Ethics and Social Responsibility go Hand in Hand
Should use companies adhere to U.S. standards of health and safety in the workplace of a foreign supplier? Or, is the old adage true: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
Corporate social responsibilities come from ethical obligations including acting responsibly and being accountable to the stakeholders of an organization, including employees, and practicing full disclosure. Transparency is important as is adhering to relevant laws and regulations. A code of ethics provides support for these ethical obligations.
It is in this light that I was intrigued to learn that a major Apple Inc. supplier agreed to change its labor practices following an outside audit of its Chinese factories by the global nonprofit organization -- the Fair Labor Association. It found widespread breaches of work rules including 60-hour work weeks in violation of the FLA code and Apple’s own standard, and other health and safety violations. The investigation of manufacturer Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., known as Foxconn, is the latest to document workers-rights violations in Apple's supply chain.
It is worth noting that the audit was at the request of Apple. However, Apple launched the initiative not out of a sense of social responsibility but in response to recent concerns over labor practices and reported abuses in the Chinese factories of its suppliers. In other words, Apple was not concerned about the disgraceful working conditions until it created negative publicity for the company.
Foxconn, with 1.2 million Chinese employees, is one of China’s largest employers and a major supplier of Apple. It assembles an estimated 40 percent of the smartphones, computers and other electronic gadgets sold around the world. Foxconn’s decisions set standards other manufacturers must compete with.
Evidence gathered from news reports and other sources indicates that 17 Foxconn workers have killed themselves. What had seemed to be a series of isolated incidents has become a worrisome trend. When one jumper left a note explaining that he committed suicide to provide for his family, the program of remuneration for the families of jumpers was canceled.
Reports from inside the factories warned of “sweatshop” conditions and allegations of forced overtime came to life. Foxconn and its partners—notably Apple—found themselves defending factory conditions while struggling to explain the deaths. Some saw the Foxconn suicides as a damning consequence of our global hunger for low-cost electronics.
In a plant in Wuhan, central China's Hubei province, up to 200 workers from the Microsoft Xbox production line of Foxconn, staged a strike. They were not demanding sleek new gadgets, but simply decent pay in return for making them. To drive their point home, they had threatened to kill themselves by jumping off a building.
The Foxconn suicides that started in 2010 are due to oppressive work conditions that include standing for eight hours or more without a break. One worker said that he constantly wanted to drop something on the floor so he could bend down to pick it up while working. Due to the long hours standing, if he had the chance to lie or squat down on the floor, it would be the most enjoyable moment during the work day so he could get the chance to rest.
Foxconn has been criticized for running "blood and sweat" plants in China. Plants depend on workers’ being at assembly lines six or seven days a week, often for as long as 14 hours a day. In one instance where Foxconn makes computer cases for Acer, a Taiwanese computer company, workers all had blisters and the skin on their hands was black. The factory was also really choked with dust and no one could bear it. Such facilities have made it possible for devices to be turned out almost as quickly as they are dreamed up.
In February, following a prolonged period of criticism about the working conditions, Foxconn raised wages for its Chinese workers by 16 to 25 percent according to a report by Taiwan's Central News Agency. In the Shenzhen plant, which has been the initial production location for Foxconn since 1988, the basic wage will be raised to no less than 2,200 Chinese Yuan (about $348) a month from 1,800 ($285) Chinese Yuan. Before the series of wage hikes, the basic salary in the Shenzhen complex stood at 900 ($138) Chinese Yuan three years ago.
By bowing to such demands, Foxconn has conceded that employees and consumers have gained a sway once possessed only by Chinese bureaucrats and executives at the global electronics firms that hire Foxconn to build their products. For the system to genuinely change, Foxconn, its competitors and their clients — which include Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell and the world’s other large electronics firms — must convince consumers in America and elsewhere that improving factories to benefit workers is worth the higher prices of goods.
This is the way capitalism is supposed to work. As nations develop, wages rise and life theoretically gets better for everyone. China has been slow to realize the changing landscape even though it is promoting a more western style of capitalism albeit state controlled. The question is whether the Chinese government and business leaders are ready for the change. My guess is if it occurs at all, it will happen grudgingly at best.
The question raised earlier was should U.S. companies like Apple apply the same standards of workplace health and safety as expected in the U.S., or do they rationalize a lower set of standards in the name of cultural differences? Some argue that Apple is providing a service by hiring many Chinese workers that might otherwise be unemployed and/or be forced to live the life of a peasant. After all, the Chinese worker is not used to more advance working conditions and the government is in no hurry to adopt them.
The bottom line is if China wants to move toward a western model of capitalism it should adopt western-style working conditions as the norm that protects worker rights and not react in a knee-jerk fashion only after well-publicized incidents of attempted suicide. With greater profits come greater social responsibilities to contribute to the betterment of society.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 17, 2012