Hybrid laptop-tablets

Convertibles, hybrids or 2-in-1s are one of the fastest-growing products in the PC industry. They all mean the same thing in essence – a device which is trying to be both a laptop and a tablet.

But there are some big differences between a convertible laptop and a convertible tablet:

• A convertible laptop comes in various different styles but is likely to have a screen which flips or folds to transform it into a tablet. In general, they are less powerful than comparably-sized laptops, as they use mobile processors that are designed more for cool, quiet operation than they are for speed.
• A convertible tablet is more like a regular tablet with a removable keyboard. The keyboard either attaches magnetically or via a case which creates a laptop-like experience. The keyboard may connect over Bluetooth in some cases.

Hybrids and conflict minerals

It has long been known that the extraction of minerals has become entangled with human conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

To build the components that make up a computing device, various paramilitary groups fight for control of small-scale artisan mines. This acts as a catalyst for grave human rights abuses including forced labour and child labour, and the money raised funds further violence, exploitation and corruption.

Known as conflict minerals or 3TGs, tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold mined in the DRC have been linked to the funding of armed groups, and have helped to fuel a war for over twenty years. Worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, the minerals provide a valuable source of income to rebel groups, militias, and criminal gangs. 

Read more about conflict minerals and technology in our separate article.

Toxic chemicals

*reported limited data defined as Scope 3 such as employee travel, but did not include supply chain or product-use emissions.

Among the dozens of elements and compounds used in the production of electronic devices are numerous substances known to be toxic to human health and the natural environment.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are two substances often used in the plastic parts of electronic devices. Both substances are known to produce harmful by-products, such as highly toxic and carcinogenic dioxins, which can be released at various stages of a product’s lifecycle.

The danger becomes acute after the disposal of a device, when plastics are often burned in incinerators or by workers in informal recycling operations, releasing dioxins directly into the air.

Phthalates are a group of chemicals often used as a softener in PVC. Over time, they leak out of plastic materials into the surrounding environment and have been linked to a wide range of health problems affecting the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive systems. This is one of the reasons for which e-waste is deemed such an issue. More about e-waste.

In the European Union, the RoHS Directive restricts the use of toxic substances in electronics, including a number of BFRs and, as of 2019, four phthalates. However, the restrictions do not extend to all chemicals in these groups.

Ethical Consumer rates electronics companies on their level of commitment to completely phasing out PVC, BFRs and phthalates. The three PC brands that received our best rating for the use of toxic chemicals – iameco, Apple and Huawei – had committed to removing all PVC and BFRs from their entire product range. The companies that received our worst rating had either committed to reducing rather than eliminating these substances or had no public policy.

Workers' Rights

Inadequate working conditions are a persistent issue in the IT supply chain.

Conditions in Chinese electronics factories have frequently made headlines for low wages, excessive working hours, forced overtime and insufficient breaks, and the even the limited labour laws that do exist are frequently violated.

Chinese labour law does place restrictions on overtime and shift patterns for student workers. Despite this, repeated reports by NGOs and news publications suggest that the law is routinely ignored. Our feature on workers' rights in the technology industry will tell you more about what has been reported recently.

The carbon cost of laptop-tablet hybrids

The contribution of IT and the electronics sector to climate change is a growing problem, with studies suggesting that the production and use of electronic devices will account for 14% of total greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, which equates to one half of today’s global transport sector. For notebooks, ‘non-use phases’ account for between 40% and 64% of the total Global Warming Potential (GWP), while the same figure for smartphones was between 51% and 92%.

Like the gadgets themselves, the issue is highly complex, with emissions occurring throughout the lifecycle of a product: resource extraction, multiple stages of manufacture, transportation, use and disposal all contribute significantly to the climate impact of a device.

The production stage is often the most significant. The complexity of the product means it requires large amounts of energy to manufacture, although the quantities are difficult to measure as a myriad of materials and components need to be processed and assembled by different companies along a huge supply chain 

Broadening the scope of reporting

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol defines a set of standards to assist companies with measuring and tracking their climate impact in real terms by separating emissions sources into three categories known as Scopes.

Scope 1 covers direct emissions produced by a company’s own facilities, while scope 2 accounts for the emissions caused by electricity use of the company.*Reported limited data defined as Scope 3 such as employee travel but did not include supply chain or product-use emissions.

Scope 3 takes into account “all other indirect emissions”, including those produced in the supply chain, product use and disposal as well as other activities such as business travel.

Although much more difficult to measure, Scope 3 emissions generally account for the largest share of a company’s carbon footprint. This is particularly true for electronics manufacturers, where so much energy use occurs outside of each company’s direct control.

Despite this, we found that not all companies we assessed measured and reported on scope 3 emissions. The level of reporting by each company is shown in the table above.

Tax avoidance

Ethical Consumer rated companies on the likely use of tax avoidance strategies based on whether they listed subsidiaries in countries or regions on our list of known tax havens.

Companies with two or more subsidiaries considered to be high-risk within these areas were given our worst rating, unless they published country-bycountry financial information, a policy statement or narrative explanation that could explain a different purpose for these subsidiaries.

Among the PC brands rated in this guide, all of the big multinational companies received our worst rating. Only the small alternative manufacturers VeryPC and iameco avoided losing marks.