In today’s world, Apple remains among the biggest manufacturers of consumer electronics, providing customers with high-end smartphones, computers, and many other types of products. Apple is well-known for its minimalistic design, high standards of quality, and user-driven service (Shelley, 2015). However, there is a problem the company has failed to address to acknowledge for a prolonged time. Despite possessing an especially user-friendly and intuitive design, Apple products are infamous for their repair difficulty. Unlike most other brands of electronics, an average user will most likely be incapable of repairing their Apple product in the case of a mechanical failure. Oftentimes, consumers have to find their own, mostly unintended, ways of repairing the products (Mitchell, 2018). In order to fix their device, individuals have to visit Apple-certified repair centers, or fully give up on the idea of restoring their product to its operational state. Right-to-repair movements have attempted to influence the company’s policies for years, with little to no effect (Grinvald & Tur-Sinai, 2020). Despite the problem being partially addressed in recent years, the way toward true reparability is not yet paved, and Apple has to work with the consequence of this fact.
In order to both attract a bigger audience and improve the sustainability of its tech, Apple needs to enable its buyers in repairing their goods. As mentioned previously, recent years have brought a shift into Apple’s internal perception of product reparability. Certain measures are proposed and continuously introduced to allow individuals to personally handle their devices breaking. Apple offsets a long existing problem by offering people special toolkits, and official guides on how to handle their tech safely and quickly (Grinvald & Tur-Sinai, 2020). This approach both demonstrates a company’s commitment to change and an ability to listen to customer feedback.
Impact of Social/Political Risk on Economics of Sustainability
Sustainability is a consideration for many companies, working toward the goal of supporting the environment and reducing production costs. In recent decades, many organizations are embracing the principles of a circular economy, including the reusability of their products or components into everyday company policies (Pieroni et al., 2019). However, many outside factors are capable of influencing how corporations are able to engage with the concept of sustainable business. In particular, risk factors in the social and political sphere are to be discussed. Social risk factors include labor-related problems, corporate governance, human rights violations, and instances of corruption (Homroy et al., 2020). In order to engage in sustainable business and reduce production costs, companies need reliable, skilled personnel and good leadership (Homroy et al., 2020). Facing risk factors regarding an organization’s labor force is likely to create instability, and impact the ability of the organization to deliver on the expected outcomes.
Political risks, then, include potential policy changes or international conflicts that are able to influence organizations. These types of issues are able to disrupt a company’s sustainability efforts. Political problems that affect multiple countries are capable of disrupting supply chains, which are a vital part of the corporate production cycle. Local legislation, similarly, can often disallow a corporation from enacting its plans (Adebayo, 2022). Without the ability to produce goods and parts for a specific price, and deliver them at a reasonable time, organizations lose the optimal conditions for enacting sustainable business practices.
Corporate Sustainability
Many organizations use Key Performance Indicators in order to monitor their capability to achieve company goals. These indicators, along with measures such as the OKR, are especially popular in the business sphere (Zhou & He, 2018). Applying specific metrics allows companies to save time on developing unique evaluation approaches and quickly access their future plans (Zhou & He, 2018). The use of KPI is vital to implementing, monitoring and adjusting improvement strategies over time. By identifying the correct performance indicators, it is possible to receive accurate and timely feedback on all vital aspects of a change procedure, and quickly eradicate mistakes (Zhou & He, 2018). For sustainability, there is no universal approach to formulating KPI’s, or ensuring adherence to them. For a media company and magazine publisher Corporate Knights, these KPIs include “energy, CO2, water, waste productivity, leadership diversity, CEO to average worker pay, % of tax paid, sustainability leadership, pay-link to sustainability, innovation capacity, and transparency” (Sharma et al., 2010). These metrics are used to measure the impact the company has on the environment, the society around it, and its workers. Both social corporate responsibility and the role of the organization in the world as a whole is considered. Energy, CO2, and water indicators all work to ensure the organization does not leave a negative influence on the planet or minimizes its damage as much as possible while mitigating it with time. Controlling CO2 emissions becomes central to creating a carbon-neutral business, a goal that many organizations strive for. Water and energy consumption work toward limiting the depletion of natural resources. Leadership diversity and pay considerations both contribute to creating an equitable work environment, providing employees with an incentive and opportunity to develop, and ensuring that the leadership stays grounded within the company’s values. A diverse selection of leaders is able to better cater to the needs of the workforce, being able to understand their struggles and desires. Innovation, transparency, and sustainability KPI’s, and lastly, aid the organization in introducing the necessary change in order to continue staying in operation.
References
Adebayo, T. S. (2022). Renewable energy consumption and environmental sustainability in Canada: Does political stability make a difference?Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Grinvald, L., & Tur-Sinai, O. (2020). The Right to Repair: Perspectives from the United States. Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 98.
Homroy, S., Li, W., & Selmane, N. (2020). Company law, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility, Private Law and Global Supply Chains, 27-78. Web.
Mitchell, S. (2018). Narratives of resistance and repair in consumer society. Third Text, 32(1), 55-67.
Pieroni, M. P., McAloone, T. C., & Pigosso, D. C. (2019). Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 198-216.
Sharma, N., Khan, S., & Hussain, S. (2010). Sustainability Benchmarking – Sustainability Benchmarking -The Case of Thule [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Lund University.
Shelley, C. (2015). The nature of simplicity in Apple design.The Design Journal, 18(3), 439-456.
Zhou, H., & He, Y. (2018). Comparative study of OKR and KPI. DEStech Transactions on Economics, Business and Management, (eced).