Apple case study PDF

Preview

Summary

Assignment: analyse the Apple case study applying each of the 4 theories studied...

Description

Apple and the human costs of production Under the Market Capitalism perspective From a market capitalistic point of view, it appears that the decision of Apple’s supplier Foxconn to impose extreme working conditions to its employees is driven by Apple’s selfish need to maximise its profits and optimise its delivery times. Despite these conditions do not comply with Chinese labour law, the fact that such violations are not prosecuted, but – rather – tolerated by the relevant authorities implies that the company is still playing “within the rules of the game”. It should not, then, conduct any kind of working conditions audits over the productive process, as this would result in higher costs to be borne by the company; the only exception being where the losses from negative publicity outweighed the expense for internal or external controls. Furthermore, the wages and working hours of Foxconn’s employees appears to be perfectly adequate, as that is the result of the free adjustments of supply and demand of labour for factory workers. For this reason, the Chinese government should continue to refrain from intervention to the matter, as this would distort an equilibrium wage which has already been met and has been freely adjusting over the years.

Under the Stakeholder model Observing the case under the lenses of the Stakeholder model, the company’s behaviour is under no means acceptable. Pursuing the sole interest of shareholders to maximise profits, Apple’s management is imposing unfair conditions to most of its other stakeholders. Firstly, its suppliers are being paid by Apple only on the basis of the costs they have had for every input, meaning that not only can companies like Foxconn and others make unfairly poor profits – compared to Apple’s –, but they must also push their employees to inhumane working paces in order to fulfil the customer’s needs. Employees are the second category of stakeholders to be extremely disrespected by Apple and, in turn, Foxconn’s behaviours, due to the low wage offered, the excessive working hours, the dangerous working environment and the shanty housing conditions offered. Customers are the last link in the chain of the company’s disregarded stakeholders: behind its clear advertising style lies, in fact, a not-so-transparent CSR communication. Apple’s website states that the company does not accept inadequate working conditions for the workers in its suppliers’ plants, a statement which is far from reality.

Under the Regulatory Pluralism model Studying the case from a regulatory pluralistic perspective, it becomes easy to observe the inequality in the degree of power each actor has towards the matter. In this context, however, Apple still appears to be the strongest player: the company’s bargaining power is capable of forcing its suppliers to extremely tight profit margins, making them push their workers to inhumane working conditions in order to keep up with the customer’s needs. Apple’s Taiwanese supplier Foxconn has even decided to move its production from overseas to escape stronger union pressure in its own country, in order to continue to impose their workers the pace required by Apple in China, where local authorities do not intervene when labour regulations are infringed. On the other hand, the weakest part seems to be that of Foxconn’s factory workers: in fact, only after a mass suicide happened in 2010, the company responded with a salary increase. However, the working conditions Foxconn’s employees have to bear have threatened Apple’s public image, forcing the company to take actions it would not have taken: for instance, after a largely-approved online petition, Apple had to implement external audits to be conducted in its suppliers’ production plants, as well as considering negotiating with some NGOs.

Under the Dominance model Apple is the world’s most exploiting company. With its customer-appealing image and its consumeristic approach, it has introduced an extreme pace in their factory, causing to exploiting tens of thousands of people only to maximise their very profits. The government does not see the gravity of this situation, and despite the existing regulations, takes no action to stop this catastrophe....