In Milton Friedman’s classic article “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (1970), Friedman argued that the moral duty of a company is to make money for its shareholders. There is no moral responsibility to society outside of this.

In contrast to this view is the contemporary debate about CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) and whether it should be constructed narrowly to cover only profit maximization, or more broadly to include refraining from socially undesirable behaviour and contributing actively and directly to the public good.

 

Case Study: Apple Suppliers & Labour Practices[1]

With its highly coveted line of consumer electronics, Apple has a cult following among loyal consumers. During the 2014 holiday season, 74.5 million iPhones were sold. Demand like this meant that Apple was in line to make over $52 billion in profits in 2015, the largest annual profit ever generated from a company’s operations. Despite its consistent financial performance year over year, Apple’s robust profit margin hides a more complicated set of business ethics. Similar to many products sold in the U.S., Apple does not manufacture most its goods domestically. Most of the component sourcing and factory production is done overseas in conditions that critics have argued are dangerous to workers and harmful to the environment.

For example, tin is a major component in Apple’s products and much of it is sourced in Indonesia. Although there are mines that source tin ethically, there are also many that do not. One study found workers, many of them children, working in unsafe conditions, digging tin out by hand in mines prone to landslides that could bury workers alive. About 70% of the tin used in electronic devices such as smartphones and tablets comes from these more dangerous, small-scale mines. An investigation by the BBC revealed how perilous these working conditions can be. In interviews with miners, a 12-year-old working at the bottom of a 70-foot cliff of sand said: “I worry about landslides. The earth slipping from up there to the bottom. It could happen.”

Apple defends its practices by saying it only has so much control over monitoring and regulating its component sources. The company justifies its sourcing practices by saying that it is a complex process, with tens of thousands of miners selling tin, many of them through middlemen. In a statement to the BBC, Apple said “the simplest course of action would be for Apple to unilaterally refuse any tin from Indonesian mines. That would be easy for us to do and would certainly shield us from criticism. But that would also be the lazy and cowardly path, since it would do nothing to improve the situation. We have chosen to stay engaged and attempt to drive changes on the ground.”

In an effort for greater transparency, Apple has released annual reports detailing their work with suppliers and labour practices. While more recent investigations have shown some improvements to suppliers’ working conditions, Apple continues to face criticism as consumer demand for iPhones and other products continues to grow.

Required:

Write an Essay which discusses whether Apple has a moral obligation to protect overseas workers from dangerous practices and to protect the environment from harm. Discuss whether Apple should play a role in protecting poorer nations rather than leaving these decisions to the government of the poorer nation.

Which side of the debate do you favour? Explain why you favour that side.  Explain how you can relate the reason for your reaction back to the underlying consequentialist theory of ethics.