Apple and Foxconn: Too close for comfort?

Apple and Foxconn's perfect corporate marriage may be starting to fray, according to this piece in Week in China.

Week in China attributes the possible divergence between Apple and its Taiwan-based manufacturer to commercial imperatives. Apple needs lower-price alternatives to Foxconn as the tech giant moves to introduce a lower-price iPhone. Foxconn needs to diversify its business lines in order to reduce its over-reliance on Apple (the Apple account allegedly generates 40-70% of Foxconn's revenue).  The New York Times runs this piece on Foxconn's efforts to diversify.

I'd like to see more analysis of the ethical and reputational dimensions of this equation. Apple lost some of its perennial glow last year when news media reported overcrowding, seven-day workweeks, and worker suicides at the Foxconn plants that produce our iPhones and iPads. Apple has since invested in improving working conditions and bolstering supply chain oversight at Foxconn plants. 

From a worker safety perspective, is Apple likely to fare better, worse, or no differently as it shifts contract manufacturing from Foxconn to other firms which presumably produce more output per dollar?

[PHOTO CREDIT: Vincent Lee, Creative Commons.]

Views: 1283

Tags: business, ethics, jobs, rights

Comment

You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Killer Robots, Ethics, & Governance, with Peter Asaro

Peter Asaro, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, has a simple solution for stopping the future proliferation of killer robots, or lethal autonomous weapons: "Ban them." What are the ethical and logistical risks of this technology? How would it change the nature of warfare? And with the U.S. and other nations currently developing killer robots, what is the state of governance?

As Biden Stalls, Is the "Restorationist" Narrative Losing Ground?

U.S. Global Engagement Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev notes that former Vice President Joe Biden is, in foreign policy terms, most associated with a "restorationist" approach. How does this differentiate from other candidates? What approach will resonate most with voters?

Democratic Candidates & Foreign Policy after Iowa, with Nikolas Gvosdev

With the (incomplete) results of the Iowa Caucus putting the spotlight on Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders, what do we know about their foreign policy platforms? How do they differentiate themselves from Joe Biden? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev shares his thoughts and touches on voters' possible perception of Sanders as a "socialist" and how climate change could become an issue in this election.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

VIDEOS

SUPPORT US

GEO-GOVERNANCE MATTERS

© 2020   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service


The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.