Advertisement

The maquiladora electronics industry on Mexico’s northern border and the environment

  • Claudia SchatanEmail author
  • Liliana Castilleja
Original Paper

Abstract

The electronic sector, in particular, the computing industry, has become an increasing concern because of the environmental impact of its products throughout their life cycle. The United States, Europe and Japan as the greatest consumers of electronic goods have given special attention to this issue. The fast computer obsolescence and its difficult confinement, because of the hazardous substances contained, have required a special effort of technical innovation. Nevertheless, this effort seems to respond mainly to the standards required by the countries in which these goods are produced, consumed and confined, which are radically different in developed and developing countries. Though an important part of the production process (assembling) is done in developing countries, little attention has been paid to the environmental quality at this production stage. This study examines the environmental problems and strategy of the electronic assembly industry in the three northern border cities of Mexico. Almost half of 200 electronic maquiladora enterprises surveyed had not undertaken any active environmental policy and there was a limited environmental standards enforcement. Evidence was found that the firms that had operated for a longer period of time had better chances of taking better care of the environment. Environmental firm policies became weaker as one descended from the head office to the subsidiaries and then to their suppliers. It is also found that some transnational corporations operate with double standards in Mexico and thus strong national policies on environmental standards in Mexico are required to change this practice.

Keywords

Electronic maquiladora industry Environment International environmental standards Mexican border cities Pollution 

Abbreviation

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

NAFTA

North American Free Trade Agreement

EU

European Union

MCC

Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation

WEEE

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive

RoHS

Restriction on Hazardous Substances Directive

CFCs

Chlorofluorocarbons

PCBs

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

LGEEPA

General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection in Mexico

Profepa

Office of the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection in Mexico

Notes

Acknowledgments

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the institution where they are employed. We are indebted to Pablo Sauma’s valuable technical advice in the analysis of the survey on maquiladoras and to ZhongXiang Zhang and an anonymous referee for thoughtful comments.

References

  1. Carrillo, J., García, H., & Gomis, R. (2005). Environmental performance and productive evolution in the export maquiladora industry. In J. Carrillo & C. Schatan (Eds.), The environment and the maquila in Mexico: an inescapable problem (pp. 79–160). Mexico City: ECLAC.Google Scholar
  2. CESPEDES/CCE (Private sector studies center for sustainable development of the Business Coordinator Council, Mexico) (2001). Environment infrastructure: Needs, public/private alliances, mimeo, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  3. COLEF (Colegio de la Frontera Norte) (2002). Survey on Technology Learning and industrial upgrading, Department of Social Studies, Tijuana, Mexico (This survey was financed by CONACYT, Project No. 36947-s (Technology learning and industrial upgrading. Perspectives for innovation capacities formulation in the maquiladora industry in Mexico, COLEF/FLACSO/UNAM)).Google Scholar
  4. Dussel, E. (2003). The electronic industry in Mexico, Jalisco. In E. Dussel Peters, J. J. Palacios Lara, & G. Woo Gomez (Eds.), The electronic industry in Mexico: Problems, perspectives and proposals (pp. 235–280). Guadalajara, Mexico: University of Guadalajara.Google Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2001). Greening your purchase of electronics: Environmentally preferable purchasing guide, December, Available at: www.epa.gov/oppt/epp.Google Scholar
  6. Green, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis, 4th edn. United States: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática) (2002). Program for the electronic and high tehcnology industries’ competitiveness, Competitiveness Council, Mexico.Google Scholar
  8. Journal of the Flagstaff Institute, several issues, The Flagstaff Institute, Arizona, United States.Google Scholar
  9. Low, P., & Yeats, A. (1992). Do “dirty” industries migrate? In P. Low (Ed.), International trade and the environment (pp. 89–104). World Bank Discussion Paper No. 159. World Bank: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Lüthje, B. (2003). Electronic manufacturing by contract: Global production and the world division of work in the Internet era. In E. Dussel Peters, J. J. Palacios Lara, G. Woo Gomez (Eds.), The electronic industry in Mexico: Problems, perspectives and proposals (pp 59–102). Guadalajara, Mexico: University of Guadalajara.Google Scholar
  11. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) (1994). Electronics Industry Environmental Roadmap. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and US Department of Energy, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Montalvo, C. (2002). Challenges for cleaner production in international manufacturing subcontracting: The case of the maquila industry in Northern Mexico (Document Presented at the International Workshop Industrial Innovation and Environment Regulation: Towards an Integrated Approach, 6–7 September. Maastricht, The Netherlands: The United Nations University).Google Scholar
  13. Romo, M. D. (2002). Foreign direct investment in the Mexican industry: Spillovers and the development of technological capabilities, PhD Thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  14. Salazar, C. (1998). Semi conductors from the Philippines (Document Presented at the Conference on Global Product Chains: Northern Consumers, Southern Producers, and Sustainability, 13 March, Geneva, Switzerland, Available at: http://www.iisd.org/susprod/semiconduct.pdf).Google Scholar
  15. Schatan, R. (2002). Maquiladoras’ fiscal Regimen. Comercio Exterior, 52(10), 916–926.Google Scholar
  16. SEMARNAP (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca) (2000). Report 1995–2000, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  17. SEMARNAT (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales) (2003). PROFEPA Annual Report, 2002, Mexico City.Google Scholar
  18. US Census Bureau (2005). Manufacturing, mining and construction statistics, Available at: http://www.census.gov/cir/www/334/ma334r.html.Google Scholar
  19. Von Moltke, K., & Kuik, O. (1998). Global product chains and the environment. United Nations Environmental Program.Google Scholar
  20. Zhang, Z. X., & Assunção, L. (2004). Domestic climate policy and the WTO. The World Economy, 27(3), 359–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Trade and Industry UnitEconomic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (CEPAL)MexicoMexico
  2. 2.School of EconomicsUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations