And Apple does constant audits of their suppliers, and often find deplorable elements within, but they don’t always name the people or places where these conditions exist, usually passing on the attitude that “Don’t worry, we’re on top of it.” There are ramifications, but they aren’t transparent in what they are and how they’re executed.

And the idea, back to my first point, that we stop purchasing these products, supporting these companies, isn’t necessarily the answer either. Leaving these people hungry and/or homeless certainly doesn’t seem to be appropriate, which is more than likely what the result would be.

Within this particular subject, it seems the response (the public’s) should be to apply more pressure on Apple, HP, etc. to increase consequences of these actions, and be more transparent about the process.

As in the vineyard, while organic farming and socio-economic fairness are obviously not realistic across the board, the crux of pieces like this (you really should listen to it, they do cover all angles) is how the application of mild pressure in small areas can make a big difference. Demonstration of how better/safer equipment for workers will save money in the long term, perhaps there’s a less-harsh chemical available that could result in decreased negative influence on the environment, etc.

The piece is more about accepting the realities rather than shunning them, and why (in the grand scheme of things) that can lead to progress.

Incredibly complicated stuff and I have no answers. I’m glad though, that I’m more aware of these questions. With my next purchase in this industry, I’m certainly way more likely to do my homework and support the company with the better record, even though it may not be spotless.