Why Do Apple, Facebook, and Other Companies Have So Many Masks Lying Around?

“Because they are prepared.”

CEO Tim Cook and President Trump in an Apple manufacturing plant.AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Over the last few days, major US corporations like Apple, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and others have announced donations of hundreds of thousands, and even millions of protective masks to the government to help mitigate a massive shortage as health care workers treating patients with the coronavirus run low.

The Trump administration has praised such donations from big tech, but for many, the gifts raise an obvious question: why do all these companies have so many N95 masks lying around?

A short answer is 2018’s devastating California wildfires, which were some of the deadliest and most destructive the state has ever seen. After the blazes ravaged the northern part of the state and affected the Bay Area, the state government passed a regulation requiring employers to provide masks to employees who could be exposed to wildfire smoke.

As Facebook explained to Mother Jones, it acquired the 720,000 N95 masks that it donated to the government this week because of that guideline. The company says that because almost all of its employees are working from home, they have no need for the masks.

On Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence said that Apple would be donating 9 million masks, following Tim Cook’s tweets pledging to donate millions to be distributed to health care providers. If Pence’s number is correct, it’s unclear why Apple would have that many masks. Its Cupertino, California headquarters houses about 12,000 employees, a similar size to the roughly 15,000 employees who work out of Facebook’s nearby Menlo Park headquarters.

Apple did not return a request for comment regarding why it has roughly twelve and a half times as many masks, but the discrepancy could be explained by Apple’s overall size. Apple’s 130,000 person strong workforce is almost three times the size of Google’s 44,000, and they could have more contractors at their Cupertino headquarters than Facebook does in Menlo Park. It’s also possible that Apple has more because manufactured products are central to its business. While most Apple products are made and assembled outside of the United States by subcontractors, the company conducts research and development in the U.S. which occasionally requires “cleanrooms”—extremely sanitary areas with low levels of pollutants that provide optimal testing conditions. It’s possible that Apple uses masks to protect sensitive equipment in such facilities.

Sources inside other companies in California said that their workplaces also had stockpiles of N95 masks, other personal protective equipment, and general emergency supplies. One former corporate security employee at a large Silicon Valley tech company said that company kept water and food on hand for potential disasters. 

Rich Coglianese, who has spent the last decade helping major corporations prepare for disasters by leading their enterprise resilience and crisis management teams, explained that many businesses take similar precautions.

“Apple simply has these masks because they are prepared to continue working in this scenario,” he said in an email, suggesting the stockpile could have been assembled not just for wildfires, but in anticipation of a pandemic. “This is the challenge for every organization—preparedness is expensive and only proves its value in time like these.”

“Companies typically plan for a worst-case scenario, so the algorithm Apple probably used worked out that they need this many masks,” Coglianese elaborated on a phone call. “I was working for a bank, they had thousands of surgical masks and they also had access to Tamiflu. They had doses ready for critical staff if it was needed. It’s not a question of why do you have it. They’ve gone through an extensive process of what the risk is.”

He explained that companies, in advance of potential disasters and potential supply chain shortages, factor in details about how many people will need masks and for potentially how long. “Good response is being already ready at point of disaster, not in response,” he said, explaining a key tenet of enterprise resiliency. “A pandemic is covered by most corporate resiliency plans,” he continued.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate