IT Big Names Respond to Environmental Doubts: European Enterprises Are Disappointing

by kgtnhuuftn on 2010-05-12 12:47:02

Editorial Note: On April 29, our newspaper published an article titled "IT 'Big Names' Indifferent to Environmental Protection Under Fire," which drew widespread attention from readers. What is the stance of well-known IT companies towards the prevalent issue of heavy metal pollution and supply chain regulation in the industry? How do they respond to public doubts? Our reporter learned about the latest developments in the situation and followed up with a report for the benefit of the readers.

■ By Du Yueying, China Economic Times

Disappointing European Companies

From April 15, letters were sent to 29 domestic and international well-known IT companies, urging them to check and take seriously the issue of excessive heavy metal emissions from their suppliers. The main author of the "2010 IT Brand Supply Chain Heavy Metal Pollution Research Report" (hereinafter referred to as the "Report"), Ma Jun, Director of the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE), along with his 33 environmental NGOs partners began waiting. These 34 NGOs hoped that these companies would take the issue of heavy metal pollution seriously and communicate effectively with the public.

"There's some relief, but more regret," Ma Jun commented on May 4 when interviewed by China Economic Times regarding the responses of well-known IT brands to NGO inquiries.

The response from well-known IT brands was divided into two stages. By the time the "Report" was released on April 26, 9 out of 29 companies had responded. After the publication of the "Report", as of May 4, according to IPE statistics, categorized by country and region, Japanese and Chinese IT companies responded most positively among those from Japan, the United States, Europe, China, and South Korea. Among the 8 Japanese companies involved, 6 replied; among the 4 Chinese companies involved, 3 replied. Both Japanese and Chinese companies had a response rate of 75%.

American companies generally responded less enthusiastically. Among the 6 American companies involved, 3 replied; among the 2 South Korean companies involved, 1 replied, both having a response rate of 50%.

The most disappointing response came from European companies. "Their performance is very disappointing," Ma Jun introduced that strictly speaking, including IT giants such as Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, Siemens, etc., the direct reply rate from European companies was zero. Not a single company from Germany, France, Sweden, or the UK directly responded. The only response from Dutch Philips provided to the NGOs was an automatic email reply without substantial content, and there has been no further communication since then.

Divergent Responses

What impressed Ma Jun deeply were the divergent responses from these companies. He said that after the release of the "Report", HP and Hitachi showed relatively positive attitudes in their responses. The preliminary responses from TCL and Sharp also demonstrated the companies' emphasis on the issue of heavy metal pollution in the supply chain.

What puzzled Ma Jun the most was Sony's response. In its reply letter to the environmental organization, Sony stated that the 10 enterprises mentioned by the environmental organization as having exceeded heavy metal emission standards were "absolutely not its direct suppliers." Furthermore, if a secondary supplier of Sony was found to violate the "Sony Supplier Code of Conduct," Sony would collaborate with the primary supplier to demand rectification. However, Sony also admitted that due to the complexity of the supply chain, it did not have the capability to understand every link in the supply chain and did not possess a list of secondary suppliers. "This kind of supply chain environmental management policy sounds like Catch-22," Ma Jun compared, believing that this response was clearly self-contradictory.

However, Sony's response also highlighted that during the production process of IT products, many high-pollution procedures are subcontracted layer by layer. Some components heavily rely on trading companies for procurement, which then subcontract production again. As a result, companies find it difficult to clearly understand the composition of their supply chains and cannot effectively supervise their environmental responsibilities. "We suggest that IT brands first clearly understand which companies exist within their supply chains; otherwise, their promised environmental policies will inevitably be empty talk," Ma Jun said.

Avoiding Lead Pollution

Since 2009, lead pollution incidents have occurred successively in Liuyang, Hunan, Fengxiang, Shaanxi, and Shanghang, Fujian. The "Report" particularly focused on case companies involved in serious lead pollution incidents. However, as of the time of this report, only Singapore Telecom and Motorola had communicated directly with NGOs. Since April 22, Singapore Telecom has had no further communication, and Motorola’s response on May 4 was still: "We are unfamiliar with the companies you mentioned in your letter, but we are investigating whether they are Motorola suppliers."

In response to the doubts raised by environmental organizations, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, and Siemens gave no response at all. Vodafone and BT did not react to the doubts raised by environmental organizations but quickly responded to a British newspaper after it questioned them based on the "Report".

According to the research results of the NGOs, one of the relevant responsible enterprises involved in the incident where 121 children in Shanghang, Fujian had elevated blood lead levels, Fujian Shanghang Huqiang Battery Co., Ltd., was penalized by environmental authorities for violating environmental regulations. This company is one of the OEM factories of Zhejiang Nantong Power Dynamics Co., Ltd., a listed company, and Nantong Power is one of the suppliers for well-known IT brands such as Vodafone, Motorola, and Nokia.

Nantong Power directly communicated with IPE. Wang Jingjing, IPE’s administrative manager who received the call, told this reporter that the other party claimed to be communicating at the request of BT and explained that the heavy metal pollution discharge data of Shanghang Huqiang before the outbreak of the lead exceedance incident were all up to standard. According to the information previously collected by IPE, the factory "directly discharged wastewater containing lead into the upstream tributary of the Huangtan River for four hours, causing many ducks in the river to die suddenly...". The environmental protection bureau of Shanghang county immediately organized personnel to rush to the scene after receiving reports on the same day, sampled and tested the river water, discovered that the factory had exceeded pollutant discharge standards, and immediately issued a notice of rectification to the factory. "Lead exceedance is the cumulative explosion of heavy metal pollution, we believe that the most important thing for Nantong Power is to systematically comb through the supply chain and make real rectifications," Wang Jingjing said.

Vodafone, in response to inquiries from British media, stated that Nantong Power ceased business with them after the environmental issues of Shanghang Huqiang were first exposed in September 2009. Vodafone also evaluated that Nantong Power had extensive systems and evaluations for environment, health, safety, and labor norms. Prior to that, in 2006, Vodafone designated Nantong Power as a supplier.

"It's hard to imagine being satisfied with the enterprise's environmental management system after causing such a severe lead pollution and environmental health incident," Ma Jun expressed that Vodafone's products involve causing lead excess in a large number of children, yet from Vodafone's response, there is no sign of sympathy or regret, instead, they are overly confident in their environmental health and safety systems. When a supplier encounters environmental problems, they simply stop doing business and switch to another. "Operating in this manner is bound to repeat past mistakes," Ma Jun believes that companies should comprehensively review their environmental supervision systems and supply chains to thoroughly solve the problem. Rushing to disassociate themselves and "running away" is not a responsible approach to the environment or society.

A Long Road to Redemption

Zhang Li, assistant researcher at the International Department of the Center for Environmental and Economic Research under the Ministry of Environmental Protection, introduced that internationally, there are already many experiences available to address heavy metal pollution in the IT industry. Japan, the EU, and the US all have relevant legislation.

Ma Jun also mentioned that in 1980, the US established the Superfund program to manage highly polluted and hazardous waste sites. Although the Superfund involves significant investment, in reality, its role in addressing heavy metal pollution is limited. However, it does serve as a deterrent for companies to strengthen environmental controls to avoid similar pollution in the future.

In China, heavy metal pollution has increasingly gained attention. In January this year, Minister of Environmental Protection Zhou Shengxian stated that the Ministry of Environmental Protection would complete the comprehensive prevention and control plan for heavy metal pollution by the end of June and submit it to the State Council for approval and implementation. At the same time, methods for evaluating the implementation of the comprehensive prevention and control plan for heavy metal pollution would also be formulated.