Discuss the various levels for analysis at play for Apple as it addresses the CSR challenges presented in the case. Do you think Apple is responsible for the alleged human rights violation? If Apple continues on the same path, what should it do differently? How do you evaluate Apple applying different ethical standards in different countries? Discuss the role of other stakeholders in shaping CSR expectations Do you think this is an industry-specific issue? If you were Jeff Williams, what, if anything, would you do differently? APPLE AND ITS SUPPLIERS: CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Will it ever be good enough? That was the key question facing Apple Inc., (Apple) the California-based multinational technology company that was known for its innovative hardware, software, and online services. Apple had been accused of having allowed labour rights violations in China at Foxconn, a major supplier of its products in 2009, but the company had worked hard to overcome these issues to avoid any negative ramifications for its corporate image. Yet on December 18, 2014, new evidence was presented in a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary that showed that labour rights violations continued to occur in China, this time at Pegatron, another large Apple supplier that specialized in the assembly of Apples iPhones 1 This documentary questioned Apples repeated statement in its 2014 supplier responsibility progress report that Each of those workers has the right to safe and ethical working conditions.2 Jeff Williams had been promoted to the role of senior vice president for Operations only 15 days earlier, when he was put in charge of what Apple called end-to-end supply chain management . . . dedicated to ensuring that Apple products meet the highest standards of quality.3 Given the huge progress that Apple had achieved, was the company simply being singled out unfairly because of its size, visibility, and earlier problems? Indeed, Apple now had an excellent reputation in terms of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and, in 2014, had been ranked fifth on Forbes best CSR reputations list.4 As Apples stock market value moved ever closer to US$1 trillion,5 did outside observers hold Apple, the most valuable company ever, to a higher level of corporate social responsibility? Alternatively, had the company still not fully come to terms with the nature and magnitude of its CSR challenges? It had indeed proven to be difficult to maintain control over Apples vast operations, particularly when most activities were undertaken through outsourcing to independent suppliers that were mostly situated in offshore locations, such as China, far from Apples base in California. Perhaps the most important question of all was what Williams and Apple could do to tackle the allegations. Would it suffice to adopt a defensive strategy, by simply denying that the problem was structural in nature and pointing to Apples many and costly efforts? Or should Apples management instead engage with the issue and instigate further CSR changes in its sourcing strategy? If so, what changes should be implemented? In short, how should Apple and Williams respond? In 2014, more than 1.2 billion smartphone devices were sold worldwide, for combined revenues of more than $380 billion.6 The competition among the major players Samsung, Huawei, HTC, Nokia, and Apple had started to take a toll on the industrys profitability, which led industry experts to suggest that the smartphone industry was reaching its maturity stage, with year-on-year growth set to gradually decline. Apple was the largest player in the industry, accounting for more than 90 per cent of profits in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2015.7 Samsung dominated the low end of the smartphone market, while Apple dominated the more lucrative high end. The low-cost players, Lenovo and Xiaomi, which were introduced to the smartphone market in 20128 and in 20119 respectively, broadened the reach of the smartphone market to lower-income countries and intensified competition among the key players in the market.10 The smartphone market had reached a saturation point in western markets, but was still expanding in emerging and low-income countries, providing new emerging-market multinationals such as Xiaomi with a potential competitive edge over traditional players such as Samsung, Apple, and LG.11 Besides its superior aesthetic design and cutting-edge features, Apples products were differentiated from those of its competitors by its use of a proprietary operating system (iOS) and its connection to Apples successful iTunes website that offered multimedia content for the iPhone and other Apple products. Because of its differentiated position, Apples iPhone commanded a premium price, which drove up Apples profitability and market value.12 APPLE, THE IPHONE, AND CUSTOMER LOYALTY Apple was not only the worlds most valuable company but also a hallmark of how information technology could change lives. The company was founded in 1976 and started to encroach into the personal computer market from the late 1980s and early 1990s onward. After the company nearly experienced a total collapse, it convinced co-founder Steve Jobs to return in 1997 to revive the company. Jobs and his team succeeded with great verve, launching such innovative products as the iPod and the iPad.13 However, Apples greatest success (as of the writing of this case) came from its debut in the smartphone market.14 Ever since the introduction of the first-generation iPhone in 2007, Apple was recognized as the market leader of the smartphone industry with its cutting-edge technology and design, enabling it to charge a premium price and obtain a very high profit margin. In 2013, Apples sales revenue reached $170 billion and its net income was more than $37 billion. In 2014, Apples revenue rose to nearly $183 billion, with net income reaching $39.51 billion. Apple experienced exponential growth since 2008 (see Exhibit 1), and the iPhone was the biggest contributor to its success (see Exhibit 2) Apple customers were extremely loyal to Apple products, often also buying its computers and tablets alongside the iPhone. For example, a survey conducted by Simonlycontracts.co.uk found that nearly 60 per cent of 3,000 iPhone owners declared that they had blind loyalty to their iPhones, and 78 per cent said they couldnt imagine having a different type of phone.15 The Foxconn Affair Foxconn, headquartered in Taiwan, was one of Apples biggest and oldest suppliers. In 2014, Apple contributed more than 40 per cent of Foxconns revenue. It was the biggest privately owned company in Taiwan with $131.8 billion sales revenue in 2013, and operations that stretched around the globe. Despite its large size, Foxconn, as an original design manufacturer (ODM) had long been an unfamiliar name in the public eye, chiefly because it did not produce its own branded goods. In 2009, however, the Foxconn name suddenly came to prominence when a factory worker reportedly committed suicide after losing a prototype of the iPhone 4. It was later alleged that the employees treatment during questioning came close to being torture. One year later, another 18 Foxconn workers attempted to kill themselves, and 14 died at the manufacturing companys facilities.16 Various explanations were offered for these deaths. Poor labour practices and working conditions were considered to be the main motivations for the employee attempting to commit suicide. Ever since the 2010 incidents, the company had been under increased scrutiny and pressure to improve its working conditions from various stakeholders, including non- governmental organizations (NGOs), the media, and customers such as Apple. The Pegatron Crisis After the Foxconn scandal, Apple and its suppliers were under more scrutiny than ever before. Apple made various promises to improve its practices. One of Apples responses was to move some of its business away from Foxconn to Pegatron, a Taiwanese electronics manufacturing company that mainly assembled the iPhone 4, 4s, 5, and 5c, along with Apples iPad. The companys factories were located in Taiwan, mainland China, the Czech Republic, and Mexico, while its customer service centres operated in the United States and Japan. Since it started producing Apple products in 2011, Pegatron showed remarkable increases in revenue that mirrored those of Apple itself, from TW$599.9 billion in 201117 to TW$881.2 billion in 201218 to TW$949.8 billion in 2013.19 In 2013, China Labor Watch (CLW), a U.S.-based NGO, whose mission was to increase the transparency of factory labour conditions in China, published Apples Unkept Promises, a report based on an undercover investigation into working conditions at Pegatron factories. The situation was even more serious than at Foxconn. According to the report, three Pegatron factories in China had violated 86 Chinese regulations, including 36 legal and 50 ethical violations, ranging from use of a juvenile workforce, to violations of womens rights, excessive working hours, and environmental pollution.20 In response to the public disclosure of the report, Apple again promised its full dedication to addressing those issues.21 Jason Cheng, Pegatrons chief executive officer (CEO), also stated, We will investigate the allegations fully and take immediate actions to correct any violations to Chinese labour laws and our own code of conduct.22 Nonetheless, on December 19, 2014, the global news media again accused Apple and Pegatron, alleging that Apple had broken its promises. The previous day, the influential BBC Panorama program had broadcast a documentary based on an undercover investigation of the actual practices and working conditions at a Shanghai factory owned by Pegatron. The factory specialized in producing Apple products, including the iPhone. A variety of poor practices were exposed. For example, workers had to hand in their identification cards before entering the factory, were given no basic health and safety training, and had to work excessive hours up to 16 hours a day, which would sometimes continue for 18 consecutive days. According to the documentary, workers requests for a day off were routinely ignored. Another scene in the documentary showed workers who could not help but fall asleep in the middle of a busy production line. The quality of life outside the factory was also criticized. Dormitories were overcrowded, and consisted of nothing but 12 tiny beds placed end to end.23 Apple did not comment on camera for the BBC documentary, but the next day, Jeff Williams clearly expressed what he and Apple CEO, Tim Cook, felt about the documentary. Their deeply offended feelings were delivered to the 5,000 U.K. Apple employees in the form of a letter, which became public when it was published by the Daily Telegraph.24 In the letter, Williams said, We know of no other company doing as much as Apple does to ensure fair and safe working conditions, to discover and investigate problems, to fix and follow through when issues arise, and to provide transparency into the operations of our suppliers. CSR CHALLENGES In its 2014 progress report, Apple confidently remarked, At Apple, we believe in making complex things simple.25 This statement was an apt description of its products appeal to consumers and in the area of product design. Apple retained firm control to ensure it could deliver on this promise, but when it came to supply chain management, an approach of simplification could have its limitations. Given the global nature of Apples supply chain, the various products it produced, and the ...