2.) Is Apple responsible for the alleged human rights violations that occurred? Although Apple tends to be singled out, sometimes unfairly, because of its size and visibility, I do think they should be responsible for the alleged human rights violations that occurred. Apple has made a public commitment to improving worker welfare and should instigate further CSR changes in its sourcing strategy. Continued negative publicity could damage Apple’s CSR reputation and weaken customer loyalty. 3.) Would onshoring, insourcing, or a combination of the two represent a suitable response to Apple’s problems? Although onshoring or insourcing would help maintain control over Apple’s operations, I do not think either would represent a suitable response to the company’s problems. Doing so would go against Apple’s objective to maximize profits. Increasing the wages of its suppliers’ workers would not only address the human rights violations but would also still be a cheaper option. Furthermore, work was originally outsourced because the United States did not have enough capable and skilled workers. 4.) If Apple continues on the current path, what should it do differently? If Apple continues on its current path, there is two things Apple can do differently: Apple could sacrifice some its profits to increase the profit margin of suppliers so that they can increase workers’ wages. Apple could also invest in monitoring initiatives to ensure that suppliers are satisfying labor requirements.
Apple could research more into the automation and robotization of manufacturing. In-
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Spring '14