The path to 2030 is littered with dependencies
Apple’s emissions primarily come from manufacturing, managed by overseas suppliers. Thus to meet their targets Apple will need all 300+ of their suppliers to cooperate. While Apple’s commitment is commendable, cleaning up its entire supply chain by 2030 may prove overly optimistic given the complexity and historical issues involved.
Where does this leave us?
Apple is a global leader with immense influence. It’s crucial for the public, and for Apple, to recognize that Apple is not a sustainability company, but the world’s largest electronics manufacturer and that they are driven by profit. As Lisa Jackson, Apple’s vp of sustainability, recently stated: “Tim (Cook) has been really clear … this is not philanthropy. We’re not out just spending money so we can make this claim to make other people feel great. It has to be something that businesses in our supply chain can take on without sacrificing their ability to also make a profit.”
And, this is 100% ok. Sustainability should not be a tax; it needs to be beneficial for businesses. In fact, it already is.
The renewable energy Apple is investing in is actually cheaper than other forms of energy. Shipping goods by boat is more economical than doing it by plane. Recycling minerals can be 13x cheaper than extracting them from, well, Mother Nature. And that tree-hugging program? It’s actually an investment fund called the Restore Fund, in partnership with Goldman Sachs, and it is mandated to generate a profit.
Apple, and other large companies companies, don’t need to portray themselves as world-saving philanthropists or exaggerate their impact. It cheapens their efforts and creates a false narrative around how much more real work still needs to be done.
