Sustainability Face-off: Assessing the Environmental Impact of Apple and Samsung Smartphones

Written by: Better Ask Me



Time to read 3 min

In an era marked by rising environmental concerns, the technology industry has been compelled to reflect on its footprint and make changes accordingly. Among tech titans, Apple and Samsung have long been arch-rivals in the smartphone market. But how do these giants measure up when it comes to sustainability? This article aims to shed light on the environmental impact of smartphone production, spotlighting the efforts made by Apple and Samsung in their quest towards greener practices.

desk with apple devices

Sustainability Face-off

Understanding the Environmental Impact of Smartphones

The environmental footprint of a smartphone isn't limited to its use-phase. It begins with the extraction of raw materials and extends to manufacturing, packaging, transportation, and end-of-life disposal. Each stage contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, water use, and waste generation.

Precious metals like gold, silver, palladium, and rare earth elements form the backbone of a phone's electronic components. The mining and refining of these resources often leads to habitat destruction, soil and water pollution, and adverse social impacts in mining communities.

Next comes the manufacturing process, which is energy-intensive and generates substantial CO2 emissions. Packaging, often plastic-based, adds to the environmental toll, while transportation across the globe increases the product's carbon footprint.

Finally, the disposal of smartphones poses significant challenges. E-waste, the fastest-growing waste stream globally, contains toxic substances that can leach into the environment if not properly managed.

With this backdrop, let's compare how Apple and Samsung, as industry leaders, are addressing these environmental challenges.

Apple's Green Initiatives

Apple has taken several measures in recent years to mitigate its environmental impact and promote sustainability.

  1. Recycling and Material Recovery: Apple has developed a robot, named "Daisy", capable of disassembling iPhones to recover valuable materials. The company also offers a trade-in program where old devices are either refurbished for resale or recycled.

  2. Renewable Energy: Apple claims that its global facilities are powered by 100% renewable energy. In addition, the company is working to bring its entire supply chain under the umbrella of renewable energy.

  3. Carbon Neutrality: In 2020, Apple committed to becoming 100% carbon neutral across its entire business, manufacturing supply chain, and product lifecycle by 2030.

  4. Reduced Packaging: Apple has considerably reduced the size of its iPhone packaging by no longer including power adapters and EarPods, significantly reducing electronic waste.

Samsung's Sustainability Efforts

Samsung, another industry leader, has also made strides towards greener practices, albeit at a different pace and approach.

  1. Eco-Conscious Products: Samsung has launched "Galaxy Upcycling", a program aimed at converting old smartphones into IoT devices. It also offers the "Galaxy Eco-Packaging" that encourages customers to repurpose the packaging into useful household items.

  2. Energy Efficiency: Samsung has focused on enhancing energy efficiency in product use. Their flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S21, is equipped with an adaptive power-saving feature to minimize energy consumption.

  3. Waste Reduction: Samsung has committed to reducing waste in their production processes. It uses recycled paper for packaging and has set a goal to use only paper certified by global environmental organizations by 2030.

  4. Carbon Emissions: While Samsung has been slower than Apple to commit to carbon neutrality, it has set a goal to cut its emissions by 70% compared to 2018 levels by 2030.

Apple vs. Samsung: A Sustainability Verdict

Comparing the sustainability efforts of Apple and Samsung, both companies are making significant strides, albeit with differing focal points. Apple appears to lead in the realm of renewable energy and carbon neutrality, with a comprehensive plan extending to its manufacturing supply chain. Its recycling initiatives also stand out, thanks to its Daisy robot and trade-in programs.

On the other hand, Samsung shines in its innovative approach to product lifespan extension through its Galaxy Upcycling program. Its focus on energy efficiency during product use is commendable, although it falls short of Apple's carbon neutrality commitment.

The Road Ahead: A Call for Greater Transparency and Accountability

While both companies are making progress, there's considerable room for improvement, especially regarding transparency in reporting environmental impact. For example, third-party verification of claimed carbon footprints would add credibility to these claims.

Moreover, companies should not overlook the social dimensions of sustainability. Addressing issues like labor rights in the supply chain and the fair distribution of environmental benefits is equally important.

As consumers, we hold significant sway in pushing these tech giants towards greener practices. By opting for sustainable products, participating in recycling programs, and holding companies accountable, we can contribute to a more sustainable future.

In conclusion, the sustainability face-off between Apple and Samsung is a tight race. Both are taking strides to reduce their environmental footprint, but there's still a long road ahead. The hope is that their continued efforts and competition in sustainability will inspire other tech companies to follow suit, fostering an industry-wide shift towards more responsible and sustainable practices.

Some building in the modern side of Milan

This article is for informational purposes only. All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing in this article, including but not limited to Apple, Samsung, iPhone, Galaxy, Siri, Bixby, Face ID, Live Photos, and other brand names or logos are the property of their respective owners. Use of these names, logos, and brands does not imply endorsement. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the mentioned companies.

Leave a comment