2016 Free Ethical Electronics Guide

Lfrancoz on 17/02/2016 - 09:57
Last edited 17/02/2016 - 19:45

Hi all,

I thought that this guide would be great for us all. It is good to have a good bargain but it is even better when we know the company has ethical procedures. Unfortunately some of them are not very good, and are very disappointing.

So let's find out and raise our voices by contacting their Facebook group or their website that we would like more transparencies in their supply chain.

You can order the guide for your office which will be shipped to your address or simply download it.

The Ethical Electronics Guide will empower you to purchase ethically. This guide shows how 100 electronics brands rate for their efforts to prevent worker exploitation with 2 simple pieces of information you need to know before buying your next gadget:

  • The overall grades companies receive in The Electronics Report, and
  • Whether the brand guarantees that workers receive a living wage

Here is the link to order physical one and receive their newsletter: https://www.baptistworldaid.org.au/behind-the-barcode-electr…

Direct PDF link is: https://www.baptistworldaid.org.au/assets/BehindtheBarcode/E…

Simplified Guide: http://www.baptistworldaid.org.au/assets/BehindtheBarcode/Re…

Let's make sure all electronics company are respectful of the environment and are slave free.

Electrical & Electronics

Related Stores

baptistworldaid.org.au
baptistworldaid.org.au

Comments

  • hashtagbargain on 17/02/2016 - 11:03
    +2

    Baptist world aid?!

    • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 11:04
      +1

      they are a non profit organisation focused on empowering the world’s poor to lift themselves out of poverty. They do lots of Advocacy campaign too.

    • brenwildman on 17/02/2016 - 11:54
      -4

      Ironic that a religious organisation is telling people how to behave ethically yet religion is notorious for the most unethical treatment of humans. Baptist’s primary text the bible endorses slavery, genocide/mass slaughter of children (and men\women\animals), mutilation etc. and this text is meant to taken as literal truth (although I doubt most actually believe in a sun son god, reincarnation, miracles, angles, etc.)

      This would be fine if they kept their fantasies to themselves but they don’t. Christian doctrine is used to this day to abuse children, use child labour, avoid tax, perform sex abuse, invade countries, infest politics etc. This is literally equivalent to a child abuser rapist murderer slave owner warlord, or their sympathiser, telling others how to act ethically.

      It is not possible to take this article at face value considering where it is coming from. This religious organisation needs to take good look at its foundations before telling people how to act.

      Bring on the negative votes if reality conflicts with your imaginary world view.

      • hashtagbargain on 17/02/2016 - 12:08
        +2

        Oh wow thats some serious analysis!

        On a lighter note, it is hard not to believe in angles :)

        • Baysew on 17/02/2016 - 12:19
          +3

          On a lighter note, it is hard not to believe in angles :)

          I believe that the obtuse ones are the best.

        • brenwildman on 17/02/2016 - 12:55
          +1

          Treat that typo it as a poignant reference to pope/Saint Gregory the Great’s attraction to young slave boys from angles who he considered angel like – an attraction to young boys which persists to this day in Christian institutions but is denied and protected by the church, even in Australia where the top cardinal refused to given evidence in trial.

        • Baysew on 17/02/2016 - 19:43
          +1

          @brenwildman: No, it's going straight into The SeaBin

        • ozzie freddo on 18/02/2016 - 19:06
          +1

          but right angles are never wrong

      • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 19:25
        +1

        I must admit that some people did some horrible things in the past in the name of God and "as Christians" and that is horrible but I don't see the point of vomiting all of this on Baptist World Aid which is a Christian Organisation yes but is doing an amazing job to help the future of poor people. Should we not encourage such activities?

        • brenwildman on 18/02/2016 - 14:50

          Short answer: Absolutely not.

          Long answer and addressing your points:

          I must admit that some people did some horrible things in the past in the name of God and "as Christians"

          Not just the past it continues to this day; much of which is satisfactorily justified by religious texts. You don’t need to admit this it’s a fact – what you really need to recognise/admit (instead of brushing it off as ‘other people’ or ‘not real Christians’) is that the Baptist’s text, the bible, like other ‘holy’ books, are the root cause of these horrible things independent of whether these imaginary gods exist.

          I don't see the point of vomiting all of this on Baptist World Aid

          I didn't say Baptist World Aid was responsible for this, I'm saying the baptist doctrine is, which is ingrained into their charter to “mobilise Australian churches and individual Christians to hear God's call to do justice and show mercy to the world's poor through their giving, advocacy, ethical consumption and prayer”. Many of these charities ingrain missionary work (often discreetly) and this is very evident in BWA\TAI’s annual report, so they are ones vomiting religious vitriol.

          is doing an amazing job to help the future of poor people.

          Shallow words without providing proof. How can you know what their future will be? How cost effective is BWA? Your phrasing is the same ambiguous phrasing BWA uses - are you associated with that organisation francoz?

          All I could find regarding the work BWA does is they received $11mil+ in donations which is sent to their partner operation Transform Aid International. TAI also received $5mil+ from government grants in 2015 yet there is little transparency on what they specifically spend money on the ground (just the region, area and an ambiguous paragraph in TAI’s annual report). It is disgusting that we’re supposedly a secular country yet tax payers are funding a religious organisation.

          I wonder how BWA would fare at its own company assessment test given how critical they are about ‘transparency’. I did find however over $3mil was spent in salaries – 34 in full-time and 20 part-time\casual; a sweet tax\GST free scheme with other tax benefits.

          Should we not encourage such activities?

          Reducing poverty, yes, but funding religious organisations does the opposite. If you look at the underlying cause of poverty it is oppression which has been served up by various religions for millennia. The most poor countries are also the most religious.

          I am happy to provide the evidence supporting to these points if you need - I didn't provide them to reduce bloating of this post.

  • cDNA on 17/02/2016 - 11:07
    +3

    Fujitsu is a completely despicable company. No one should be buying their products and their stupid air conditioners. All you have to do is google how they treat their staff.

    • jelko on 17/02/2016 - 16:20

      Poor Tubby Taylor. Looks like he backed the wrong horse.

      • cDNA on 17/02/2016 - 16:30

        Tubbs has a knack for backing the wrong team.

        • jelko on 17/02/2016 - 16:35

          Don't you mean Mark Waugh :)

  • NigelTufnel on 17/02/2016 - 15:02
    +1

    Looks like 40% of the companies (22/56) in the report were marked as "non responsive companies". Did they just make up answers for these companies to give them a grade they felt they deserved? Seems a bit dodgy…

    • jelko on 17/02/2016 - 16:21
      +2

      Let me guess, the companies that were rated highly supported the Baptist Church?

      • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 19:27

        ahaha as if Steve Jobs would support the Baptist Church or Microsoft.. You are funny!

        • jelko on 17/02/2016 - 19:43

          If Apple is on the list of ethical companies then the list is worthless. How many Foxconn employees have jumped to their death this year?

        • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 19:55

          As you said Apple is not so great in Worker rights, the detailed guide is clearly highlighting this on page 33.

          No company gets a A and none have a Living Wage guaranteed so our voices for those companies can still have an impact.

          Such guide is helpful for us when we request Apple to do better. ;)

    • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 19:41

      They clearly stated how they did it.

      From their website:

      *Why are non-responsive companies given low grades instead of being excluded from the report?
      We grade companies on based on the publically available information in their sustainability reports, annual reports and on their websites. We then follow up by actively seeking to engage companies to verify our findings and invite them to provide additional information about their practices. For those companies that are non-responsive initially, we commit to engaging them using at least three different mediums (e.g. letters, phone calls and emails), we also send them our final assessment for a response. In the majority of instances where companies don’t respond, it’s because they have chosen not to.

      We believe that it’s important that we grade these companies. If companies haven’t been transparent about what they are doing to uphold worker rights, then how can the public feel confident that their products aren’t being made in a way that is free of exploitation?

      We highlight those companies that haven’t responded to our research with an asterix in our guide and report and welcome their engagement for our future research.

      We are personally committed to working with productively with companies in order to let the public know what they are doing to uphold worker rights and to help them take further action on this critical issue. We are also always interested in hearing more about what activities companies have engaged in to address exploitation and often share these stories with supporters of our report.

      It’s worth noting also, that in the past Electronics companies like Intel in 2014 and fashion companies like Cue in 2013 received strong grades based on the quality of their public disclosures without engagement. In these examples, both companies received a B grade .*

      • brenwildman on 18/02/2016 - 16:17

        In the majority of instances where companies don’t respond, it’s because they have chosen not to.

        How did they know this - did these companies write a response saying they wont respond? If that is the majority then what is the reason for that minority not responding?

        It's utterly hilarious that the report praised DSE (which has ripped off creditors by $400mill and sacked its store employees) yet they bagged Soniq and other brands that DSE itself sells!

    • brenwildman on 18/02/2016 - 16:12
      -1

      Yes it is dodgy. Optional self-reporting exposes the 'analysis' to self-reporting bias where a company can trump up their own image. As an analogy to this, if you did a survey on how individuals rated their diving skills you may find most say better than average, yet this cannot be true as only half are better than average and the other worse.

      The stakes are higher for companies due to conflicting interests – monitory incentive and the importance of their public image. It is unfair to compare these different data (BWA’s assessment for some companies and self-reporting for others) which are both affected by this bias.

      More significantly the report being based on public policies rather than measured outcomes\performance is a fundamental flaw that renders the report utterly useless. These policies may\may not be adhered to nor represent how they actually perform in each area. A company could also tailor policies to fulfil specific BWA criteria\wording, have conflicting policies, or be exempt from a category. I cannot recall if baptists believe in salvation through faith or practice but that may explain this flawed reasoning.

      I wouldn't expect a religious organisation employ scientific method nor base their conclusions on tangible evidence so it’s simple to reject the report on principle alone. In practice the report is indeed flawed (in addition to what was already mentioned): no explanation of why each company was selected (candidate selection criteria), no exclusion criteria, no N/A or unknown response for each category, no reported conflicting interests and many other scientific flaws - what a piece of $#!+ pseudo-science report.

  • iratepirate on 17/02/2016 - 21:11

    I used to work for a Baptist owned charity and they were some of the least ethical people I have ever met.

    • francoz on 17/02/2016 - 21:12
      -1

      That is sad. I guess you find those kind of people everywhere.

      • brenwildman on 18/02/2016 - 16:19

        I guess you find those kind of people everywhere.

        Don't try underplay\condescend what he said, the baptist charity had them. Don't be ambiguous - where/what are you referring to by everywhere and what supports this?

      • iratepirate on 18/02/2016 - 23:22
        +1

        Do you find people that cover up murder everywhere?
        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ghalo3C…

        Abuse of helpless elderly people is everywhere?
        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SyFI4Uo…

        I could write a book with the horrific things I witnessed…

        • scotty on 18/02/2016 - 23:44

          I don't think francoz meant "everywhere" as in everyone out there, but rather you'll find unethical people regardless whether they are religious or not. Search "murder cover up" on Google News — you are likely to find people of different faith and different race there. Dodginess is universal.

        • iratepirate on 18/02/2016 - 23:58

          @scotty: What you are saying is true, there are unethical people from all walks of life.

          But as an organization I found the Baptist Union to be unusual in that many, many individuals who were otherwise upstanding members of the community were prepared to be unethical because they feared damage to the churches reputation and a loss of future income.

          Dodginess may be universal - but the added hypocracy annoys me.

  • retiredfeline on 18/02/2016 - 15:02

    As an OzB'er any free electronics is good. ;)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join