Sitting in my desk drawer at home is an old iphone 4, a macbook charger and an ipod that is so old it is no longer compatible with any current version of itunes. I am not keeping these for nostalgia, although I do have an emotional attachment to my first iPod. Rather I have no idea what to do with these outdated pieces of technology. Yes, there are recycling programs and buy back programs, but it was never clear to me what that actually meant, and where my old Apple products were going.

On March 21^st, Apple hosted another unveiling of their newest products and features. Tim Cook, the current CEO, touched on an impressive fact: around the world, there are 1 billion Apple products in use. While this is great news for the Apple’s growth and bottom line, what does this mean for waste? I am surely not the only one confused about the growing pile of outdated technology that is accelerating with the constant development of products in the tech industry.

Apple has created a program called Apple Renew to battle the issue of e-waste. Customers can return their old products to recycle them, and the company will then take care of deconstructing the product. The pieces are then collected and reintroduced into the supply chain.

While I was excited to hear about this program, I have so many questions! And these questions only grew after I saw that Apple Renew was the sixth option to pop up on Google, with minimal information on the website. How can they recycle materials from iphones, ipods and macbooks that are years old? Have they planned the design of their newer products to incorporate older materials? What happens to the materials they recover that cannot be put to use? If production is overseas, and they are recovering the materials in store/regionally, what impact is oversea transportation having on the planet?

Reading about this initiative confirmed to me that this is an issue that Apple has not adequately addressed, especially considering how many of their products have been sold since their inception. However, I think that this is an area where Apple needs to put more resources, and develop this program further. In addition, more transparency about the programs aim, geographical sourcing, and environmental cost should be shared with consumers. Apple has always been considered an innovator and a market leader, however, they are falling short in their responsibility to the planet.

“30,000 eggs, 80,000 potatoes, 26,000 bananas, 70,000 cups of milk and 32,000 loaves of bread” are wasted everyday in the Vancouver area, contributing to the 100,000 tones of edible food products that are wasted every year in the city. Cities, regions, and nations are setting waste targets to combat the food waste problems that individuals, families, and business are contributing to at an alarming rate. For example, the City of Vancouver has a goal to “reduce solid waste going to the landfill or incinerator by 50% from 2008 levels” by the year 2020. As of 2013, the City was down by 18%. Another example, is the Obama Administrations goal to reduce food waste by 50% by the year 2050.

With policy focused directly towards reducing food waste, entrepreneurs are responding to help achieve these goals. Imperfect Produce is start up in the San Francisco area that provides consumers produce (that is perfectly healthy to consume, despite being “cosmetically challenged”) at a affordable price. Not only is this proving a low-priced product to consumers, but Imperfect Produce is also able to create more revenue for the farmers whose imperfect fruits and veggies get rejected from grocery stores. By linking consumers, small organic farms, and large commercial farms, the company is able to connect the important stakeholders to help reduce unnecessary waste.

I am really energized by the startups focusing on this problem, because it is one that we can all respond to at an individual level and really see the impact of. These businesses making produce and other food products more financially accessible and offering delivery are creating a channel for consumers to get the produce conveniently and cheaply, creating an advantage to buying from a conventional store. The challenges that these companies will face are large, such as produce shortages from the changes environmental climate, scaling their services, and growing the market. However, I think that as communities become more aware of the current waste levels, companies like Imperfect Produce will be a convenient, inexpensive, environmentally friendly option to turn to.

After our class discussion a few weeks ago about Nike dropping their endorsement of Manny Pacquaio, and the larger discussion about supply chain, I was intrigued and wanted to know more. I stumbled across an article that argued that social engagement is the route to business benefits. The article claims that “social impact” within a companies supply chain is becoming more and more important to consumers, as low prices are becoming less of a priority. Knowing the impact of a purchase on the consumer, their community, the environment, and so on, is becoming more valuable in the eyes of the buyer. The article uses Walmart as an example, as their change in tag line from ‘Always low prices’ to ‘Save Money. Live Better.’ signaled a change in the needs of their customers.

I agree with this article that businesses should focus on the areas within their supply chain where they could improve their social impact. However, the simple approach that they offer, in my opinion, does not seem sufficient. Their solution is to simply engage the communities within the supply chain and find a way to engage the community in a way that will improve the situation. While engaging the stakeholders will certainly offer insight, I think that it is a businesses duty to “quantify every effect” that they have within communities and on the environment.

I also think that there are many barriers to simply interacting with and engaging with the community to improve the negative effects of the business in those areas. The example that came out of the Manny Pacquaio example is one of national law; if Nike wanted to only use manufactures in a country where homosexuality was against the law, what is Nike’s place as a business to change that? In addition to national laws, there can be cultural barriers, language barriers, and economic challenges that may dilute the effectiveness of a simple approach to social engagement.

In conclusion, I agree that it is a businesses duty to pay close attention to their supply chain, and work to eliminate any negative effects within that system. However, I think that this is a complex undertaking, that in the era or global business presents challenges that will require more action then engagement. Although, this is a positive first step.