has also removed or restricted apps at government request: for example, it banned VPN apps from the China App Store (making it harder for users to bypass internet censorship) and in 2022 even limited the AirDrop file-sharing feature (used by Chinese protesters to communicate) by adding time limits, right before major protests broke out . During the 2019 Hong Kong pro-democracy protests, Apple infamously pulled the HKmap.live app (which helped protesters track police activity) from the App Store under government pressure, prompting bipartisan U.S. criticism that Apple was enabling Chinese repression . Apple has also filtered content to align with government demands – e.g. disabling the Taiwan flag emoji in China, refusing engravings on products that include words like “democracy” in certain regions, and removing a popular Quran app in China at the government’s request . These actions have led to charges that Apple’s commitment to human rights takes a backseat to its business interests in large markets.
- “Privacy by Design” Doubts: Despite Apple’s pro-privacy features (such as end-to-end encryption for iMessage and FaceTime, and App Tracking Transparency for apps), critics argue that Apple is not above reproach in how it collects and uses data. A 2019 article in The Atlantic accused Apple of “empty grandstanding” on privacy – claiming that while CEO Tim Cook publicly decries data exploitation, Apple quietly benefits from data collection and default agreements that users may not fully grasp . For instance, Apple’s own targeted advertising system and stock apps do gather user data (though Apple says it’s anonymized). There have also been whistleblower reports of Apple’s analytics data not being as private as advertised, and that Apple’s claims of differential privacy may mask the extent of data collection. While not on the scale of companies like Google or Facebook, Apple’s practices have still drawn scrutiny under privacy regulations like Europe’s GDPR.
- Controversial Device Scanning Plans: A major recent privacy uproar came in 2021 when Apple announced plans to roll out client-side scanning of user content for safety reasons. One proposed feature would scan photos in users’ iCloud Photo libraries for matches to databases of known child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Apple insisted it devised this system with privacy “wrappers” (using hashes and multiple thresholds before a human review). Nevertheless, security experts and civil liberties groups worldwide blasted the plan as a dangerous backdoor that could be repurposed for mass surveillance . Over 90 organizations (led by EFF) wrote an open letter warning that authoritarian governments could exploit on-device scanning to search for political or religious content rather than CSAM . Apple faced an unprecedented backlash from its own users and privacy advocates (“Don’t scan our phones!” became a rallying cry ). Ultimately, Apple first delayed and then in late 2022 quietly canceled the CSAM scanning rollout . While many praised this reversal, the episode raised concerns that Apple was willing to compromise its once-strong stance on device encryption under pressure from law enforcement or political forces.
- Voice Assistant and Audio Privacy: Apple has also been caught in privacy scandals regarding Siri, its voice assistant. In 2019, a whistleblower who had worked for an Apple contractor revealed that Siri recordings were routinely sent to human reviewers for “grading” without users’ knowledge or consent. These recordings – some containing sensitive personal conversations or audio accidentally triggered by Siri – were meant to be confidential. The whistleblower characterized the program as a violation of the privacy of “millions” of users . This revelation (first reported by The Guardian) forced Apple to halt the program and issue an apology. Apple later updated iOS to require an explicit opt-in if users agree to share Siri audio snippets with Apple for improvement. Nevertheless, the incident underscored that even Apple had been eavesdropping on users in the name of quality control, and it drew comparisons to similar practices by Amazon Alexa and Google Assistant. Privacy critics argue that Apple should have been more transparent about this human review process from the start.
- Global Compliance vs. User Privacy: More broadly, Apple walks a fine line in various countries’ regulatory environments. In Russia, for example, Apple has complied with laws requiring pre-installation of certain state-approved apps, and in 2019 it adjusted its Maps and Weather apps to show Crimea as part of Russia for Russian users – a move condemned by Ukraine and others as validating an illegal annexation . Each such case invites ethical debate: is Apple simply following local laws, or is it sacrificing principles and user rights? Detractors claim Apple’s immense market power should be leveraged to push back on draconian rules, not acquiesce; Apple responds that it must obey laws in the countries where it operates. These incidents collectively tarnish Apple’s image as a champion of privacy and freedom of information.
Antitrust and Competitive Practices
- App Store Monopoly Allegations: Apple’s control over the iOS ecosystem – particularly its App Store – has led to repeated accusations of monopolistic behavior. Developers have long complained that Apple’s de facto monopoly on app distribution to iPhones (via the App Store, which is the only allowed channel) lets it charge exorbitant commissions (30% on sales) and impose unfair rules. One such rule was a strict anti-steering provision that forbade apps from even informing users of cheaper purchase options outside the App Store. In 2024, the EU’s competition regulators concluded that Apple abused its dominant market position with these App Store policies, especially harming music streaming rivals (like Spotify). The European Commission fined Apple a record €1.84 billion for the anti-steering rules and other abusive terms imposed on streaming apps . Around the same time, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a major antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company unlawfully maintains a monopoly in the smartphone app market by restricting third-party app stores and payment systems. The DOJ’s March 2024 complaint argues that Apple’s technical and contractual barriers (e.g. blocking other app stores or in-app payment processors) stifle competition and harm consumers by raising prices . Apple denies wrongdoing and is fighting the case, but the bipartisan momentum globally suggests serious regulatory challenges to Apple’s App Store model.
- Epic Games v. Apple and Ecosystem Lock-In: Developer frustration with Apple’s policies boiled over in the Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit in 2020. Epic (maker of Fortnite) deliberately violated Apple’s in-app purchase rules to provoke a legal test of Apple’s control. In a 2021 ruling, a U.S. judge stopped short of calling Apple a monopoly, but did find Apple’s anti-steering rule anti-competitive and ordered it changed. (Both sides have appealed parts of the ruling.) The high-profile case put a spotlight on Apple’s walled garden ecosystem: Apple ties its App Store, iOS operating system, and payment system closely together, making it hard for users or developers to avoid Apple’s terms . Critics argue this lock-in is anti-consumer – for instance, services like cloud gaming or alternative app stores are barred on iOS, and Apple favors its own apps by pre-installing them and forbidding rivals from deep integration. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions (EU’s Digital Markets Act, U.S. state-level bills, etc.) are pursuing rules to loosen Apple’s grip, such as requiring allowance of third-party app installation. Apple is resisting, claiming that its closed system ensures security and privacy. The tension between user choice and Apple’s control is at the heart of these antitrust debates.
- No-Poach Agreements: Apple’s competitive practices have been questioned not only in product markets but also in the labor market. In the late 2000s, Apple (under Steve Jobs) secretly entered into “no-poaching” agreements with other Silicon Valley giants (like Google) to not recruit each other’s engineers. This collusion suppressed software engineers’ job mobility and wages. When the pact came to light, the U.S. DOJ investigated, and a class-action on behalf of affected employees followed. In 2015 Apple and its co-defendants paid a $415 million settlement to resolve claims they had violated antitrust laws by conspiring to avoid competing for talent . The New York Times called the arrangement “embarrassing” and a blatant case of companies putting their interests over employees’ rights . This episode highlighted that Apple’s zeal for control extended to its hiring practices, raising ethical concerns about how it values its (and its competitors’) workers.
- Patent Litigation and “Sherlocking”: Apple has also been criticized for anti-competitive use of patents and for copying or shutting out smaller competitors – sometimes referred to as “Sherlocking” (after Apple infamously copied a small developer’s app idea for its macOS “Sherlock” tool). The company has aggressively enforced its intellectual property, at times in sweeping ways. For example, Apple has tried to trademark common words and icons (from “App Store” to a logo of a generic apple image used by a school district) . It has sent cease-and-desist letters to small businesses and app developers whose branding or functionality it deemed too close to Apple’s. While protecting IP is legal, Apple’s tactics (described as corporate “bullying” by some media ) strike many as unethical when used to intimidate far smaller entities. Additionally, critics point out that Apple frequently takes “inspiration” from popular third-party apps by building similar features into iOS – disadvantaging those developers. The EU and US regulators have noted how Apple’s dual role as App Store gatekeeper and app competitor (with services like Apple Music, Apple Books, etc.) can lead to conflicts of interest and self-preferencing.
- Vendor Lock-In and Consumer Choice: A related ethical critique is how Apple’s product design locks consumers into its ecosystem. From proprietary Lightning connectors (until recently) and exclusive apps, to services like iMessage that work best among Apple devices, Apple is known for strong “vendor lock-in.” This strategy, while legal, draws ethical criticism for limiting consumer freedom and interoperability. For years Apple also discouraged independent repair or third-party replacements (like unofficial iPhone batteries), using software to show “warnings” or disable features if non-Apple components were used. Such practices have been condemned as anti-competitive and anti-consumer, leading some governments to consider right-to-repair and interoperability regulations. Apple has begun loosening some restrictions (e.g., moving to USB-C ports after EU legislation, planning to allow third-party app stores on iOS in 2024 to comply with the EU Digital Markets Act), but only under regulatory pressure. The ethical question persists whether Apple’s closed ecosystem is just savvy business or an unfair stranglehold on consumers and innovators.
Other Ethical Issues (Tax Practices, Pay Equity, Consumer Rights)
- Tax Avoidance and Offshore Profits: Apple has been repeatedly spotlighted as a symbol of corporate tax avoidance. The company has used complex corporate structures in Ireland and other low-tax jurisdictions to shelter profits from taxation. In 2016, the European Commission found that Apple’s arrangements in Ireland (often dubbed the “Double Irish” scheme) were unlawful – Apple had been routing profits through Irish subsidiaries that paid almost no tax, amounting to €13 billion in unpaid taxes over a decade . The EU ordered Ireland to collect this €13B (plus interest) from Apple as back taxes for receiving illegal state aid; Apple and Ireland have appealed the order, and the case remains under legal dispute. In the United States, a 2013 Senate investigation revealed that Apple had accumulated an astonishing $102 billion in earnings offshore that were untaxed by the U.S. (this grew to over $200 billion in later years) . At one point Apple was holding more cash offshore than any other American company, exploiting loopholes to make some subsidiaries technically “stateless” for tax purposes. These tactics, while often legal, have drawn ethical criticism from policymakers and the public who argue Apple is free-riding on public infrastructure and avoiding civic responsibility. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook has defended the company by saying Apple pays all taxes it owes under the law and that it should not be blamed for legal tax structures. Nonetheless, Apple’s extreme measures (such as shifting intellectual property rights to Jersey when Ireland closed certain loopholes) have made it a poster child in debates over fair taxation. The broader ethical issue is whether a company should aggressively minimize taxes – potentially depriving governments of revenue for social services – when it is also one of the world’s wealthiest firms. Apple’s case helped spur international efforts to crack down on profit-shifting by multinationals.
- Executive Compensation and Inequality: The pay packages of Apple’s top executives have occasionally raised eyebrows, especially given the contrast with its rank-and-file workers and supply chain laborers. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook earned about $99.4 million in 2022, largely from stock awards . This level of pay was roughly 1,447 times the median Apple employee’s salary – a gap much higher than many firms. Proxy advisory firms like ISS criticized the “magnitude” of Cook’s pay and urged shareholders to vote against it, citing concerns that such outsized rewards were not sufficiently tied to performance . In early 2023, after Apple’s stock had a down year, shareholders expressed discontent and Apple’s board actually cut Tim Cook’s target compensation by 40–50% (down to ~$49 million for 2023) . Cook himself reportedly suggested the pay cut to show responsiveness to investor feedback. While Apple has defended its executive pay by pointing to the company’s extraordinary success under those leaders, the episode highlights an ethical discussion around income inequality. When the CEO earns in a day what an average employee might earn in a year, some argue this disparity is morally troubling – especially at a company that prides itself on good values. Apple’s executive pay has generally been in line with other tech giants, but the company’s huge profits and cash reserves put it under pressure to justify how it distributes the rewards of its success.
- Consumer Rights and Planned Obsolescence: Apple has faced accusations that it deliberately designs or updates products in a way that shortens their useful life, to drive upgrade sales – a practice known as planned obsolescence. The most famous instance was the “batterygate” scandal. In 2017, users discovered Apple had been quietly throttling the performance of older iPhone models via iOS software updates (purportedly to prevent unexpected shutdowns due to aging batteries). Apple had not informed customers, who for years thought their phones were simply becoming slow, often prompting them to buy new devices. When this came to light, it sparked public outrage and legal action. Apple apologized and offered discounted battery replacements, but regulators stepped in as well. In 2018, Italy’s antitrust authority fined Apple €10 million for this practice, calling it an unfair commercial strategy that “significantly reduced” device performance and pushed consumers toward new iPhones . French prosecutors also investigated Apple for planned obsolescence, leading to a €25 million fine in 2020 for failing to inform consumers that iOS updates could slow their phones . Apple ultimately settled U.S. class-action lawsuits by agreeing to pay up to $500 million to affected iPhone users. These penalties underscore that Apple’s secrecy about product issues violated consumers’ right to make informed decisions. Beyond batteries, consumer advocates have criticized other Apple practices as anti-consumer – for example, limiting availability of spare parts, soldering or gluing components in devices (making home repairs impossible), and restricting warranty coverage if a customer uses third-party repair services. In some countries, Apple’s warranty terms and refusal to service devices repaired by others have been deemed to run afoul of consumer protection laws. Right-to-repair proponents argue that people should have the freedom to fix products they own; Apple’s historical stance against this is seen as undermining that right. While Apple has made some concessions (providing repair manuals and parts to independent shops and consumers now), it still fights expansive right-to-repair legislation. The ethical criticism is that Apple’s profit motives (selling new hardware and services) can come at the direct expense of its customers’ financial interests and rights.
- Other Corporate Culture Issues: (Beyond the points above, Apple has also been critiqued in areas like employee relations and social impact. For example, Apple has been faulted for a lack of diversity in its leadership ranks and reports of a sexist culture that mishandled internal harassment complaints. Employees in the #AppleToo movement in 2021-2022 publicly accused Apple’s HR of downplaying serious workplace issues. Apple’s secrecy was also seen to stifle transparency around such problems. While these issues are more internal, they reflect on Apple’s ethical climate. Additionally, Apple’s aggressive legal tactics – from suing small repair shops over trademark issues to forcing leakers to cease and desist – have been characterized by some as corporate bullying. Though Apple defends the need to protect its intellectual property and maintain product surprise, the ethics of using a trillion-dollar company’s legal might against individuals or tiny firms is debated.)
References: The information above is drawn from publicly available reports and verifiable sources. Key references include investigations by journalists and NGOs, regulatory findings, and lawsuits. Notable sources are The Guardian (on supply chain labor audits) , The New York Times and Reuters (on antitrust cases and no-poach settlements) , CNET and Vice (on environmental practices and e-waste) , 404 Media and AP News (on EPA violations) , Amnesty International and The Independent (on mining and child labor) , Electronic Frontier Foundation (on the CSAM scanning controversy) , and official actions by regulators in the EU and U.S. (for example, EU Commission press releases on the App Store fine and U.S. court filings in the DOJ case against Apple ). These sources and others are cited inline to substantiate each point of criticism detailed in this report.