ASUS

Greenpeace's 2017 report 'Clicking Clean' looks at the energy footprints of large data centre operators and popular websites and applications, and calls on these companies to power their data centres on renewable energy. Companies are graded (A,B,C,D,F) on their commitment to and procurement of renewable energy, as well as energy efficiency, transparency and advocacy. This company's final grade was D.
[Source 2017][More on Climate Change]

This company received a grade of D in the Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics (Oct 2017), which assesses companies from the electronics industry across three impact areas: energy use, resource consumption, and chemical elimination. Of the 17 companies ranked, this company came twelfth.
[Source 2017][More on Climate Change]

This 2016 investigative report by China Labour Watch reveals poor work conditions for Chinese workers making products for this company. Labour rights violations include excessive overtime, forced labour, low wages, inadequate training and working 3 months without a single day off.
[Source 2016][More on Workers Rights]

Milieudefensie and Friends of the Earth have assessed how open manufacturers of smartphones, tablets, laptops and game consoles are about the use of materials, water, land surface area and greenhouse gas emissions. Assessment also covered whether manufacturers are honest about the use of tin from Indonesia and whether they are prepared to address the abuses in the tin mines on Bangka in Indonesia, such as by participating in the IDH project (Sustainable Trade Initiative). This company received an 'orange' rating, indicating they either take no responsibility for the situation on Bangka Belitung or do not provide enough information on the use of raw materials.
[Source 2015][More on Human Rights]

Brands owned by this company are on RankaBrand's Greenwashing Alert list. These are companies that report in some way on sustainability, but the information they provide is either of marginal or no relevance and is not explicit about sustainability performance.
[Source 2014][More on Irresponsible Marketing]

This company scores Ethical Consumer's worst rating for the likely use of tax avoidance strategies, and has at least two high risk subsidiaries in tax havens.
[Source 2018][More on Finance]