INTRODUCTION
According to Milton Friedman, the only social responsibility business has is to increase profits for shareholders. If this logic were followed in the case of digital electronic industries’ (e.g. computers, cell phones, televisions, VCRs stereos, copiers, fax machines, cellular phone) waste, the question of corporate social responsibility (CSR) would be one that is easily solved if Friedman’s philosophy was followed. His stance would be that if the shareholders are not concerned with it or it lessens profits, then business managers should not be concerned with it. While his sounds like a simple enough philosophy and one often subscribed to by most businesses in a wide array of industries, it is not one I agree with. Yes, I agree it is important for businesses to make profits. After all, that is the sole reason that a vast majority of them exist. I believe businesses should be leaders in addressing social issues within their specific industries. Why is it that businesses are usually the last ones to address issues of negative social impact within their industries? My response would be their fear of decreasing profits if they implemented too many responsible operating mechanisms. Yet, when the government intervenes with corrective measures, they (businesses) usually spend millions of dollars lobbying against any legislation and instead referring to it as too much interference from government.
History has proven that if businesses are left to their own devices they usually do not address CSR until there is public outcry or government intervention. One can look at the apparel industry, among others, for validation of this point. The apparel industry was one of the first to seek out cheaper labor overseas. At first the main public outcry was around American jobs being lost as a result of overseas manufacturing of apparel. However, over time, watchdog groups started to expose the unfair labor standards many American companies were allowing in the production of these goods. News programs were devoting their entire one-hour shows to increasing awareness on this issue. Companies like Nike maintained in its early years of subcontracting the manufacturing of its shoes overseas, that labor practices of its foreign subcontractors were not its responsibility since Nike had no idea what a shoe factory should look like anyway. On the surface this rationale and explanation offered by Phil Knight, Nike CEO, made sense. However, when you look deeper into the statement, it is not a sufficient enough reason to ignore CSR. In the case of the apparel industry, one solution was the creation of two separate entities to adequately and fairly monitor and enforce fair labor standards abroad.
McWilliams and Siegel in their article “ Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective,” study CSR from a supply and demand model. Their hypotheses are that a firm’s level of CSR depends on its size, level of diversification, research and development, advertising, government sales, consumer income, labor market conditions, and stage in the industry life cycle. They concluded that there is an ideal level of CSR, which managers can determine using a cost-benefit analysis and that there is a neutral relationship between CSR and financial performance. To maximize profits, the firm should offer precisely that level of CSR for which the increased (from increased demand) equals the higher cost (of using resources to provide CSR). Cost-benefit is not a perfect solution for looking at CSR, but it could be a starting point for many companies that have been against doing anything related to CSR for fear of lost profits and consequently upsetting shareholders. They also offer a good definition for CSR, which is “actions that appear to further social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law.” In laymen’s terms, CSR is going above and beyond obeying the law. In this paper I will focus on CSR and the computer technology industry.
A large part of all energy consumed is by computers. Research
completed in 1999 and 2000 showed that the Internet along with the
information and communication technology (
Much of the energy consumed is wasted. Computers are often left running overnight,
weekends, and during extended periods of user absence. There are 71 million PCs
and monitors in the
·
Sixteen percent1of the total kWh consumption in
the state of
·
The total combined electricity generation of
The world’s one-billionth personal computer (PC) came off the assembly line in 2002. Many scholars, experts, and others have stated that no greater invention has had a bigger positive impact on the world than computers. In many instances computers have created situations that were previously impossible to accomplish (such as space flight), were essentially inconceivable until the technology was applied, or at least were very difficult to achieve without the aid of computer technology. Unfortunately, this impact has not just been positive but negative as well. Literally, computers appear to be everywhere today. Even when we do not encounter them directly in their various forms of modern convenience devices, such as digital watches, microwave ovens, VCRs, etc, we generate transactions that are processed via computers without actively doing anything: the utility companies record our usage, the phone company records incoming/outgoing calls, and there are countless other examples.
The
National Safety Council has predicted that between 315 million to 680 million
computers would become obsolete within the next few years in the
United Nations University scientist Eric Williams, co-author of the study called Computers and the Environment, says most consumers are not aware that the average desktop computer with monitor requires 10 times its weight in fossil fuels and chemicals to manufacture (i.e. energy consumption). While consumers may not be aware of this fact, PC makers certainly are. Besides the energy intensive manufacturing process, there are these other related issues, possible health effects on workers in IT (information technology) factories and citizens to substances leaking out of computers that end up in landfills, use of prison labor to recycle computer parts, and overfilled landfills.
These
negative effects of computers are not only found in the
As I stated earlier, PC manufacturers should lead the way in reducing the significant negative impact of computers on the environment and consumers. Consumers should not and cannot be expected to do it all. Manufacturers could make a more eco-friendly, longer-lasting computer. Many times manufacturers advertise a computer as new and improved, when actually they could probably produce an upgradeable component that would render the same results and extend the life of an existing computer. PC manufacturers continue to say that they would prefer to have industry-created solutions rather then government imposed solutions. Additionally, Dell claims a willingness to discuss and talk with officials about what Dell is doing and how they can help develop rules and regulations related to the issue. Thus far, progress and change has been slow on the part of U.S. PC manufacturers. One obvious answer for the slow progress is a fear that profits will decrease. One aspect that manufacturers are not looking at are other long-term costs like increased health problems among IT factory workers, which will lead to increased health care costs and increased production costs due to a lack of or exorbitant prices for materials.
A corporate trailblazer in the area of computers and the environment is Hewlett Packard. In a survey conducted by Munich-based Oekom Research AG, Hewlett-Packard (HP) came out on top in a Corporate Responsibility Rating of the eight leading international computer manufacturers. HP has a strong commitment to CSR, including efforts to bridge the digital divide globally, promote environmental sustainability, and undertake corporate philanthropy and community engagement. They design their products in a way to minimize the lifecycle environmental impacts such as designing their products to be more energy efficient during use and to be easier to recycle after their use. HP manages operations worldwide in an environmentally responsible manner by applying the principles of pollution prevention, resource conservation, legal compliance, performance measurement, and continuous improvement to minimize the environmental impacts of their operations. Unlike many other computer manufacturers, HP does not view the integration of environmental principles into HP’s core business plan as having any downsides. Hopefully in the future, some of HP’s business practices will be used as a guide in developing coordinated, industry-wide standards. It is hard to say whether HP would feel the same about their operation practices if laws did mandate them to do so.
While
the European Union is moving toward cradle-to-grave corporate responsibility
for electronic recycling, the
One strategy for consumers to extend the life of their computers is reselling or upgrading them. Reselling or upgrading a computer can save five to 20 times more energy than recycling it. Also, extending the life of a computer means fewer computers going into landfills and adding toxins to the environment. Consumers and businesses would probably be inclined to extend the life of computers if manufacturers were not in such a hurry to make their existing PC obsolete. The race among PC makers to have their product be the fastest and greatest is partly to blame for this current situation of computer excess. Other simple things consumers can do are: use low energy standby modes when the computer is in use, put the computer into sleep mode when it is not in use, sell or give away old computers instead of just storing it away in the basement or closet.
As
has been the case with other industries (e.g. apparel, athletic shoes,
automobile), needed changes to protect the environment and consumers, will
probably have to come from the government or a quasi-government entity.
Surprisingly, both PC manufacturers and the government are, and have been,
aware of these detrimental effects for some time. Interestingly, most changes
will not take place until consumers become more aware of the devastating
effects. It is just a matter of time before consumers become more aware of the
environmental impacts of computers and demand that PC manufacturers and the
government do something to start reversing these adverse effects. Hopefully,
this will happen before too much damage has been done.
Another
major step U.S. government could take to reverse the current effects of E-waste
is to sign the Basel Convention, a 1989 United Nations treaty calling on
countries to sharply limit the export of hazardous waste. Its aim is to curb
the unwarranted effects of free trade in toxic wastes. Both the
Below are some
resources of
1. National Cristina Foundation
2.
Gifts in Kind
3. Return to Usecomputers.com
4. Educational Assistance, Ltd.
5. Goodwill Industries
6. Computers for Schools
7. Salvation Army
8. World Computer Exchange
9. National Safety Council
10. Armed Forces Recruitment Centers
As stated throughout, computers are a main contributor to E-waste, which pose a major disposal issue because they are made up of various components that are toxic to the environment. Estimates have been made that 75% of obsolete electronics are currently being stored, which will one day result in a massive disposal issue for the country and the world (The Institute for Local Self-Reliance). With continued innovations in technology, there is an increasing opportunity to recycle computers, limiting the number that end up in local landfills. The advantages of recycling are:
• Conserves resources for our children's future.
• Prevents emissions of many greenhouse gases and water pollutants.
• Saves energy.
• Supplies valuable raw materials to industry.
• Creates jobs.
• Stimulates the development of greener technologies.
• Reduces the need for new landfills and incinerators.