Samsung Group

Is Samsung ethical?

We researched Samsung’s approach to several key areas, such as climate change,  workers’ rights, tech sustainability, conflict minerals, tax conduct and company ethos. It scored 40 points or less out of 100 in all but one category. 

Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Samsung overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.

People

Samsung is allegedly exposing workers to toxic chemicals, claims a whistleblower in Vietnam. An environmental safety officer working for Samsung claimed in 2022 that for the preceding 14 years Samsung’s managers, in both Vietnam and South Korea, had regularly ignored environmental and safety regulations. In one factory, the company’s 16,000 workers, who assemble a hundred million smartphones each year, had to work in the fumes of powerful chemicals. These included irritants to soft tissues and organs but also at least one neurotoxin. One woman at Samsung’s second-tier supplier in Vietnam is said to have died of methanol poisoning. 

Samsung says that it “strictly complies with environmental and safety laws and regulations”  and takes immediate corrective actions when non-compliance is found.

Samsung is also listed in a report of companies directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uyghur workers outside the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China through abusive labour transfer programs. Uyghur Muslims are people originally from the Xinjiang Region. In the past decades, millions of them have been coerced to leave their homes, “re-educated” and forced to work in a scheme that has been labelled as a crime against humanity. Despite warnings from various organisations, including the U.N., many companies are still linked to using Uyghur forced labour. 

Although the company has a fairly comprehensive supply chain policy, due to the many criticisms it faces that suggest the policy has been violated, Samsung only scores 20/100 in our workers category. 

Samsung has a comprehensive conflict mineral policy and scores well (80/100) in this category. However, one article in the Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection published in 2021 outlined that Samsung had been implicitly linked to human rights abuses, such as using child labour and perilous conditions in mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Samsung also doesn’t appear to adequately mitigate the environmental destruction mining causes. While it states in its Responsible Mineral Report that it “doesn’t tolerate” environmental damages caused by mineral mining, it doesn’t discuss what it does to prevent them.

Environment

An article by the Financial Times, published in 2021, criticised the company by outlining how Samsung Electronics' carbon emissions rose despite the company “touting claims” that its sites in the US, Europe and China used only renewable energy. According to Greenpeace, the company relied on fossil fuels for more than 80 percent of its electricity.

While Samsung reports on its greenhouse gas emissions which is positive, it lacks science-based targets for reducing its emissions. Due to this and the external criticisms we found, it scores 0/100 in our climate change category.

Samsung also scores poorly (10/100) in our tech sustainability rating which measures companies’ approach to longevity, repairability, warranties and the use of recycled materials in their tech products (mobile phones, laptops and tablets). For some of this research we use scores form iFixit. iFixit rates tech products on their approach to repairability, awarding devices a mark between 0 and 10.

Samsung’s had an average iFixit score of 4/10. It generally provided only 1 year warranty on its devices and used some, but not a significant amount, of recycled materials. 

Politics

Samsung is involved in the arms/military sector. Its “Tactical edition” mobile phone devices are designed to “help transform the way military personnel operate, improving situational awareness and decision-making capabilities”. Its Knox platform is “trusted by military forces and government bodies worldwide”. 

Its turnover is £152 billion, yet it does not disclose the remuneration of its CEO. In past years, when it still reported on it, this amount reached tens of millions of pounds.

Samsung is also a member of two lobby groups: the National Foreign Trade Council and the World Economic Forum. Lobby groups exert undue corporate influence on policy-makers in favour of market solutions that are potentially detrimental to the environment and human rights. 

For these reasons Samsung scores 0/100 for company ethos.

Tax

Samsung has several subsidiaries based in tax havens, for example in Mauritius and Hong Kong. These subsidiaries are considered high-risk company types for likely use of tax avoidance strategies. 

Asia Financial reported in January 2023 that “Samsung India Electronics misclassified networking devices called remote radio heads to avoid basic customs duty... to avoid import taxes of 17.28 billion rupees – $212 million”. A Samsung India spokesperson said “This is a tax dispute involving interpretation of law. We are reviewing the notice and are exploring legal opinion”.

It received 0/100 points for its tax conduct. 

The text above was written in September 2024, and most research was conducted in summer 2024.