Reference no: EM133455873
Please help me with the below case studies:
Case study 1
About 2014, the smartphone industry was still growing rapidly, and competition was fierce among original equipment makers (OEMs) like Samsung, Huawei, Apple, and effective low-cost suppliers like Lenovo and Xiaomi. Since 2012, profits had flattened out for some suppliers and was sinking rapidly for others. Apple was dominant in profits, and also the world's most valuable company. That success was riding on the iPhone 5, and its cheaper version, the iPhone 5c. The success of the iPhone franchise was built, from its inception, on offshore outsourcing, marked by demanding supplier terms. Apple claimed that its offshoring model was a necessity. However, beneath the surface in Apple's supplier ecosystem, there were serious problems.
Around 2009 to 2010, Foxconn, a major supplier with 40% of its business from Apple, experienced a rash of worker suicides. Over that period, 19 workers attempted suicide and 15 died. That led to rigorous public scrutiny of Apple and it supply chain. Apple made promises to do better. It diversified its supplier base and introduced a new major Chinese supplier: Pegatron. Pegatron's business grew rapidly, in sync with growth of iPhones. However, in 2013, there were more revelations of significant labour abuses, this time at Pegatron. In a report aired on the BBC, Apple was singled out although the problems also applied to other manufacturers. The were four major challenges that Apple needed to address in the is round of public scrutiny, not the least of which was whom should it please: its critics or its customers.
Questions:
1. Is it fair to hold Apple fully accountable for Pegatron's failures?
2. Does offshore outsourcing perpetuate the abusive labour conditions in developing markets?
3. Why have these significant overseas labour abuses not derailed Apple's market success?
Case Study 2
Me to We was looking to grow beyond the success it had established since its inception in 2009. The organization sold volunteer trips, greeting cards, school supplies, sustainable clothing, jewelry, and other accessories in the North American market to fund the activities of its charity partner, Free the Children (FTC). The company had donated C$8.5 million to date, to its charity partner. From a business perspective there were some evident gaps in the portfolio, which reflected a missed opportunity to increase revenues. As such, the company was exploring moving into the fast consumables market. There were several business issues to address. Key among them was whether the company would be able to replicate the success it had achieved so far. The motivation was very strong for Marc Keilburger, the head of We to Me. His brother, Craig Keilburger, had achieved global prominence at the age of 12, by founding the charity Free the Children, to combat child labour wherever that existed around the world.
As of 2014, FTC had 66 partnerships in villages around the world and a budget of close to $50 million. The need for a stable source of funds became more pressing with FTC's growth. A big part of Me to We's growth was through selling crafts manufactured in the villages that FTC assisted. The growth of Me to We's business would not only fund FTC activities but potentially create more income for the people they assisted. The evidence was strong that such social enterprises were not only growing significantly over the past 10 years, but they were able to achieve competitive advantage over traditional competitors based on brand equity. That equity was rooted in social purpose. In terms of what it meant for Me to We, the latest strategic plan reflected a goal to grow its retail division by 38% over the coming five years.
Questions:
1. How does Me to We's business reflect the realization of society as an interdependent system?
2. Is Me to We inherently responsible for FTC, and therefore obligated to succeed in raising the funds required by its charity partner?
3. Which dimensions of CSR most evident in the Me to We/FTC scope of activities?