Tablets and e-readers

The first smartphone, IBM’s ‘Simon’, was launched in 1994 and it took 18 years before the Fairphone gave ethical consumers an ethical option. Will consumers have to wait as long before an ethically conscious tablet is produced? If you count Apple’s iPad as the first tablet, launched in 2010, we’d be waiting until 2028!

For now, consumers are stuck trying to distinguish between a number of ethically compromised brands, a task that this guide will help you with. It covers 15 of the largest tablet companies in the UK, focusing on the traditional ‘slate’ tablets that are sold without a detachable keyboard. After which we look at three e-reader brands in the UK.

The ethical dilemmas in the tablets market mirror those of mobile phones and laptops, with supply chains often riddled with conflict minerals, dangerous toxic chemicals and poor labour standards. As well as ethical issues arising from manufacture, this article will also consider the impact that tablets have on children’s development and discuss the shifting landscape of the tablet market.

The market

From the very beginning of the tablet age, Apple’s iPads have ruled the roost. Particularly in the UK where they account for over half of all tablets. Apple’s competitors have invested billions developing and marketing their own tablet devices and apps in an effort to challenge its dominance. But none of these have seriously threatened the iPad in the UK

Worldwide, the story is different. Samsung, Huawei, Lenovo and Amazon all boast healthy shares of the global tablet market. Apple still controls the lion’s share with 35% of the market. Which, in terms of ethics, isn’t such a bad thing, seeing as the iPad scores comparatively well in this guide.

Some competitors have simply given up. Tech giant Google is a prime example. Google began producing own-brand tablets in 2012 with the Nexus 7. At the time it was released it was smaller but significantly cheaper than the iPad. However, despite promising signs initially, glitches and poor functionality led to a consumer backlash. Google’s subsequent tablet models, the Nexus 9 and the Pixel C have never been able to win back consumer trust.

Google’s foray into own-brand tablets appears to be coming to an end. Its latest Android operating system ‘Android P’ will not be released for its tablets. This means that these devices will gradually slow down and reduce in functionality. For this reason, Google devices have not been included in this product guide.

It is also worth noting that both LG and Sony have not released their latest models in the UK, possibly because of Apple’s continued dominance.

Conflict minerals

All tablets contain the 3TGs (tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold), minerals that are largely found in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and surrounding countries. Profits from the sale of these minerals are the most significant financier of the armed conflicts that have plagued the country since the 1990s. This has made control of the mines that produce them an important military objective in itself.

According to research by the International Peace Information Service, 56% of mines have an armed presence from either the army or independent armed groups. This puts companies in a position of responsibility to ensure that their money is not finding its way into this conflict. On this front, there have been some signs of positive change.

In March 2017, MEPs voted in favour of forcing EU companies to take responsibility for the origin of the minerals they import. “Companies will be required to check their supply chain in order to respect human rights and prevent them from contributing to conflicts from 1st January 2021.” Importers will be required to publicly disclose their due diligence practices and policies on an annual basis.

This piece of legislation was inspired by the Dodd-Frank Act which has been in place in the US since 2010. Promisingly, a recent report on company compliance the Dodd-Frank Act found that over half of US companies reported whether their minerals came from the DRC or adjoining countries in 2017, up from under a third in 2014.

Moreover, in 2017, Apple pledged that it would treat cobalt as a conflict mineral. Cobalt is also mined in the DRC region and has often been linked to child labour and other human rights abuses. Apple’s action on cobalt mining has been welcomed by Amnesty International.

These positive changes are reflected in our table, with more companies receiving our best rating for conflict minerals; and both Samsung and Asus improving their score from a worst last time around to a best this time.

Student forced labour

Headlines about workers’ rights abuses in tech factories are depressingly frequent. So much so that it is easy to forget the individuals trapped in these abusive systems.

A recent investigative report by Hong Kong-based Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) gave voice to Chinese students who’d been forced into workplace ‘internships’ on the production lines of major tech company suppliers.

SACOM found that student interns worked as much as 12 hours a day, sometimes overnight, without the standard labour protections afforded to regular workers. Shockingly, around half of the workforce at Quanta Computer’s Chongping factory were student interns. The report named Apple, Acer, HP and Sony as clients of Quanta.

One 18-year-old student said: “We were forced to come ... Every semester, our school recruits new students but our campus is small. When they don’t have enough space in the classrooms or dormitories, they force current students out to do internships and then let the new students stay in our dorms.”

Another 16-year-old intern said: “If we refused [to go on an internship], we would not be able to get our graduation certificates. Also, our dining and accommodation subsidies would be cancelled.”

Tech companies are regularly exposed for workers’ rights abuses such as this in their supply chains. Perhaps instances would be reduced if companies had clear and robust supply chain management processes which were transparently managed and regularly audited. But this is rarely the case.

However, the toxic exposure in the use phase pales in comparison to the end of life phase. When thrown away, our gadgets often find their way to e-waste scrap heaps, which are predominantly in developing countries, most famously in West Africa. Once in these e-waste areas electronics are cannibalised for any sellable parts. To the extent that wires encased in PVC are burnt to retrieve the copper inside. Research has revealed “elevated concentrations of heavy metals, dioxins and other hazardous substances in the dust, air, soil, fresh water and sediments surrounding [e-waste] sites”.

Greenpeace has been pressuring tech companies to ditch these toxic substances. But, despite promises, “Acer, Dell, HP, LG, Lenovo, Microsoft, Samsung and Sony have all failed to fully follow through on commitments made circa 2009”.

Ethical Consumer expects companies to have clear cut-off dates for the use of these substances and transparent reporting on their use. Apple led the way on this front. Back in 2008, it phased PVC and BFRs out of its goods, its products are also free of phthalates. So, it is definitely possible. Apple’s iPad has been awarded a positive product sustainability mark because of this.

In this guide, only two companies were not marked down for their approach to toxic chemicals, these were Apple and Samsung. Four others, HP, Dell, Microsoft and Acer received a middle rating. The rest have been deducted a whole mark under our Pollution & Toxics category.

Tax avoidance

We have scored all companies on their likely use of tax avoidance strategies. Unfortunately, the vast majority scored worst by having two or more ‘high-risk’ subsidiary types in jurisdictions considered to be tax havens at the time of writing. Some had far more than this, Acer for example had 19 high-risk subsidiaries in Taiwan, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. This number was dwarfed by HP which had at least 53 high-risk subsidiaries in jurisdictions on our tax havens list. Kurio and Archos were the only companies to avoid a worst rating.

HP boycott update

Since 2014, we have been reporting on the boycott of technology giant Hewlett-Packard. The boycott began in response to the pivotal role HP’s technology and software had in the development of the ‘BASAL’ checkpoint system, used by Israel to control the movement of Palestinians.

However, since then, Hewlett-Packard has split into two separate companies. Perhaps in an attempt to clean its slate, the company separated its consumer goods business from its government and military supply services. The BDS movement’s website states that it is continuing its boycott of both HP companies, “Because the companies share facilitates, branding and supply chains, and collaborate in a wide range of ways, both remain deeply complicit with Israeli apartheid.”

The latest development in the boycott of HP came in June 2018 when the Students Federation of India (SFI), India’s largest student federation, passed a resolution backing the boycott. The Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement estimates that this represents over $120 million in potential losses for HP.

Abdulrahman Abunahel from the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) responded to the news by saying:

“Palestinian students and youth movements deeply appreciate the solidarity expressed by our counterparts in the Students Federation of India. As a young Palestinian in Gaza, I know first-hand how difficult it is to study, and to simply live, under decades of Israel’s brutal military rule and devastating siege. And I’m heartened by this important gesture of support from India, which reaffirms that where governments fail, people have the power to act and make a difference.”

In response to the boycott, HP has stated that it is, “strongly committed to socially responsible business practices ... We abide by a strong human rights policy and adhere to the highest standards of human rights … It is not our policy to take sides in political disputes between countries or regions.”

Greenpeace guide to green electronics

If you are still thinking of buying a tablet, Greenpeace USA’s ‘Guide to Green Electronics’ is a useful resource, although it has not been updated since 2017. This report analyses and compares how 17 tech companies fare on their transparency, performance and advocacy efforts in three areas critical to putting the sector on a sustainable path: reduction of emissions through renewable energy, use of recycled materials, and elimination of hazardous chemicals.

It gives each company a score card, ranking them from A to F on each category. It also tracks the commitments each company has made and whether they have stuck to their word or not. Of the companies in this guide, Apple, HP and Dell scored best and Amazon scored worst. 

Samsung is the second biggest maker of tablets behind Apple, but its manufacturing system heavily relies on fossil fuels. The company used more than 16,000 GWh of energy in 2016, with just 1% coming from renewables.

Should children use tablets?

Children love tablets, we’ve probably all been amazed at one time or another when an infant picks up a tablet with more confidence and ability than most adults.

According to Ofcom, tablets are the second most used device amongst children (after TV). The sheer proliferation of these gadgets had led many parents to worry about how this increase in ‘screen time’ could affect their children during early-years development, both in terms of learning, but also inactivity and socialisation.

There has been a lot of research around the impact of TV ‘screen time’ on early-years development, and these studies have largely found that overuse is detrimental to learning. But there hasn’t been quite the same academic scrutiny on the use of tablets, largely because their use amongst pre-school children didn’t boom until around 2013.

As you can see in the infographic opposite, children’s use and ownership of tablets has rocketed. But it would be unwise to conflate the findings about TVs with tablet use. Unlike TVs, tablets are interactive and often require problem solving skills.

Some preliminary studies into tablets and children under 5 have concluded that responsible use of tablets has positive effects on levels of Math, literacy and science. Although other research has suggested that children struggled to transfer problem solving skills learnt on a screen into the real world. Moreover, it should be noted that there is a distinct lack of research surrounding the social and emotional effects of these devices, which have the potential to be significant.

Of course, the results of any research into this topic revolves heavily around the idea of regulated and responsible use. It feels highly unlikely that rates of maths, literacy and science would improve if a child uses their tablet solely for YouTube. On this topic, many parents have praised apps which are specially designed for children. Parents we spoke to all mentioned the CBeebies apps produced by the BBC. It was felt that these apps had good problem-solving elements which promoted interaction and active thinking.

Professor Lydia Plowman of the University of Edinburgh stresses that moderation and supervision are the key factors in promoting positive interactions between children and tablets. Supervision is especially important when children are using tablets that are connected to the internet.

Many parents fight daily battles against their children’s screen addictions. We spoke to Antony, father of three, about screen time and children. He said that, “screens are junk food for the mind, they are easy but you feel gross afterwards.”

In his experience tech devices are consumed passively by children, they don’t promote active play or imagination. He said that, “during active play the kids expend more energy and sleep better because of it. Whereas screens make them irritable.”

Some companies have produced child-friendly tablets that are designed to promote positive and easily supervised use. We chose to include one such brand, Kurio, in our guide to tablets. Kurio produces brightly coloured devices that are fitted with internet filters, time management tools and the ability to block apps. Unfortunately, Kurio do not score well against our ethical rating system, scoring worst for Supply Chain Management, Conflict Minerals, Toxic Chemicals, and Environmental Reporting.

There are other child-friendly tablets available with similar features, such as the LeapFrog, Dragon Touch and Fusion 5. Unfortunately, we have not had the time to include them in our company research.