Ikea's Global Sourcing Challenge: Indian Rugs
The case “IKEA’s Global Sourcing Challenge: Indian Rugs and Child Labor (A)” is about IKEA’s development from a backyard company to one of the world’s largest furniture retailers, which has to deal with the issues of child labor and how they should behave considering economical issues and the company’s policy!
Conclusions made in this study are only based on the facts given in the case, considering pros and cons of an action.
How should Marianne Barner respond to the invitation for IKEA to have a representative appear on the upcoming broadcast of the German video program?
A live discussion would give IKEA the possibility to explain themselves and their intention concerning their engagement in India. Especially Marianne Barner could make her intentions clear as she is feeling that IKEA’s responsibility is much broader than just trying to abolish child labor by stopping business relationships with partners who employ children in their companies. This would provide IKEA a positive image and might strengthen their engagement.
As the Filmmaker just provided IKEA with several still shots taken from the movie, though the whole film was requested to be viewed, leaves too many unpredictable options that the cutting of the movie would provide an image which wouldn’t leave any space for explanations concerning IKEA's engagement in India but defending itself against accusation which might be made through the movie.
Movies have the power to suggest a certain image especially if negative scenes are shown. There for it is indispensable to IKEA to review the movie before attending the discussion. The refusal to show the movie to IKEA implicit shows that their intention is not to hear about IKEA’s engagement but having someone to blame. The discussion might have an aggressive and confrontational attitude towards IKEA for using a supplier, which employs children and suggesting IKEA a reckless company just caring about profit.
For these reasons I would suggest Marianne
Conclusions made in this study are only based on the facts given in the case, considering pros and cons of an action.
How should Marianne Barner respond to the invitation for IKEA to have a representative appear on the upcoming broadcast of the German video program?
A live discussion would give IKEA the possibility to explain themselves and their intention concerning their engagement in India. Especially Marianne Barner could make her intentions clear as she is feeling that IKEA’s responsibility is much broader than just trying to abolish child labor by stopping business relationships with partners who employ children in their companies. This would provide IKEA a positive image and might strengthen their engagement.
As the Filmmaker just provided IKEA with several still shots taken from the movie, though the whole film was requested to be viewed, leaves too many unpredictable options that the cutting of the movie would provide an image which wouldn’t leave any space for explanations concerning IKEA's engagement in India but defending itself against accusation which might be made through the movie.
Movies have the power to suggest a certain image especially if negative scenes are shown. There for it is indispensable to IKEA to review the movie before attending the discussion. The refusal to show the movie to IKEA implicit shows that their intention is not to hear about IKEA’s engagement but having someone to blame. The discussion might have an aggressive and confrontational attitude towards IKEA for using a supplier, which employs children and suggesting IKEA a reckless company just caring about profit.
For these reasons I would suggest Marianne