Apple in China in Late

Apple in China In late January, the New York Times wrote a story about conditions at Foxconn, one of Apple's suppliers in China. The article was timely in that Foxconn produces the iPad, and Apple was on the verge of introducing a new iPad model. Since that point, the story has grown. Apple and the contractor, Foxconn, have both faced a considerable amount of negative publicity, owing to the high profile of the company involved, and the high profile media outlets in which the reports were filed.

Apple and Foxconn Charles Duhigg and David Barboza (2012) published an article on the 25th of January that was related to several other articles published around the same time. These articles were about Apple's contractor Foxconn and its labor policies in China. Foxconn is a Taiwanese firm that operates factories in a few countries, but does extensive business with Apple in China. The article began by highlighting a tragedy that occurred at the plant, where a fire destroyed part of the plant.

The article moves from there into an examination of the general working conditions in the plant, including excessive overtime, living in crowded dorms to improper disposal of hazardous waste, falsification of records and other issues. The former issues are highlighted, as the article focuses on the plight of Chinese workers who produce goods for Western technology companies. The conditions the article describes are intended to shock Western audiences, although the dormitories and long hours are very common in China and not generally challenged by the workers there.

The article claims that the suppliers have considerable disregard for worker health, and more importantly that Western firms like Apple who use these factories to produce their goods are aware of the problem and choose to do nothing to address the alleged abuses. The story briefly mentions that other firms also use the same types of factories, including Dell, HP, IBM and Motorola; Japanese companies like Sony and Toshiba; European firms like Nokia and even China's homegrown Lenovo.

The article, because it is focused on Apple, discusses the company's code of conduct for its suppliers and the supplier responsibility records that it keeps. An interview with a Chinese manager at Foxconn contrasts the view that Apple is concerned with worker welfare. From a journalistic point-of-view, the article relies on damning anecdotal evidence rather than systemic proof.

There is evidence presented that the culture in these factories supports mistreatment of workers, and that Apple management is either blind to the problem or does not care enough to pressure Foxconn into dealing with the problem. Perhaps most damning are the stories of Foxconn employees working on Apple project committing suicide after making mistakes. The story at one point relays a tale of another New York Times story in which a NYT reporter interviewed employees of a different subsidiary of Apple about the conditions of its factories in China.

The article also points out that while Apple has reluctantly cooperated with media requests, including those from NYT, to reveal its suppliers, it has not revealed a list of the companies that supply its suppliers, and the authors intimate that there may be harsh conditions at those plants as well, since there is no way for independent sources to check the conditions at those factories. This article caused a strong reaction from the public, and from Apple.

At the time, it was one piece among a few that that Times published about Apple. Times articles about Apple are fairly frequent, especially when the many NYT blogs are taken into account, probably because the size and visibility of the company makes it one of considerable public interest. That the NYT chose to discuss conditions at Apple's factories and not those of other major computer makers is somewhat telling, and it speaks to the attraction of writing about Apple over those other companies.

That said, the writers to attempt to point out that conditions in Apple factories are likely indicative of those in electronics factories across China. The recent follow-up to the controversy has centered around reports that Apple and Foxconn are actively working to improve working conditions at the factories producing Apple goods. A report was issued by the Fair Labor Association criticizing Apple and Foxconn for the conditions in the factories. Greenhouse (2012) reported that the labor audit by the monitoring group was fair.

The FLA has often been considered in the past to issue reports that are favorable to companies, but the article contends that is not the case this time, that the report of Foxconn was balanced. This report supported the findings of Duhigg and Barboza's expose. The article contains information about what the report found, which included some things that Apple management was unaware of.

It had been reported by the BBC (2012) a day earlier that as a result of the controversy, Apple CEO Tim Cook had visited the Foxconn factory and met with China's vice premier Li Kequiang. This incident illustrates how much of a high profile case this is, and the article cites the Fair Labor Association report as critical to providing support for the claims of worker abuse at the factory.

A follow-up report on March 30th in the New York Times (Duhigg & Greenhouse, 2012) announced that a fact had been reached by Apple and Foxconn to "sharply curtail" working hours and significantly increase wages at the plant. The article provided some background on the issue, in particular on the initial FLA report, and then it provided some information about the deal that was made between Apple and Foxconn. This reporting was fairly even-handed, in that it focused on the factual details of the deal.

The Wall Street Journal (Chao, Areddy & Poon, 2012) discussed the same pact, but with headlines indicating that this deal would "ripple across China," changing working conditions across the entire country. This report provided fewer details about the deal, but also argues that some of the pressure for excessive overtime comes from the Chinese workers themselves, as these workers are seeking to maximize the money they make from jobs like this.

The article also pointed out that younger workers in China have aspirations beyond getting out of poverty, and are beginning to see jobs as a means to an end. Writing in the New York Times, Bradsher (2012) echoes some of what was found in the WSJ article.

He notes that there is a "growing shortage of blue collar workers willing to work in China's factories." This article uses opinions from a professor and past data collected from interviews with various NYT correspondents to help provide an overview of the complex labor dynamics that drive the working conditions in these factories. This article notes that Chinese law is fairly strict, and that the real issue is that companies like Foxconn are ignoring the law, either by falsifying documents or by other types of fraud.

This marks the biggest difference between the actual labor laws in the United States and China, in contrast to the impression one might get from a case like Foxconn. Analysis In these articles, the information in the FLA report is the primary basis for the articles, along with snippets of interviews from key subjects, and information culled from Apple's publicly-available documents such as its code of ethics for suppliers.

The reporting of the FLA material implies that the findings of that report are factual and reasonable, although the Times did run a separate story (Greenhouse, 2012) that discussed the accuracy of the report explicitly. This is important because the entire controversy stems from the media attention given to Foxconn and its Apple factories, and much of the media attention has been driven by the FLA report.

In the earlier days, the reports appeared to take a fairly aggressive tone, ensuring that Apple in particular was targeted, and any defects in Apple's transparency were pointed out. There were even quotes from the deceased Steve Jobs in one article, talking about a factory that might not have even been a Foxconn factory. That sort of reporting certainly casts Apple in a negative light, but given the time frame may have had nothing to do with the issue presently at hand.

The more recent reports have allowed the New York Times to give more thorough coverage of the issue. The FLA report is given an article, and there is also an article dedicated to explaining the nature of the factory industry in China, explaining some of the underlying conditions that are not generally reported in the initial series of articles. These later articles, which possibly taking a tone that defends Apple, also provide key background insight.

It is interesting to note that if the FLA report had not become such a high profile issue that the New York Times might not have taken the time to provide the key contextual information. For example, the original report clearly highlights the working conditions at these factories, but does so by cherry-picking anecdotes. No context is provided, so the reader is likely to see the reports of the working conditions through an American lens, where such conditions would be considered to be appalling.

In China, that is not the case and there are tens of millions of peasants who would read such descriptions and think those workers lucky. Such context would have made for a more balanced and honest article. Indeed, the initial article is one of the more flawed in the series of reports that the Times put out on the Foxconn issue. The article begins with an anecdote about a worker who was killed in an accident.

The reality is that workers are killed on the job every day in America, too. The company paid his family quickly with a check as compensation. Again, the article makes this sound somewhat harsh, but an American firm might drag the case through the court system for years. There is no sense of contrast provided in the scathing original article that would allow a reader to have a better sense of why China's working conditions are the way they are.

Surely if Apple produced in the U.S., the same anecdotes might be heard. Software developers might complain of 100-hour weeks prior to a new product launch just as the factory workers in China do. This context is the primary information that has by and large been omitted from the reporting of the Foxconn situation, but would have been desirable all along. Conclusion My point-of-view is that these articles are somewhat biased in the information that they are presenting to the reader.

The information that is presented may be factual -- it is difficult to corroborate some of the anecdotes and the journalists.