Who owns an iPhone? An iPad? A MacBook?  For many reasons, not least their beauty, their functionality, and an incredible marketing machine, Apple’s products are ubiquitous throughout the wealthy world.

But there’s a dark side to these shiny products, these objects of worship to their die-hard fans and reliance to the rest of us. I’d hazard a guess that many Apple consumers – switched on, plugged in and media savvy – have read reports of worker abuse and exploitation in the Apple supply chain. Of particular, recent concern are reports of advocacy organization China Labour Watch on the rising tide of unrest in Chinese factories of Taiwanese manufacturer Foxconn, on the iPhone 5 supply chain.[1] Whether you read the New York Times, the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, Der Spiegel or countless other publications, reports of unacceptable labour conditions, suicides, protests and other and ‘disturbances’ at Apple-producing Foxconn factories have persisted for years.

With all this information out there, one has to assume the link between their iPhones and reports of some pretty serious human rights violations is well known among Apple consumers. Yet Apple’s revenue last year climbed to a whopping $108 billion, and in August of this year of this year Apple became the most valuable corporate entity of all time.

Speaking to DemocracyNow!, the founder and Executive Director of China Labour Watch Li Quiang called on US-based consumers of Apple products to “exert some influence on the Apple company so that Apple can try to improve some of the working conditions of those Foxconn factories in China.” It’s a fair call, but what exactly does this mean? Here’s an unsurprising irony: this post was written on a MacBook Air. If you’ve come across it through twitter, well, I tweeted the link from an iPhone. I don’t want to create any illusions: I am the consumer I’m talking about; you might be too.

What kind of influence can we consumers exert?

The prevailing wisdom about consumer-driven corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns is this: companies that make a profit from producing and selling branded consumer goods will respond to consumer pressure to eliminate supply chain labour exploitation. The stronger the association of the product with the brand, the higher the incentive to have ‘clean’ supply chains to avoid reputational damage. Therefore, consumers can raise supply chain labour standards through the power of the almighty dollar.

But Apple products, as we all know, are some of the world’s most heavily branded. And yet exploitation in its supply chain is regularly, widely reported. Why have we not turned our backs on the company? What gives? Let’s walk through some of the problems with the consumer action approach, as it applies to Apple.

If we don’t like the manufacturing ethics, so the story goes, we consumers can boycott products. We can take our precious dollars, euros and yens elsewhere; fight capitalism with capitalism. So why haven’t we boycotted Apple? A few words about consumer boycotts: they’re only viable if (a) we don’t depend on the products in question and/or (b) there’s an ethical alternative product of (near) equivalent quality.[2]

First point – we rely on computers, smartphones, tablets, and so on, for tasks ranging from the practical (getting our work done) to the personal (meeting potential partners on dating sites, peering into the lives of recently remembered high school classmates on facie) to the political (organizing protests, whistleblowing, voting and activism). I see some of you rolling your eyes but let’s be honest: while not having ready access to an internet connection might fall into the #firstworldproblems basket, it’s neither pragmatic nor desirable to ask folks to give up their dependence on electronics entirely.

Where we depend on a certain type of product, boycotts only work where we are able to substitute the boycotted product with an ethically sourced one. But what if there’s no ethically sourced electronics industry? Leaving aside questions of functionality, I’m yet to see any ethically sourced alternatives[3]. So while I could give up Apple products and move to Samsung, for example, that would only be worth it if Samsung had ethical sourcing guarantees.[4] Reports of child labour in Korean in factories producing Samsung products give us an insight into the problems with this approach.

Here we face the next problem: information. While we might have information about the working conditions at the factories of Apple and Samsung suppliers, that’s mainly because journalists have taken an interest in those companies. Are there journalists reporting on the labour conditions in the manufacturing centres of all of their competitors? No, there just aren’t.

And to make the obvious additional point: boycotts rely on large-scale collective action. Call me a cynic, but I can’t see many of us parting with our shiny Apple toys without any sense of certainty about how a boycott might hit Apple’s profits.

What else can consumers do? They can join and donate to organizations like China Labour Watch. They can write letters. They can blog. They can talk. But given the problems I’ve touched on above, it’s easy to see the limits of these approaches.

So back to Apple. Apple does disclose identified instances of exploitation in its supply chain in supplier responsibility progress reports. Apple’s Labour and Human Rights policy is publicly available. It works with Verite, a supply chain analytics organization, with the stated intention of improving supply chain conditions. Verite’s CEO, Dan Viederman, said in a recent interview that “Apple stands out quite positively compared to many other companies,” pointing specifically to the culture of disclosure. Viederman points to the notable difficulties in identifying and eliminating exploitation at all levels of complex supply chains. Yes, agreed, it’s hard. But this ignores two important things: the deliberate dissipation of responsibility through Apple’s decision to manufacture in China, known for its weak labour regulation and repressive conditions for union organizing; and the significant position of economic influence it occupies in its value chain. As the most successful company in history, Apple is better placed to make labour standards demands than, perhaps, any other company.

Where does this leave us? I’ve been having these conversations for a while now. And, in relation to electronics, the answer I hear most often, even from very conscious folk[5], is, “It’s tough,” or “I struggle with this question.” And as for direct, effective consumer action – I’d have to agree: the prospects are pretty grim. I’m not seeking to avoid my own responsibility here. Confronted with my next electronics purchase I’ll do my own ethical due diligence, and you should too. But these tools can’t be the end of the story.

Here’s the important part. The Apple-Foxconn supply chain should show us the limits of consumer action and CSR self-regulation, should force us to admit that they’re not the magic answer. Let this example be the catalyst we need to face up to the fact that, if we’re serious about eliminating supply chain labour exploitation, we need tools beyond rhetorical industry partnerships, feel-good labeling and ranty letters.

We mustn’t accept that it will always be this way, that labour exploitation and abuse are built into our gadgets. 

Where products are made offshore, in an environment of low regulation, we have to develop new ways to hold upper level supply chain actors to account. If companies headquartered in the US, in Australia, in the EU, are making profits through exploitation elsewhere they need to take responsibility for all levels of their supply chain[6]. So let these recent reports about the Apple supply chain ignite a conversation, not about how we can encourage, but how we can require, them to do so.[7]