Introduction:

The pertinent threats for governments, companies, and societies in the present scenario could be identified in the environmental issues and the requirements for adapting to environmentally favorable practices. Information and communication technology (ICT) has proved to be a foundational aspect of every contemporary organization and has subsequently contributed to the improvement of energy productivity alongside ensuring a dynamic economy and high quality of life (Baughn & McIntosh, 2007). However, ICT systems are also responsible for imposing a certain amount of threats to the environment with the increasing generation of e-waste alongside the consumption of electricity that can be accounted as the carbon footprint of ICT usage. The following assessment would focus on the case of Apple and its ICT sustainability by focusing on the ICT systems and materials used by the organization alongside the carbon footprint of the systems. According to Babiak & Trendafilova (2011), the report is compliant with the principles of the ‘National Carbon Offset Standard” (2010) that focuses particularly on the product usage aspect of the selected organization i.e. Apple in which the use of various features of Apple’s product, as well as other operational aspects of the organization, account for ICT usage (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011).  

ICT sustainability:

The rapid and consistent changes in the use of ICT systems across the globe have been responsible for creating threats to environmental sustainability. As per Coupland (2006), the role of ICT systems in the promotion of innovation productivity as well as organizational growth has been responsible for the cumulative growth of the ICT domain. This factor is supported by the estimates suggesting that the ICT sector would contribute an 8.7% share of the global GDP as of 2020 (Coupland, 2006). 

On the contrary, it is imperative to observe that the use of computers and other crucial IT infrastructure has been responsible for the consumption of a considerable amount of electricity that imposes pressure on electric grids as well as increases greenhouse gas emissions. ICT hardware is also responsible for contributing to e-waste during production as well as disposal. Therefore Apple considers its presence in the ICT industry alongside its large-scale production, distribution, and product usage as threats to the global environment and aims to reduce its carbon footprint (Griseri & Seppala, 2010). The following report would aim to illustrate the approaches in which Apple utilizes an Asset management system for reducing the level of energy consumption to reduce the carbon footprint of ICT systems. The reflection on the energy audit as well as management systems for recycling and e-waste would provide credible insights into the efforts of the organization to assist in the welfare of the environment (Jenkins & Yakovleva, 2006). 

The carbon footprint of Apple:

Apple Inc. is renowned for the quality of its products and the authenticity of its services which are appealing from every aspect. The brand identity of Apple is explicitly associated with excellence, flexible use of products, and innovation. As per Mazurkiewicz (2014), the organization holds a similar knack for innovation in its measures for environmental responsibility. Therefore the organization implements considerable efforts frequently for mitigating the impact of production on the environment through conservation of resources and usage of eco-friendly materials in manufacturing (Mazurkiewicz, 2004). 

The consumption of energy is also accountable for imposing the carbon footprint of Apple which has been met with efforts to use clean and renewable energy for the various facilities of the organization across the world. It is imperative to observe that Apple Inc. measures its ICT sustainability by focusing on five significant functional areas that are product usage, manufacturing, recycling, transportation, and facilities. According to the estimates of 2016, the total carbon footprint of the organization was found to be 29.5 million metric tons which were 23% less than that in the previous year i.e. 38.4 million metric tons. The major share of the carbon footprint estimate of Apple was captured by manufacturing (77%) and product usage (17%) followed by transportation (4%), corporate facilities, and recycling (1%). (Panwar et al., 2006) 

The measures followed by Apple Inc. for controlling its ICT carbon footprint have been reliant on the consistent improvement in approaches followed by the organization for analysis of the greenhouse gas lifecycle. The analysis is utilized for the identification of specific ICT systems, materials, or processes that account for a negative impact in terms of carbon footprint thereby leading to initiatives for reforms in product design. For example, the company transitioned from industry average data to reviewing the emissions from aluminum components used in its ICT systems (Ozturk et al., 2011). 

The company focused on Apple-specific data obtained from a comprehensive review of the aluminum suppliers of the organization. This enabled the recognition of the fact that the emissions of aluminum manufacturing were found to be almost four times higher than the industry standards led to reforms in the lifecycle analysis for obtaining accurate data. 

The energy consumption of Apple’s devices is also accountable for increasing the ICT carbon footprint of the organization. The amount of energy required to charge the devices obtained from carbon-intensive sources is also involved in this context (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). The introduction of new services such as Siri, FaceTime, and iMessage has been supported by the utilization of 100% renewable energy. This was responsible for a considerable depreciation in the carbon emissions in 2016 as compared to that in 2015. One of the promising examples of ICT sustainability management followed by Apple could be identified in outsourcing to third-party data centers in case of demands for additional capacity as well as including the service providers in the renewable energy goals.  

Remedial initiatives:

The data centers account for a major share of the ICT framework of Apple and the company ensured that all data centers were powered with 100% renewable energy sources that contribute to zero greenhouse gas emissions. As per Vives (2006), the energy sources observed in the context of the operations of data centers comprise references to geothermal, wind, and solar power derived primarily from local resources and on-site sources (especially in the form of solar panels) (Vives, 2006). 

The approach can be considered innovative as well as unique since every time a user obtains a service such as installing an application from the Mac App Store or downloading a song from iTunes, the energy utilized by Apple for providing the service is obtained through renewable sources of energy. Other notable measures identified in the data centers of the company that contribute to ICT sustainability could be associated with examples of internal administration and the use of paperless communication.

The use of materials in ICT systems is also responsible for posing detrimental consequences for environmental sustainability which can have detrimental impacts on the ecosystem. Hence, Apple focuses on the use of environmentally friendly materials for the reduction of harmful toxins in the materials utilized in the ICT systems of the organization. Apple has been able to introduce novel benchmarks in dealing with the mitigation of dangerous toxins in the materials used in the ICT systems (Rodríguez & Cruz, 2007). The elimination of Mercury from the displays in 2009 and PVC in 1995 could be accounted as prolific examples of the company’s initiatives for ICT sustainability. Other harmful toxins which have been clipped off by Apple from its ICT systems include references to Arsenic, Lead, Brominated flame retardants, and Phthalates. 

E-waste recycling:

Electronic waste in the case of Apple Inc. is prominently observed from the manufacturing process that can pose formidable consequences for the environment without appropriate recycling measures. Without appropriate disposal and recycling initiatives, the e-waste could lead to explicit biochemical hazards that can be negatively impactful on people as well as the environment. To address the concerns of e-waste, the organization has depicted an explicit commitment to education and awareness of people regarding responsible recycling. For example, the Apple Retail Stores are mandatorily obliged to accept used Apple products for free recycling (Simpson, Taylor & Barker, 2004). Furthermore, the organization has also implemented recycling programs across college campuses and cities in almost 95% of countries where Apple operates. 

According to estimates, the organization has been able to prevent 421 million pounds of equipment from contributing to landfills since 1994. It is interesting to observe that almost 90% of the equipment collected by Apple for recycling does not comprise their products. Apple established a target worldwide recycling collection rate of 70% in 2010 (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013). The organization intended to obtain the products sold seven years earlier for recycling and Apple has been depicting prolific results by maintaining the rate at 85% which is four times higher than any other industry. Another significant aspect to be observed in the context of the ICT sustainability of the organization could be identified in the long-term objectives of Apple to increase resource efficiency alongside recovery of additional materials. The example of Apple’s collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation could be considered a promising initiative to ensure the transformation of materials used in ICT systems for efficient use rather than disposing of them (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013).

Calculation of carbon footprint:

The process for calculation and management of the carbon emissions of Apple would comprise seven essential steps. The first step is associated with the identification of organizational scope. The organizational scope is recognized according to the Recommendation ITU-T L.1420 which implies the emphasis on organizational boundaries for the definition of specific departments of the organization which has to be included in the assessment of carbon emissions or energy consumption. This step also suggests that since Apple is an ICT organization it would have to focus on all its facilities engaged in the operation of the enterprise (Panwar et al., 2006). 

The second phase of calculating carbon footprint is associated with the definition of the ICT assets utilized by the organization. The data collected in this step is reflective of the number of ICT devices and the type of devices used in the ICT infrastructure of Apple. The typical examples of the types of devices to be included in the assessment include desktops, mobile phones, cooling systems for ICT devices, servers, cables, outsourced data centers, tablets, and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) as well as backup generators for power supply. 

The third step is associated with the estimation of the usage of the ICT devices by Apple. The data obtained in this phase is reflective of the amount of time for which an ICT asset is utilized or is placed on standby for a specific year (Babiak & Trendafilova, 2011).

The next step is reflective of the measurement of energy consumption by the various types of ICT assets implemented in the organization which is represented in kilowatt-hours (kWh). The energy consumption is calculated both for the periods of usage as well as standby periods. It is interesting to observe that the energy consumption of Apple’s ICT infrastructure would have to be calculated according to the precedents of asset type and duration. 

In the fifth stage, the outcomes of the previous step have to be converted into a CO2 rating denoted by ‘kgCO2e’. The conversion would have to utilize the energy conversion factor which varies according to jurisdictions and is used for obtaining a representation of energy consumption in terms of carbon footprint (Baughn & McIntosh, 2007). For example, the conversion factor prevalent in the UK is 0.52465. It is also imperative to observe that the carbon footprint calculation can be affected by the energy source. The formula for conversion of the electrical power consumption (watts) into kWh could be presented as follows,

Energy (E) (kWh) = Power (p) (watts) X Time (t) / 1000.

The sixth step is considered a follow-up of the carbon emission calculation outcomes that are associated with the summarization of the findings. 

In the final step, the action plan would be framed by Apple for addressing the carbon footprint of the ICT systems of the organization alongside determining the extent to which the actions would be responsible for impacting the ICT footprint of the organization (Ozawa-Meida et al., 2013).

Conclusion:

Apple’s commitment to the resolution of climate change issues as well as the development of ICT systems with the innovative application of environment-friendly materials can be observed in the various approaches followed by the organization for ICT sustainability management. The specific measures for improving the measurement of ICT carbon footprint through different operational aspects such as production and product usage as well as focusing on company-specific data rather than industry specifications can be accounted as novel benchmarks for ICT sustainability. Furthermore, it was also observed that the approaches followed by Apple for e-waste management and energy-efficient use of products and services could be responsible for contributing to long-term prospects for sustaining the operations of ICT infrastructure without compromising the environmental concerns.    

References

 

Baughn, C.C. and McIntosh, J.C., 2007. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social responsibility and Environmental management, 14(4), pp.189-205.

Babiak, K. and Trendafilova, S., 2011. CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18(1), pp.11-24.

Coupland, C., 2006. Corporate social and environmental responsibility in web-based reports: Currency in the banking sector?. Critical perspectives on accounting, 17(7), pp.865-881.

Griseri, P. and Seppala, N., 2010. Business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Cengage Learning.

Jenkins, H. and Yakovleva, N., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Exploring trends in social and environmental disclosure. Journal of cleaner production, 14(3-4), pp.271-284.

Mazurkiewicz, P., 2004. Corporate environmental responsibility: Is a common CSR framework possible. World Bank, 2.

Panwar, R., Rinne, T., Hansen, E. and Juslin, H., 2006. Corporate responsibility: balancing economic, environmental, and social issues in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 56(2), pp.4-13.

Ozturk, A., Umit, K., Medeni, I.T., Ucuncu, B., Caylan, M., Akba, F. and Medeni, T.D., 2011. Green ICT (Information and Communication Technologies): a review of academic and practitioner perspectives. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies, 3(1), pp.1-16.

Ozawa-Media, L., Brockway, P., Letten, K., Davies, J., and Fleming, P., 2013. Measuring carbon performance in a UK University through a consumption-based carbon footprint: De Montfort University case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, pp.185-198.

Vives, A., 2006. Social and environmental responsibility in small and medium enterprises in Latin America. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (21).

Rodríguez, F.J.G. and Cruz, Y.D.M.A., 2007. Relation between social-environmental responsibility and performance in hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(4), pp.824-839   

Simpson, M., Taylor, N. and Barker, K., 2004. Environmental responsibility in SMEs: does it deliver competitive advantage?. Business strategy and the environment, 13(3), pp.156-171.