Questionnaire for your green expectations of Fairphone supply chain and the corresponding rejection rate

Hey, FairPhone supporters, I am a master student whos is doing research about consumer greenness expectations towards Fairphone supply chain processes, namely, raw material purchasing, manufacturing, warehousing, and transporting; Apart from your greenness expectations researching, I would like to investigate your rejection rate, especially, when you realize one of the Fairphone supply chains processes greenness below your expectations.

Hereby, you can reach the questionnaire link. If you have any questions, I am willing to answer them.

Really appreciate your contribution
Best Regards

1 Like

You wouldn’t be the first to ask people here to fill in their questionnaire, so I’d say go ahead.

You may want to consider if you want to post the link to it openly, or if you want people to respond in this thread with a confirmation that they want to take the survey so you can DM them a link.


Thank you for your positive feedback. I edited my post and shared the link openly.

1 Like

I suggest you to edit the title then, for it to explain clearly to anyone interested what your questionnaire is. “Proposal for questionnaire” is a bit strange and misleading now that it’s not really a proposal anymore.


I’m not sure it’s good to write

According to Techradar (A website especially provides technology information) review, FairPhone has a bad camera performance, furthermore, the internal Android operating system cannot be upgraded to the newest version (The OS only can be upgraded to Android 9 maximum)

in the introduction of your questionnaire although it’s just repeating a website’s review, because

  • FP3 is already running Android 9 (so “can be upgraded to” gives imho no sense)
  • I assume there will be an upgrade for FP3 to Android 10 in the future.

Nice, since I only edited the content. I will do it now. Appreciate it

That is a good point. I will modify the way to express.

1 Like

To be honest, I would expect some more explanation, what the questionnaire is about in the introduction. And you should explain what’s happening with the data etc.
That’s something to be explained beforehand and not to be “learned on the way” by answering the questionnaire.
Tell a story, why you do this research, what your interest is, what you hope to achieve (besides your master degree) and get the people interested in your project and in helping you.
The current “introduction” gives absolutely no clue and the button “I understand” is strange. What do I understand? Did you mean to get some opproval for data-usage?


I understand your concern. About the data-usage, I didn’t do it well, I appreciate your point. About more explanation, I have to say not so many people know Fairphone as you do, more explanation will reduce their focus and let participants feel boring; Besides, I would like to stand in an objective way, I am afraid more explanations will let them feel I am standing in the Fairphone side. Overall, I appreciate your critical points.

1 Like

I changed “I understand it” to “By clicking on the button, you agree to take part in my research project and consent the data usage”. Thank you

1 Like

Thx for your answers.
I intended my remarks as tips for improvement.
By explanation I just meant to point out, that the focus of the project is not explained.

I want to research, what is important for (potential) customers of Fairphone. What are their expectations/understandings of the brand. Why did someone buy a Fairphone or why did someone decide to buy another brand (is that meant by rejection rate?).

You know, to give the people an idea to what kind of research project they agree in partaking by clicking the button. You don’t have to express any opinion and you are quite correct, that you really should not do so.

1 Like

I tried to start your survey, but unfortunately, I already stopped at the second question (my greenness-level expectations for FP), because I already “know too much” about it. Fairphones are probably just <0.5% really fair (as far as I know, currently only the gold is Fairtrade) and then maybe for 10% of the production chain above industry standards. They still don’t have control over most of the raw materials and their processing to the components that are in a FP, therefore I think by saying that FP has their value chain totally under control, you give a wrong impression about what they already achieved, and therefore create a bias in the following questions.
I didn’t want to falsify your results by knowing this and still filling out the survey, because I can’t base my answers only on the texts provided by you (although I think that you should change them to better match the (relatively small) progress that FP really made so far).


This feels like a (state-sponsored?) subtle undermining of the Fairphone/Green ethos. Asking us to focus our attention to where processes are less than. If this user really finds Fairphone processes questionable, why not state them outright here and invite comment. This just raises awareness in an unfounded way and attempts to gather anti-sustainability information momentum.
I apologise to Xiang if he is a genuine Masters student, and I would ask him to examine his motivations in pursuing this line of research


I’ll probably join others by saying I don’t really get what you want. I have a fairphone because they are the only ones to do such a product, and I haven’t yet found better. I don’t have an exact “greenness level” that I defined and that I respect by doing a comparison with other products. My brother discovered fairphone, convinced me, I have one because I agree with their ethics and support their will to change. Period.
How can I rate whether I want to buy or not a Fairphone product depending on greenness expectations I never thought about?
And there, I agree with @Stanzi. Is your questionnaire really addressed to Fairphone customers who more or less already know about Fairphone, and not to people who don’t know anything about them?

1 Like


I am deterred by the way this survey is presented.

  • You say you’re doing a masters. Which university? No mention on the survey - actually, no mention of any sort of source or creator.
  • You use Qualtrics. As far as I know (and I work for the company which bought Qualtrics), this is not for free. Who pays the money? Qualtrics is not known to be especially privacy-sensitive…
  • You have a button “I understand […] that my data is used”. This is not sufficient for European standards. Who (goes back to the university question) is using the data for what (GDPR requires stating the purpose of data usage) - your thesis only?

Sorry if this is only due to different standards, or inexperience, but I am used to much better presentation of the background and the privacy concerns from bachelor theses I get regularly.

In summary, the whole survey strikes me as an innovative form to lure people into divulging their data and helping unknown goals of unknown individuals or organizations.

Danke & GrĂĽĂźe von


While I certainly don’t claim to know everything about Fairphone, I subscribe to Ethical Consumer and feel reassured that it rates Fairphone highly. I think that consumers generally, including me, don’t think enough about where products come from, their ecological footprint, the human rights of miners/producers etc. I do have a petition running about the dark side of mobiles. If anyone wants to suggest improvements then please do contact me. Thanks!

I just didn’t have the guts to be that blunt about it.
And somehow I have doubts, that we will hear from the threadopener again.


This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.