Samsung vs Apple: Which Is More Ethical? (2026 Comparison)

Samsung Electronics has the higher average in Mashinii's latest stored comparison: −6 against Apple's −9, across ten available dimensions. Apple leads on technology, sourcing and the weapons dimension; Samsung leads on worker treatment, business conduct, waste and community impact. Three dimensions are tied. Neither company earns a positive overall average.

That corrects the earlier version of this article, which displayed different scores and incorrectly put Apple ahead overall. These are company-level assessments, not a laboratory comparison of an iPhone and a Galaxy phone. Your choice can change depending on whether privacy, working conditions or product longevity matters most to you.

Is Samsung more ethical than Apple? The scorecard

The records below are dated 26–27 April 2026 and were checked on 8 October 2026. They are the latest stored ratings, rather than scores newly calculated for October. Later evidence discussed below does not automatically change those records.

Read Apple's scores and cited evidence and Samsung Electronics' scores and cited evidence. Under Mashinii's methodology, scores range from −100 to +100. A recorded zero is not missing data and does not certify an absence of harm. The unavailable financial-opportunity dimension is excluded from both averages.

Samsung leads on four dimensions and Apple on three. The three-point average difference is a result of equal weighting; it is not a probability, an independently validated measure of superiority or a reason to ignore a particular issue.

iPhone vs Samsung: ethical sourcing and factory workers

Apple has the higher sourcing score (−10 vs −20), while Samsung has the higher worker-treatment score (+30 vs −10). These dimensions should not be merged: a supplier-control programme and conditions for the company's own workforce answer different questions.

Apple's current supply-chain disclosure reports 895 supplier-facility assessments in 2025, with more than 20% unannounced. It describes worker interviews and corrective action when violations are found. This is useful company-reported information, not proof that every factory is free of exploitation.

Comparing audit counts alone is misleading. Check which facilities are covered, how repeat visits are counted, whether workers can speak safely, and what remedies follow a finding. A larger audit programme can reflect a larger supply chain rather than uniformly better conditions.

There is also a dated enforcement record. The US Justice Department's November 2023 Apple agreement resolved discriminatory recruitment allegations through up to $25 million in back pay and civil penalties. Its May 2026 update says the $18.25 million back-pay fund was processed for qualifying workers. That is a recruitment case, not a finding about every supplier factory.

Which is better for the environment?

The climate dimension is tied at −20. Samsung has the higher waste score, −10 against Apple's −20. The old article's claim of a climate-score advantage for Apple is not supported by the current stored values.

The companies report different operational boundaries. Apple's environment page describes a goal of reducing global-footprint greenhouse-gas emissions by 75% from 2015 before balancing remaining emissions. Samsung's 2026 sustainability announcement distinguishes its Device eXperience and semiconductor businesses and their operational climate programmes. A global value-chain target cannot be compared directly with one division's operational target.

For your next phone, examine the exact model's repair options, battery-replacement cost, remaining security support and product environmental report. Those practical checks are more relevant to how long you can use it than a parent-company average alone. A new device is not automatically the better environmental choice just because its manufacturer has the higher score.

Is Apple better than Samsung for privacy?

Apple leads on the broader Safe & Smart Tech dimension, +20 versus −10. This is not a standalone privacy test, and the earlier statement that Samsung had no technology score was incorrect.

Apple's privacy-controls documentation explains app permissions and the requirement for permission before tracking across other companies' apps and websites. Such controls have a defined scope; they do not mean that no data is collected or that every installed app handles information safely.

Check permissions, cloud services and the settings of the actual device and apps you use. Our Google, Microsoft and Apple privacy comparison covers related company-level issues. A documented feature and a company's wider enforcement record both matter; neither should erase the other.

Which phone should an ethically minded buyer choose?

If worker treatment is your main priority, Samsung has the stronger stored result. If technology practices or sourcing is the priority, Apple leads on those dimensions. If climate is decisive, this scorecard gives neither a lead.

Use that as the start of the decision, then check the supporting evidence and the particular device. Avoid transferring a finding about another company in a corporate group to Samsung Electronics without establishing the relationship and responsibility involved. Likewise, an accessory policy does not settle the ethics of an entire supply chain.

For options beyond these two brands, read our ethical phone-brand comparison. For Apple's wider record, see Is Apple ethical?. The company-score links above let you inspect individual dimensions instead of relying solely on our summary.

Correction and review, 8 October 2026: replaced mismatched scores and averages, corrected winner counts and missing-data treatment, and removed unsupported statistics and claims conflating separate businesses. Updated supplier and recruitment evidence while preserving the original publication date.