Sharp Australia

This company received a score of 7.2/100 (retrieved 10-Oct-2020) in the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), a system for evaluating supply chain practices in China, particularly in regards to environmental management and water pollution. Scores are calculated using government compliance data, online monitoring data, and third-party environmental audits, as well as trends in the environmental performance of factories in the company's supply chains.
Source: IPE (2020)

The Chinese government has facilitated the mass transfer of Uyghur and other ethnic minority citizens from the far west region of Xinjiang to factories across the country. Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including brands owned by this company. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's 2020 report estimates (somewhat conservatively) that more than 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, and some of them were sent directly from detention camps.
Source: ASPI (2020)

This company received a score of 38.8/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.
Source: Newsweek (2017)

The 2019 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 200 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel, Extractives and ICT Manufacturing sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 10-20 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: CHRB (2019)

This open letter from the iLabour Action Group to Foxconn Technology Group outlines several labour rights violations by this company in its Chinese factories including constant illegal overtime and inadequate base wages which have led to mental health issues amongst workers, sometimes leading to suicides.
Source: SACOM (2015)

This company received a score of 26.6/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.
Source: Newsweek (2017)

This 2016 scorecard by SOMO compares electronics companies on their policies and efforts regarding responsible mining and the elimination of child labour, with special attention to the mining of gold. This company received the lowest rating on the scorecard.
Source: Stop Child Labour (2016)

In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security Score of D.
Source: CDP (2020)

In 2020/21 KnowTheChain benchmarked over 180 large global companies in the ICT, Food & Beverage, and Apparel & Footwear sectors on their efforts to address forced labour and human trafficking in their supply chains. This company received a score of 28/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2021)

Electronics manufacturing in Brazil started with the same kinds of labour violations as seen in countries like China. However over time Brazil's comprehensive labour laws and enforcement thereof have improved conditions for workers, particularly in the areas of excessive working hours and inappropriate use of temporary labour. Despite this, wages are still well below a living wage, unhealthy working conditions remain, and workers still experience harassment and a "culture of fear".
Source: SOMO (2017)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 27/100 in the Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2021)