The paper "Analysis of Apple Company" is a wonderful example of an assignment on management. 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 concerns following an investigative video. This video presents the 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. DiscussionQuestion 1Apple Company cannot justify the fact that they mistreat their workers. They publicly pretend to abide by 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 closed doors. This pretense stretches down the supply chain. Heather White as a 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 payslips are manipulated to reflect the legal requirements. The working environment is claimed to be technically, mentally, and physically unfriendly. The stakeholder and shareholder’ s theory are contradictory in nature (hill et al, 2015). The shareholder 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 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 the market level are exchanged with shareholders' interests.
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