Analysis of Apple Company - Assignment Example

Coursework: Management Name Institution Date Apple Introduction Apple Company is one of the largest brains behind telecommunication technologies. It is growing at a high rate with attractive innovations. One of its major assembly factories is in Shanghai China. This is probably due to the cheap available labor in China. Apple’s products include Iphones, tablets and laptops. However, the production means of Apple products can raise concern following an investigative video. This video presents insensitivity of Apples’ management on contentious issues along the supply chain. These issues can best be explained by two theories; the stakeholder and the shareholder theory. Discussion Question 1 Apple Company cannot justify the fact that they mistreat their workers. They publicly pretend to abide to the stakeholder theory. The company has made much promise to the public. One of its assurances is support for the environment and human well being. This company sticks to the shareholder theory behind the closed doors. This pretence stretches down the supply chain. Heather White as supply chain expert in the video explains the state of operation in Shanghai. She claims that the Apple Company is breaking promises and breaking the law. For instance, the company promises that a worker must not exceed seventy sixty hours a week. However, in the company, workers are made to work for seventy hours a week. Extra time for work is not paid for. The pay slips are manipulated to reflect the legal requirements. The working environment are claimed to be technically, mentally and physically unfriendly. The stakeholder and shareholder’s theory are contradictory in nature (hill et al, 2015). The share holder theory claims that firms in business have no moral obligation. In such a case the prime goal of such a firm is to maximize profit. An example is the Apple Company. On the other hand, the stakeholder theory is the opposite. A business firm owes the society a responsibility. They are obliged voluntarily to a variety of social responsibilities. This includes donations such as those for charity. The influence of this theory varies across nations (Hill et al, 2015). Mansel (2013) claims that; dwelling so much on profit has its own negative effect. The enormous profit tends to aid the company to cover selfish motives. If a company tends to gain monopoly ethical considerations at market level are exchanged with shareholders interests. This eliminates the possibility of the stakeholder’s theory to challenge the shareholder theory. As a buyer, one needs not to overlook his or her morals of sales practices (Holley, 1986). A buyer has to understand what he or she is giving. In this case, the buyer is catalyzing the Apple firm to oppress the workers along its supply chain. The cost and benefits of the product in market is also contentious. The environmental cost of Apple’s growth in technology is alarming. It may not only be severer at present but also irreversible. For instance, Bangkok provides thirty percent of the world tin. Legal mining however cannot satisfy the demand. This has lead to development of an island set for illegal mining of tin. This site is also a source for tin supplied to the apple company. In addition, the shores along Bangkok are also threatened. Dredgers are employed in tin mining. The power of the dredging disturbs the ecosystem. This goes against the apple’s promise to protect the environment. Forty of such dredgers exist and are licensed by the government. The mining ships cause enormous damage to the sea ecosystem. Evidence is emended in the coral reef. These reefs are covered by sediments and hence cannot grow back. Massive forests have also been destroyed to meet tin demand for Apple Company. There leads massive derelict land. Potential landslides make sites risky for mining. This cases if the video content is to be considered are alarming. This questions the honesty of Apple’s promise to the world. Apple claims to go deep into its supply chain to enforce standards. This is however not true as witnessed in the video. The company also claims to treat its workers with respect. This is not the case as witnessed. It is claimed that lives are lost as a result of the questionable occupational health and safety. The company cannot justify its actions even though the stakeholder’s theory seems to suggest that a company does not have a moral obligation. It is the responsibility of the company to ensure that the working environment is safe for all the employees. A company is also supposed to take care of the welfare of the employees in order to ensure that they are able to carry out their activities effectively (Holley, 1986). According to the corporate social responsibility theories, a multinational corporation is supposed to contribute to the economic, social and environmental progress in the countries that they operate in (Hill et al, 2015). However Apple is not contributing to the social progress of the countries that it is operating in based on its actions. Exposing employees to poor working conditions negatively influence their health. It also means that the employees will have to spend more money on the health issues as opposed to economic empowerment. Apple cannot justify its activities as it has a lot of negative i8mpascts on the general society. According to Friedman’s views, it is important for the organizations to operate within the limits of the law. The unlawful activities of the company cannot be justified as it is illegal. Freeman et al (2010) links such problems to the current system of training business managers. In training, strategic management focuses much on business policies. This training does not prepare individuals well to handle a wide range of management issues. As a result, main focus is on profit maximization and growth of the business. Just as witnessed in the video, there is lack of dynamism in managing environmental related issues in Bangkok. To even worsen the situation, trends in political, social and economic field are more challenging. The size of the firm is also too big. Getting workers to work so late is contrary to social contract theory (Philip, 2003). This theory requires that cooperation to deliver justice in society be effected where possible and needed. There is need to identify which managerial department is responsible for the issues at hand (Goodpaster, 1991). There is also need to develop means to counter complains. Both short term and long-term solution should be developed. There is no proving that such measures are being taken by the Apple Company. Question2 If the video is anything to go by, I will not buy an Apple product. Buying an Apple product will mean praising the activities of the company. This will encourage the company to go an extra mile to produce more (Morden and Ebejer, 1988). The stretch will affect the entire chain of supply. Any person will feel guilty if his or her actions are a cause of suffering to another human being. To be precise more workers will be mistreated in the production companies. More tin will be demanded. This will accelerate the degradation of forests and coral reefs. All this negative effects will be due to the excellent market for apple product. However this does not mean that I wish the company to shut down. The Apple firm has to live up to its promise. Reward productivity unlike the current oppression being witnessed. The stakeholders’ case has to be justified. This is in line with Philips (2003) claim. According to Philip a company such as the Apple has an obligation. One of this is the need to be fare in its operation. Given that the company stands out as fair to the public eye then pretence is evident. This accumulates to lies. This can trigger the conscience of any human being. Boycotting the products of a company is one way of expressing displeasure with regards to the activities that are taking place at the company. It will also play an important role in ensuring that the company is aware of how the customers perceive its brand image. Personally I do not support any form of unethical behaviours in business. Purchasing the products of the company can also be considered as supporting lawlessness. This is because the company is involved in unlawful activities as highlighted in the video. According to Friedman’s theory, the society can better be served if the corporations are single mindedly allowed to pursue their own self interest within the confines of the law (Freeman, 2010). It is also the responsibility of the society to ensure that legal limits are set and fooled by the organizations. As a citizen boycotting the products of the company is the right thing to do. This is considering that support unlawful activities contribute to lawlessness. The health of the workers is adversely affected by the unlawful and unethical activities at the organization. Apple is making huge profits as a result of exploiting the employees. Personally I do not support any level of exploitation of employees. The company will continue to exploit the employees as long as the people continue to purchase the products of the company. As long as the company continues to make profits, it will continue exploiting the employees. Failing to purchase the products of the company will force the company to change its practices. Although Apple produces high quality products which meet the demands of the customers, I will rather purchase products from other companies. This will ensure that I have not supported the company in its unethical as well as unlawful activities. According to Friedman’s views the sole responsibility of a business is to make profit as long as it plays within the rules of the game. The rules of the game are mainly the law that governs the business operations. Apple has a right to make profits but should do so within the rules of the game. I cannot continue purchasing the products of the company as Apple is not playing within the rules of the game. A feeling of guilt may also develop as a result of purchasing the products of the company with full knowledge of its unlawful and unethical practices. The company has lost touch with values by engaging in the unethical and unlawful activities. The unethical and unlawful activities of the company impacts negatively on the whole industry (Goodpaster, 1991). This is because the other companies might be tempted to do the same if the market leader is engaged in the unlawful and unethical practices. This can however stop if the company learns that the customers are not purchasing its products. The boycott can force the company to change its practices and policies so as to avoid any form of exploitation. However, as long as the company continues with the exploitative and unlawful activities, I will not continue purchasing the products of the company. Question 3 Companies cannot be held on the same level of behavior as consumers (Freeman, 2010). These are two closely related entities in a business but they vary. These two entities affect each other in one way or another. For instance, many big companies have complex means of accomplishing a task. This is contrary to individual consumers. Complex tools are often used for problem solving. In most cases the problem solving means is repetitive identical. Procedures at company level are often standard. According to Stout (2012) three methods are employed; analysis of portfolio; review of strategy; and scanning of the processes within the environment. All this are different to individual consumer behavior. Most of the consumers are in line with government regulations. This is however not the case with most of the companies such as Apple as indicated in the video. The companies therefore need to be held accountable through the introduction of higher standards. This plays an essential role in ensuring that the companies are able to meet all the needs of the stakeholders. Companies and individual consumers are not in the same level. Individual consumer behavior is ranked lower compared to behaviors of individual consumers. The challenges of both industry and individual self regulation vary. However, the challenges in individual self regulations are less complex. In self regulation, individual companies often involve the government. Uniformity of policy creates a fare ground for all entities. Industry level self regulation behavior is more complex. In regulation, various industry are brought together to generate regulations (Freeman, 2010). This can be used as an option to government regulations. This shows that the industry level has more significance than the individual level. One of the challenges is the divergence of interests between competing companies and the community. For example, a company will aim at eliminating cost of penalties while the community will aim at sticking to rules. Companies can fail to involve self regulation because of fear of losses. This is especially in the case where the other companies are not willing to cooperate. At individual level, most decisions are irrespective of whether one has made the same decision or not. The companies should be held to a higher standard as opposed to the standards of behaviours as individual consumers. The companies are responsible for producing goods and services required by the consumers. The consumers may end up being affected by the products of the company if the company is not held to higher standards. On the other hand, the company may end up exploiting the employees if it is not held to high standards as is the case of Apple. The company has been exploiting the employees since it is not being held to high standards. Accountability is one of the aspects that the organization should be engaged in (Freeman, 2010). Holding the organizations to higher standards will have positive impacts on the accountability. The company will be forced to be accountable to all the stakeholders if it held to high standards. This will have positive impacts on the stakeholders and it will avoid the incidences of exploitation of the employees. The regulations that are in place in most countries are not enough to ensure that the companies maintain high levels of ethics. Maintaining the companies to high standards will play an important role in ensuring that the industry is improved. This is considering that most of the industries do not grow as the companies are not held to high standards. The consumers will benefit more if the companies are held to high standards. This will also promote trust between the organizations and the consumers. A healthy competition will also be promoted in the market if the companies are held to high standards. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that Apple cannot justify its actions and practices. This is because it is unlawful and unethical. The level of exploitation of the employees is also high and heath of the employees is affected by the actions of the company. It is clear that the company is making huge profits as a result of exploiting the employees. Personally, it would be impossible to continue purchasing the products of the company based on the information obtained from the video. Purchasing the products of the company will be promoting the unethical and unlawful activities. It is also apparent that there is need for the company to embrace reputable standards as this is the only way it will win the trust of its clients back. Technology should be embrace. This is due to the complex nature of their tasks as well as the impacts that they have on the consumers. References Freeman, E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. New York City. Cambridge University Press. Freeman E, Jeffrey S. H, Andrew C. W, Bidhan L. P & Simone C. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: State of the Art. New York City. Cambridge University Press. Goodpaster K.E. (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly Journal vol 1, pp 53-73. Retrieved 12-09-2015 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857592 > Holley D.M (1986). A Moral Evaluation of Sales Practices. Business and Professional Ethics Journal. Vol 5, pp 3-21. Retrieved 12-09-2015 Jennifer G. H & Randall S. T (2015). Research Handbook on Shareholder Power: Research Handbooks in Corporate Law and Governance series. Cheltenham, UK. Edward Elgar Publishing. Pp 11- 57 Lynne A Stout (2012). The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public. San-Frasisco, Carlifornia. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Morden J.M & Ebejer M.J. (1988). Patternalism in Market Place:Should a Salesman be His Buyers’ keeper. Journal of Business Ethics; May 1988; 7, 5; ProQuest pg. 337 Philip R. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San-Frasisco, Carlifornia. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Samuel F Mansel (2013). Capitalism, Corporations and the Social Contract: A Critique of Stakeholder Theory: business, value creation and society. New York City. Cambridge University press . Read More