Please click here for the first and second posts in this series.

In the initial posts in this series, we shared what Nike is up to in revisiting how it measures and manages suppliers to include a range of CSR elements tied to overall lean sourcing and supply chain efforts, not just check-the-box sustainability-type initiatives. Hannah Jones, Nike's vice president of sustainable business and innovation, was featured in an excellent interview in GreenBiz.com (which we link to in the previous posts). She notes changing the DNA to link lean to CSR is key: "We have been rewiring the conversation internally and rewiring the conversation with our suppliers in which we really explain to them that there are some new rules of engagement."

[More]

Please click here for the first post in this series.

Yesterday we shared some of the insights surfaced by a GreenBiz.com interview featuring Hannah Jones, Nike's vice president of sustainable business and innovation. The gist of the story is that Nike views CSR within its supply chain and with its rationalized/consolidated tier one suppliers as a core component of a broader lean and strategic sourcing approach rather than simply as a compliance challenge to overcome. It's a great interview and if you have the time, we recommend you check it out in its entirety.

[More]

Earlier this month, Nike announced some major changes to how it monitors and manages supplier and supply chain corporate social responsibility (CSR). Earlier coverage suggests that the manufacturer and retailer will "launch a new manufacturing index in 2012 that will place factories' sustainable practices 'on equal footing' with the traditional supply chain measures of quality, cost and delivery. The index will now include environmental and labor-sustainability metrics, according to the report. And Nike will use that index to evaluate its suppliers."

[More]

Spend Matters welcomes a guest post from Kenneth Moberly, Co-Owner of Green Group LLC.

As the co-owner of a sustainability consulting firm, Green Group LLC, my job takes me to a wide range of manufacturing and waste-producing facilities. In the process of examining companies' current waste solutions and working with them to improve sustainability and cut costs, we usually see our customers fit three general profiles. Largely as a result of the recent recession, companies looked for ways to thrift and contract without impacting production, leaving environmental staff and services to take the hit. Read on to see which profile you fit and what you can do to improve your bottom line.

[More]

After reading Apple's Supplier Responsibility Report, we think Apple used the wrong title to describe its contents. Forgive the English major in us, but rather than use an apostrophe to indicate ownership responsibilities that Apple has for its suppliers actions, the content suggests that Apple should have used an apostrophe to distance itself from its own responsibilities -- moving the possession from "Apple" to "Suppliers." At least that is how we read a report that we believe hides behind selective disclosure of information while distancing itself from the fundamental problem.

To wit, Apple expects -- and ultimately compels -- its suppliers to perform in a certain manner across a range of sustainability requirements. Rather than taking responsibility for how it manages suppliers itself through active collaboration, joint improvement and continuous development -- actions which would result in a much more aggressive program not just centered on sustainability to check the proverbial CSR box, but also joint cost take-out with suppliers in the process.

[More]

Click here to read previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

Within its breakout of environmental auditing records of 14 supplier facilities, Apple reports a few findings around hazardous substance management. These include reports showing that over 33% (5) of the facilities audited had "no secondary containment and rainshelf for hazardous chemical storage." Moreover nearly two-thirds (9) of the audited facilities "made handling errors including lack of signs of waste storage, hazardous waste mixed with non-hazardous waste, and mislabeling or miscategorization of hazardous wastes." Given that Apple only surveyed 14 supplier facilitates in total and these facilities were likely larger suppliers (and more sophisticated suppliers) given Apple's track record of using an 80-20 pareto approach to selecting which suppliers to target first, these numbers are shockingly high, even though Apple reported overall in the areas of hazardous substance and wastewater management, that 68% and 89% of practices were in compliance.

[More]

Click here to read previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Worker safety has definitely captured the negative headlines for Apple the most in the past twenty-four months. But their code of conduct in the area of environmental impact might just be more important for those in the broader procurement and supply chain professionals. After all, Apple's actions (or lack thereof) around worker safety are tacitly one-upping local labor practices and expectations (safety nets for potential jumpers don't exactly address problems at the source).

[More]

Click here to read previous posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Apple has spent some time in the negative spotlight around the actions (or lack of actions) of its suppliers in the area of worker health and safety. Even recent coverage, such as the NYT story that describes in gory detail the results of an explosion at a Foxconn facility that tore apart the face of a college-educated technician working on equipment used in the manufacturing of iPads and iPhones, points to continued negativity in the mainstream press toward Apple's practices around health and worker safety. But is this negativity justified? We believe it likely is, if you adopt the perspective that Apple must adhere to global health and safety standards on the shop floor rather than Chinese ones (or lack of ones, for that matter).

[More]

Click here to read Part 1 and Part 2 in this series.

One of the more substantial areas of disclosure in Apple's reporting its 2012 Supplier Sustainability analysis is in the area of conflict minerals. Apple provides a level of detail that is lacking in the rest of the report, especially when it comes to examining multi-tier behaviors and sub-SKU level material traceability. We might even describe Apple as an early leader in this area based on what we know are the early stage efforts of most other companies in complying with conflict minerals (Dodd-Frank) requirements. Specifically, Apple notes that it requires its suppliers "only use materials that have been procured through a conflict-free process and from sources that adhere to our standards of human rights and environmental protection."

[More]