Ethic
pple’s Supply Chain Woes
Task 1:
In the “Apple’s Supply Chain Woes” case-study, identify laudable, culpable and non-culpable decisions. Rank culpable decisions and show how context makes some difference to how much blame a culprit deserves.
Answer:
Laudable Decision
Before the explosion in Chengdu plant, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) in HK published a report warning of unsafe conditions with aluminium dust problem. They alarmed Apple the workers were facing the problem of poor ventilation and inadequate personal protective equipment. Debby Chan Sze Wan of the group even went to Apple’s lobby in Cupertino to request Apple’s response. It is laudable that SACOM bring deeply concerned about the dark side of corporate and bring students, scholars, labour and consumers together to monitor corporate behaviour and to advocate for worker’s rights and safety working condition.
Non-culpable Decision
Foxconn had hired 100 counsellors and invited monks to help workers at the new Employee Care Centre and trained its medical staff to provide emotional support to prevent further suicides. Hotlines have also been set up for workers, who came from the countryside and were away from their families might feel alone. Foxconn should take its corporate responsibility to ensure the occupational safe and health, for both physical and mental. Foxconn takes actions to provide more supportive channels and improve health of the employee, so it is non-culpable.
Culpable decision
Foxconn, in a statement, said that its operations adhered to customers’ codes of conduct, industry standards and national laws. In fact, many workers in Foxconn needed to work more than 60 hours a week, which exceed the Apple’s limitation in the supplier code of conduct, but also in breach of China’s labour law. It is min-culpable that Foxccon is not honest, but in fact this labour law (maximum 49-hours a week) is widely-ignored in China.
Noncompliance of supplier code
Task 1:
In the “Apple’s Supply Chain Woes” case-study, identify laudable, culpable and non-culpable decisions. Rank culpable decisions and show how context makes some difference to how much blame a culprit deserves.
Answer:
Laudable Decision
Before the explosion in Chengdu plant, Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) in HK published a report warning of unsafe conditions with aluminium dust problem. They alarmed Apple the workers were facing the problem of poor ventilation and inadequate personal protective equipment. Debby Chan Sze Wan of the group even went to Apple’s lobby in Cupertino to request Apple’s response. It is laudable that SACOM bring deeply concerned about the dark side of corporate and bring students, scholars, labour and consumers together to monitor corporate behaviour and to advocate for worker’s rights and safety working condition.
Non-culpable Decision
Foxconn had hired 100 counsellors and invited monks to help workers at the new Employee Care Centre and trained its medical staff to provide emotional support to prevent further suicides. Hotlines have also been set up for workers, who came from the countryside and were away from their families might feel alone. Foxconn should take its corporate responsibility to ensure the occupational safe and health, for both physical and mental. Foxconn takes actions to provide more supportive channels and improve health of the employee, so it is non-culpable.
Culpable decision
Foxconn, in a statement, said that its operations adhered to customers’ codes of conduct, industry standards and national laws. In fact, many workers in Foxconn needed to work more than 60 hours a week, which exceed the Apple’s limitation in the supplier code of conduct, but also in breach of China’s labour law. It is min-culpable that Foxccon is not honest, but in fact this labour law (maximum 49-hours a week) is widely-ignored in China.
Noncompliance of supplier code