Fluent Essays

There are two cases studies and please follow to answer for some questions.CH11. How does this case illustrate the threats and opportunities facing global companies in developing their strategies?2. Who are the stakeholders in this situation and what, if any, obligations do they have?3. How much extra are you prepared to pay for an iPhone if assembled in the United States? What kind of trade-off would you make?CH2Consider what happened in Bangladesh (factory collapse). To what extent do you think the efforts by Levi Strauss can resolve the kinds of problems that led to that disaster?What other people and factors are involved? Who are the stakeholders, and how are they affected? Consider the process and what steps are necessary to make this good idea happen.How do these types of incentives relate to the overall goal of sustainability for the company? chapter_1_case_apple_s_iphones__1_.docx chapter_2_case_levi.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Case Study Apple’s iPhones—Not “Made in America”1 Apple has become one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth, in part through an unrelenting mastery of global operations.2 There are risks and rewards for all in a global economy. The globalization of human capital results in a range of winners and losers around the world: companies and their stockholders, consumers, contractors, firms up and down the supply chain, employed people, and unemployed people, as well as their economies. In February 2011, President Obama asked Apple’s Steve Jobs (now deceased) why Apple could not bring back all the jobs it used to provide in the United States. The jobs related to most hightech products made by companies such as Dell, HP, and Apple have now migrated overseas, including those for Apple’s 700 million iPhones (as of March 2015) as well as millions of iPads and now Apple Watches. Time broke down a retail price of $500 for Apple’s iPhone, for example, and estimated that $61 worth of value comes from Japan, with its high-end technology manufacturing; $30 of value is added from Germany; $23 from South Korea; $7 from Chinese assembly lines; $48 from unspecified sources; and $11 from the United States. Those inputs total $179 for parts and assembly abroad, leaving Apple, the inventor in the United States, a profit of $321. 3 For the first quarter of 2012, Apple made $13 billion in profit. Although Apple directly employs an estimated 43,000 in the United States and 20,000 overseas, an additional 700,000 people engineer, build, and assemble iPads, iPhones, and Apple’s other products in Asia and Europe. Sophisticated component parts outsourced in various countries are assembled in China. Some of those are contracted to the Taiwanese-headquartered company Foxconn’s Longhua factory campus in Shenzhen, for example, where more than 300,000 employees live in dorms, eat on site, and churn out iPhones, Sony PlayStations, and Dell computers. Foxconn Technology, with 1.2 million employees in plants throughout the country, is China’s largest exporter and assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics, including for customers such as Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Nintendo, Nokia, and Samsung. No other factories in the world have the manufacturing scale of Foxconn. The answer to President Obama’s question is not as simple as the ability to acquire cheaper labor overseas; Apple’s executives and those at other high-tech firms claim that “Made in the U.S.A” is not a competitive strategy for them because America does not compare favorably with the industrial skills, hard work, and flexibility that can be found in companies such as Foxconn. Questions about what corporate America owes to Americans are met with the example of thousands of Chinese workers being roused in the night to accommodate a redesigned iPhone screen and, within a few days, being able to produce 10,000 iPhones a day—a feat not possible in U.S. factories. Although the cost of labor is a small percentage of an iPhone’s cost, the major advantage and cost saving in China is in the management of supply chains and rapid access to component parts and manufacturing supplies from various factories in close proximity. In addition, Apple maintains that the large number of engineers and other skilled workers who could be accessed on short notice in China simply are not readily available in the United States; nor are the factories with the scale, speed, and flexibility that such a high-tech company needs. Apple executives give the example of visiting a factory to consider whether it could do the necessary work to cut the glass for the iPhone’s touchscreen. Upon their arrival, a new wing of the plant was already being built “in case you give us the contract.”4 Fareed Zakaria, in Time, maintains that this competitive edge is gained largely through Chinese government subsidies and streamlined regulations to boost domestic manufacturing. In the end, however, Apple maintains that: We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.5 However, after a number of suicides at Foxconn in 2010, reportedly attributable to the poor working conditions and excessive hours for very low pay, Apple was under some pressure from negative publicity; subsequently, Foxconn raised wages, retained counselors, and literally strung nets from its highest buildings (to catch people). Apple does have a supplier code of conduct. In January 2012, Apple joined the Fair Labor Association (FLA), the first technology company to do so, and asked the group to do an independent assessment of conditions at its major factories. This move followed the company’s own report that documented numerous labor violations, including employees working 60-hour workweeks and not being paid proper overtime. A few days after the FLA started its investigation, Foxconn said that it would increase salaries for some workers by 16 percent to 20 percent—to about $400 a month before overtime—and that it would reduce overtime. Although this is encouraging news for workers’ rights, it should be noted that Apple and other contractors are known to allow only the slimmest of profits to its suppliers, which encourages the suppliers to try anything to reduce their costs, such as using cheaper and more toxic chemicals or making their employees work faster and longer. “The only way you make money working for Apple is figuring out how to do things more efficiently or cheaper,” said an executive at one company that helped bring the iPad to market. “And then they’ll come back the next year and force a 10 percent price cut.”6 China is being forced to take notice of such problems, and labor is gaining some ground; the issue then is that firms have already started to move jobs to other countries with lower wages. Notes 1. 1. www.apple.com, accessed March 11, 2015; Robin Harding, Kathrin Hille, Song Jung-a, Robin Kwong, “Apple, HP and Dell Probe Foxconn,” Financial Times, London (UK), May 27, 2010; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher, “How U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work,” www.nytimes.com, January 21, 2012; Jason Dean, “Corporate News: China Worker Suicides Draw Scrutiny,” Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2010, p. B.5; Frederik Balfour and Tim Culpan, “The Man Who Makes Your iPhone,” Bloomberg Business Week, September 9, 2010; Andrew Morse and Nick Wingfield, “Apple Audits Labor Practices—Company Says Suppliers Hired Underage Workers, Violated Other Core Policies,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2010, p. B.3; Duncan Hewitt, “Labor’s Day in China: Still, there’s a risk for China: As labor’s lot improves, employers may move where wages are lower and workers more pliable,” Newsweek, June 21, 2010; Ton Dokoupil, “The Last Company Town: There was a time when employers provided everything: houses, hospitals, bars. Such a place still exists—but not for long. Welcome to Scotia, Calif.,” Newsweek, February 21, 2011; Charles Duhigg and David Barboza, “In China, Human Costs Are Built into an iPad,” www.nytimes.com, January 25, 2012; Fareed Zakaria, “The Case for Making It in the U.S.A.,” Time, February 6, 2012; Nick Wingfield, “Apple Announces Independent Factory Inspections,” www.nytimes.com, February 13, 2012; David Barboza, “Foxconn Plans to Lift Pay Sharply at Factories in China,” New York Times, February 18, 2012. 2. Duhigg and Bradsher, 2012. 3. M. Schuman, “Adding Up the iPhone: How an American Invention Makes Money for the World,” Time, May 16, 2011. 4. Ibid. 5. Duhigg and Bradsher, 2012. 6. Duhigg and Barboza, January 25, 2012. Case Study Levi Looks to Cut Its Cloth Differently by Rewarding Responsible Suppliers Shawn Donnan, Financial Times [London (UK)] November 5, 2014, p. 1 Calling all hipsters: you may just have a new reason to feel better about your skinny jeans. In a bid to bolster its ethical credentials and meet the demands of increasingly fussy millennial consumers, Levi Strauss & Co is offering a new financial incentive to suppliers as far away as Bangladesh and China to meet environmental, labor, and safety standards. The San Francisco–based jeans maker said yesterday that it would begin providing lower-cost working capital to those of its 550 suppliers that do best on those measures. The financing, which is being arranged with the World Bank’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, will operate on a sliding scale. As suppliers improve their environmental performance and conditions for workers, they will be rewarded with lower interest rates on working capital provided through a special IFC facility. The project sprang out of conversations started at the IFC following the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, which left more than 1,100 people dead and prompted new scrutiny of fashion brands’ supply chains. Through the IFC, Levi Strauss suppliers will have access to cheaper capital than they would otherwise in their home countries. However, Olaf Schmidt, who heads the IFC’s global retail practice, said that those suppliers that did best on labor and other standards would receive a further discount of up to 50 basis points on the interest charged. The initiative comes at a time when consumers are becoming increasingly interested in the conditions in which their clothes are made. Multinational companies are responding by tightening their bonds with suppliers and using new tools to manage them. Michael Kobori, Levi Strauss’s vice president of sustainability, said that the company told contractors about the scheme last week and had already received expressions of interest. If the pilot with the IFC worked, Mr. Kobori said, Levi Strauss was committed to helping expand it to the rest of the garment industry as part of a global race to the top in standards. Rachel Wilshaw, ethical trade manager for Oxfam, said that offering incentives to suppliers to improve their practices was a good idea, but whether the scheme worked would depend on how Levi Strauss and the IFC monitored suppliers. “The devil will be in the process rather than in the incentive,” she said. © 2015 The Financial Times Limited ... Purchase answer to see full attachment