Ethical Dilemma- Analysis of the News - Term Paper Example

 Ethical Dilemma- Analysis of the News The proceeding discussion and analysis weighs in on two values. The first value is that of people and their well-being as workers in the factories that make Apple and other electronic products. The second value is that of the products that they make and the benefits that accrue to consumers from those products and the work of their labor. These are two opposing values because on the one hand, the work of laborers in shops in China makes possible the production of electronic products such as smart phones and other computing products in ways that are affordable to western consumers and that are profitable for companies like Apple to continue to make. On the other hand, the price that the world pays for such affordable and useful computing electronics is actual human lives and miserable working conditions. These working conditions are typified by boring repetitive work, long hours, and what amounts to starvation wages that are incapable of supporting the families of the workers and of procuring their fundamental needs. This paper weighs in on this ethical dilemma that centers on weighing on these two sets of values, and making use of Burton’s Basic Method as the framework for a rigorous ethical analysis. In this framework, Apple Inc. is the Ethical Decision Maker. The investing public, the general consumer, the government of China, the subcontractors who hire the workers and take on the work of producing the electronic products at very thin margins, the managements at Apple and its suppliers, the investment bankers, are the interested stakeholders in the process (Johnson, 2011; Cooper, 2013). A. Ethical Decision Maker, Ethical Dilemma, and Other Primary Stakeholders As discussed above, the primary ethical decision maker or EDM is Apple Inc., and the ethical dilemma concerns the plight of the workers in the subcontracting firms who manufacture Apple products such as the iPhone, Worker welfare is weighed against the benefits to the American and global consumer of the computing products themselves, and the value of Apple’s economic activity to the American and global economy. The dilemma springs from issues relating to worker welfare, including low wages, the repetitive nature of the work, long work hours, and low wages. The confluence of these and other factors drive workers to take their own lives. In Cooper (2013) we get a sense of the gravity of the condition from the presence of nets around the iPhone manufacturing facilities to prevent more workers from jumping to their deaths. This is in stark contrast to the large profits that Apple makes and the large market capitalization of the firm due to that. Because Apple is rewarded for profits and for great products, Apple has every incentive to keep costs down, and that drive to depress costs lead to subcontractors depressing wages and other worker-related costs on the other end. These are conflicting interests that are stacked against workers and their interests, especially considering that workers have little by way of leverage in the entire process. The supply of workers is large, relative to demand, and so Apple subcontractors are able to dictate wages and living conditions in the shops. Subcontractors in turn are pressured to depress wages in order to make margins out of low contract bids. In a most general sense, the entire market is involved, because market forces that have contributed to this state of affairs where workers are awarded the least wages possible to squeeze maximum profits from their efforts (Johnson, 2011). B. Possible Alternative Courses of Action In a perfect world Apple will settle for lower profit margins for their products and lower profits all in all in exchange for fairer wages for workers and higher costs for producing their products. Ideally, this translates to subcontractors being able to pay their workers higher wages, and secure better working conditions for them all in all, by being able to bid for the manufacturing work at higher overall bid prices. This translates to the subcontractors being able to make profits without depressing wages to the barest possible and driving employees to work long hours and for little pay. This course of action starts at the top, where investors are willing to make do with lower returns on their investments in the stock, market. On the other hand, with the economic system being set up as it is, with the prizes going to the most efficient performers and market forces being brutal in their operation, this alternative course of action for Apple may not be feasible, or at least is not something that they would volunteer to do. Even if they wanted to do this, market forces would guarantee that competitors will jump on this and attack Apple for being lax with its cost structure. On the other hand, what Apple can do is to force contractors to adhere to certain personnel policy standards, to push the tide in favor of workers and against the natural course of market forces, Apple can stipulate certain minimum wages, and certain working and living standards, as requirements for awarding the manufacturing contracts to FoxConn and the like (Johnson, 2011). The dilemma being what it is, on the other hand, being the result of market forces, this course of action needs to be further examined for its feasibility, given that the subcontractors themselves work under the influence of the same market forces that force them to push costs down where they can to be competitive at very thin margins (Cooper, 2013). C. Case Analysis from Four Ethical Perspectives/Methods From a deontological ethics point of view, it is of course wrong for the entire system, for Apple and for all stakeholders who benefit from the whole arrangement, to reap the benefits of Apple’s activities at the expense of the suffering of the workers who make the products (Cooper, 2013). The right thing to do is to not think of the workers’ welfare versus the consumer and company welfare, and the welfare of the investing public, as an either-or proposition, with workers on one end and the rest of the stakeholders on the other end. Deontological ethics dictate that worker welfare should temper the profit drive (Johnson, 2011). From the point of view of virtue ethics, good personnel practices translate to a company that operates and behaves responsibly and with an eye towards long-term viability and market acceptance. The world has come to expect firms to behave in ways that are consistent with what the world considers ethical, and that includes treating workers well and not driving workers to commit suicide from desperate working conditions and low wages, among other things. In FoxConn we see from the article that there are moves in this direction, but it remains seen whether these are substantial or merely cosmetic in nature, for show (Johnson, 2011). Apple, as a good and ethical company, has the responsibility to act in accordance with the expectations heaped on it, and that means paying workers good wages and securing their well-being in the factories (Cooper, 2013). From the point of view of consequentialism the best course of action for Apple is the one that secures the well-being of the most number of people, and in this case one can say that from a strictly utilitarian viewpoint that course of action is to continue with its current practices to benefit a larger number of stakeholders, from management to the bankers, to the investing public, to the consumer (Cooper, 2013). On the other hand, one can also say that the action that secures everyone’s welfare is securing the well-being of the workers too, which can be done while securing the interests of the other stakeholders as well (Johnson, 2011). From the point of view of fairness ethics, the perspective is clear with regard to the situation being unfair to a group of stakeholders in the entire process, and that is the workers. Working conditions are poor, and the depressed wages add to the psychological troubles (Cooper, 2011). Fairness dictates that some of the profits must also go to the workers, especially in light of the success of Apple and the massive profits that it generates from the products coming out of the factories (Johnson, 2011). D. Decision That is Most Ethical, Opposing Arguments, Counter-Arguments The various ethical perspectives/methods discussed above point to securing the welfare of the workers, by improving working conditions and increasing wages through negotiations with the subcontractors who employ them. This is the most ethical course of action to take for Apple. This can be done at the expense of some loss in profits and at the expense of maybe additional costs, which Apple can pass to the market anyway, given its overwhelming leadership in the markets where it competes. Expected opposing arguments include that such a course of action will impact costs and run counter to market forces, and can jeopardize Apple’s standing and long-term profitability (Cooper, 2013). The counterargument to this is that Apple stands to lose out in the long term from possible fallouts from the market because of poor working conditions. Moreover, better working conditions translate to more sustainable business relationships over time. One course of action Apple can take is to negotiate for better working conditions for workers with subcontractors like FoxConn, while also seeing to it that the move improves profitability and long-term prospects, to pacify objections (Johnson, 2011). E. Decision for Action, Expected Outcome The decision for action based on the above ethical analysis is for Apple to change the status quo and to secure better working conditions for workers, to improve wage structures and to make sure that work environments are healthy and conducive to the long-term well-being of workers. This is expected to meet with some resistance from subcontractors especially in the beginning, and even from investors. In the long term though, the expected outcome is that Apple will emerge from the problem with a sustainable working arrangement that will keep it profitable for the long haul (Johnson, 2011; Cooper, 2013). References Cooper, R. (2013). Inside Apple's Chinese 'sweatshop' factory where workers are paid just £1.12 per hour to produce iPhones and iPads for the West. Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Inside-Apples-Chinese-sweatshop-factory-workers-paid-just-1-12-hour.html Johnson, J. (2011). 1 Million Workers. 90 Million iPhones. 17 Suicides. Who’s To Blame? Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/ Read More