Apple Ethics Report PDF

Preview

Summary

Report ...

Description

Carlos Liang - z5059355

Ethics Case Study: Apple Inc Introduction Apple Inc. is the world’s largest technology corporation and the first company to reach 1 trillion dollars in market capitalisation. It has achieved great success through innovative technology such as the iPad, MacBook, and iPhone which built strong loyalty amongst their customers. However, whether this success was achieved ethically is questionable. Although it is common knowledge that businesses need to make profits in order to survive, this eagerness for profit must be balanced with the desires and needs of society (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2011). Maintaining this balance often requires trade-offs or compromises and, in many cases, Apple fails to do so, showing ethical blindness towards their issues. Apple has been criticised for their unethical and immoral behaviour but have taken measures in order to eliminate them but is debatable whether their efforts are effective.

Employee Abuse Background Apple’s main ethical issue is their labour violations. After a wave of suicides made headlines around the world in 2010, Apple was under investigation for treating their employees inhumanly. In 2011, Apple was accused of exploiting Chinese workers with forced overtime, poor working conditions and insufficient wages (The Guardian, 2011). Apple have been making their employees work for up to 98 hours overtime violating Chinese law which states that employees must not work more than 36 hours of overtime a month. To make things worse, Apple also makes employees sign an anti-suicide contract pledging that they would not commit suicide within work.

Stakeholders It is very important to note the stakeholders of this controversy. One of the main stakeholders are the employees who have the human right to not endure severe abuse. The loved ones of the workers are also stakeholders and should not see people they love suffering. Apple is also a stakeholder as opting

Carlos Liang - z5059355 for other suppliers may lead to inability to keep up with demand for Apple products. Their inability to fight this case also could cause a strain in reputation for Apple.

Ethical Concepts Followers of the deontological approach would classify Apple’s practices as highly unethical and immoral. Under this approach, it is unacceptable to be continuing operations despite being aware of the positive impact Apple products have on the world. Apple should have ceased activity as soon as a single person was hurt even if it would result in a potential loss of sales. Apple violated section 1.1 of the ACM Code of Ethics, “Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing”. In this case, Apple failed to take responsibility for all its stakeholders, neglecting their worker’s mental and physical wellbeing in addition to their loved ones. However, within a Utilitarianism perspective, it would justify killing a few people for the good of a greater number of people. Apple’s business strategies are deemed acceptable and within ethical norms, because they provide consumers with beloved devices, high profits for the corporation and offer hundreds of working opportunities. Despite the few people who are affected by the manufacturing process, their business strategies still provide more utility. Analysing from a virtue ethics standpoint, Apple failed to abide by the four virtues of courage, empathy, trustworthiness, and integrity. Apple had no courage to halt their operations when they heard about the suicides and only when it took a toll on their brand decided to act. Apple violated section 1.3 of the ACM Code of Ethics of being “honest and trustworthy” primarily through their lack of transparency to their shareholders or consumers. Lastly, Apple showed no empathy for their employees evident through their terrible treatment as well as the absences of any apologises or compensation to the workers or their families. It is evident that Apple was deeply embedded in maximising profits disregarding the ethical and moral considerations of their actions. However, after pressure from outside parties, Apple showed great effort in becoming more ethical and socially responsible by making their suppliers sign its “Supplier

Carlos Liang - z5059355 Code of Conduct” and performing audits to ensure compliance. However, the effectiveness of these strategies is in question.

FBI vs Apple Dispute Background Another ethical controversy that Apple was involved in was their refusal to unlock iPhones that could significantly benefit others. On December 2, 2015, an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California which led to the death of 14 people with 22 people seriously injured (Kharpal, A, 2016). Apple refused to unlock the terrorist’s iPhone 5c that could contain valuable information for the case.

Stakeholders To determine whether Apple was ethical in this case, it is important to note the stakeholders of this controversy. The most important stakeholder being, the iPhone users. If a ‘backdoor’ program that allowed external parties to access their iPhones was created, they are at risk of their privacy being compromised if it was fallen in the wrong hands. The general American population is also a stakeholder and at risk as Apple’s cooperation could lead to the prevention of future terrorist attacks. Additionally, Apple is a stakeholder and will be under investigation and punished if they do not comply with the FBI. If they do comply, it would set a dangerous precedent, where law enforcement would require businesses like Apple to always cooperate with the government on investigations like this. The FBI are also a stakeholder and whether Apple cooperates or not, would determine whether they receive useful information regarding the attack and terrorist organisation.

Ethical Concepts From a Kantianism perspective, Apple should have continued to refuse to aid the FBI regardless of the good consequences that could occur if they helped them. Kantianism is focused on performing actions in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle and in this case, Apple should uphold trust within all their iPhone users ensuring that their privacy will never be undermined.

Carlos Liang - z5059355 From a utilitarianism perspective, it could be argued that Apple should have unlocked the iPhone if the metric of utility was how many people are prevented from future terrorist attacks. However, this could be counteracted by the compromise of the millions of Apple user’s privacy and security. Thus, to maximise happiness, Apple should find a way to uphold the privacy of its millions of iPhone users and give the FBI easier access to the terrorist’s phone. From a virtue theorist’s perspective, Apple’s refusal to help the FBI is justified as they chose to uphold its company values of privacy and trustworthiness to their users. Apple has spent years perfecting its privacy, only allowing users who know the passcode to access and use the phone. The safety and reassurance provided to all their users is enough reason to not corporate with the FBI. However, the FBI also has the value of protecting the entire population of the United States at any cost and this means having priority of unlocking the terrorist’s iPhone and ensuring protection over privacy. This case is a clash in values between the two parties and ultimately, Apple has chosen to not put their users at risk over disputing cases for the FBI. Furthermore, Apple chose to adhere to section 1.3 and 1.6 of the ACM Code of Ethics by “respecting privacy” and being “honest and trustworthy”, which is completely understandable. In conclusion, for Apple to be a viable investment ethically, it must be accountable and transparent to all their stakeholders and willing to sacrifice their own self-interests to satisfy them.

References Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J, Ferrell, L, 2011, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases, 8th ed, South-Western Cengage Learning The Guardian, 2011, Apple factories accused of exploiting Chinese workers, accessed 10 November 2019, < https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-factory-workerssuicides-humiliation> ACM 2018, ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, accessed 10 November 2019,

Carlos Liang - z5059355 Kharpal, A, 2016, Apple vs FBI: All you need to know, accessed 10 November 2019,...