Last week Ron Miller wrote a ThinkerNet blog called Apple's Tainted Profits, which set off quite the debate on the message boards about Apple's poor treatment of employees and the environment in China.
As Ron wrote:
For one thing, as a consumer products company with a ton of money in its pockets, maybe it's time Apple paid workers a living wage in safe conditions, regardless of where the factory is located. But even though Apple has the means to fix these and other problems, it's probably not going to do so without pressure.
That pressure is coming. The media has turned its attention toward Apple with many (in addition to Ron) calling out Apple for its "sweatshop" issues. There are also plenty of commentators defending Apple. But whether opinions are critical or supportive, the attention is still on the fact that Apple's factory workers in China are not being treated very well.
In addition, Apple is now the target of online petitions, including one on Change.org, which has already attracted more than 165,000 signatures. The petition, posted by Mark Shields from Washington, D.C., includes an open letter with two demands: for Apple to "release a worker protection strategy for new product releases, which are the instances when injuries and suicides typically spike," and for the company to release transparent results of the Fair Labor Association's monitoring of its suppliers.
Another petition on SumOfUs.org calls on Apple to make its iPhone 5 and all future products "ethically."
Last week, after reading Ron's blog and other critical takes on Apple's practices, I went over to Facebook to take a look at Apple's page there, and I was both surprised and, well, not surprised, that -- despite having more than 2 million "Likes" -- the page had zero activity, nor any ability for people to leave comments.
For the record, you'll get a even less information by visiting twitter.com/apple.
While it's eyebrow-raising, in this age of "social business" and hyper-communications, to see any major company not using social media to communicate with consumers, those who know Apple also know the company is a top-down operation. There's not much talk of flattening the hierarchy and going social in Cupertino.
But it's worth questioning whether this way of doing business is workable, particularly in the post-Jobs era.
In addition to attracting negative attention, Apple these days is also down one fierce leader. Steve Jobs was an individual, an icon, and a perhaps even a brand himself, whether you liked him or not. It may not be the case that a Jobs-less Apple could continue to run the same way and be tolerated.
Let's say Apple was a "social business" today. What would be different? Likely its Facebook page would be loaded with posts from critics, links to the online petitions, nasty remarks, etc. But it would also be a platform for the company to engage in a conversation to help people better understand the situation. Considering more than 2 million people on Facebook are already set up to interact with the brand, the fact that Apple cared enough to open up that conversation would, itself, attract positive media attention. And maybe, just maybe, by being part of the dialogue, Apple could clear up some putative misconceptions about its practices.
At very least, an open conversation says "we care about this problem" more than an internal memo from the CEO does. And in an age that's all about transparency and communications, companies that refuse to move forward in this realm will begin to stand out as inhibitors of progress. For Apple, maintaining unethical practices along with an unwillingness to be a social business may not be sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment