Foxconn Technology Group Ethics

Foxconn Technology Group is the largest electronic manufacturer contractor in the world, as reported by Circuits Assembly online magazine January first of 2015, with consolidated revenues of US$16.11 billion. The Taiwanese company is headquartered in the city of Tucheng, New Taipei. Their structure includes 13 factories in nine Chinese cities and important operations in other places around the world like: Mexico and Brazil, with a minor presence in the European continent.

        Including its facilities in Asia, the company is responsible for almost 40% of the manufacture or/and assembly of all consumer electronic products sold. (NY Times, 2012)

        Some of their clients involve important Japanese, American and European companies, making them the third largest information technology firm (by revenue) and the largest private employer in China with almost 1.3 million employees. (NY Times, 2012) It’s most well-known clients include: Microsoft with the Xbox One, Nintendo with the Wii U, Research In Motion with the BlackBerry, Apple Inc, with the iPad and iPhone, Sony and Amazon among other popular products and companies.

        In recent history, the company has become very popular among media outlets due to some controversies related to the working conditions of their employees and human resources management. The most shocking of these allegations are: an alarming rate of suicides, unfair wages and unpaid overtimes, racial and religious discrimination, exposure to hazardous materials and unsafe machinery among other accusations made against what the Chinese have referred to as “labor camps”.

        It has been almost seven years since the first accusations regarding the inhumane working conditions at Foxconn began to surface. Since then, very little has been done against these claims aside from a revision to their code of conduct from 2010 to 2012.

        Regardless of the changes, no mentions were made concerning the statements of insufficient overtime compensation, excessive working hours or poor working conditions; and as some believe, the changes presented in the revised code of conduct have not been properly implemented. (Circuits Assembly, December 2014).

Other less ethical methods that were enforced include the suicide prevention nets installed around the factories and the legally binging documents created to impede the worker’s descendants from suing the company in case of an unanticipated death, injury or suicide. (Daily Mail, London, 2010).

The fact that Foxconn’s clients keep manufacturing their products with a company that cares so little for their employees wellbeing, compensation, and safety is a firm statement in support of modern day slavery. As for the final consumers, buying the products this company produce is a vote against fair labor, making us too accomplices of the situation.

All of these problems have caused the company to be seen in a very bad light by the general public; other than that it has seen very little repercussions from these events with basically no monetary losses or decline of support from their clients.

The ambiguity of the situation is that regardless of the incidents and the claims, Foxconn is the biggest employer in China, meaning that a huge part of the community feeds and relies on the existence of the company.

This ethical dilemma could be addressed through awareness. The goal is to encourage people to question their actions, realize their involvement in the situation and the repercussion of their decisions hoping to provoke change.

Another approach would be a collaboration between client and company; a joint effort to seek change and develop a plan in the interest of the greater good without harming the economical aspects or either company.

The problem is this ethical dilemma cannot be resolved very easily. The level of dependency companies like Apple have to Foxconn is large enough to cause colossal harm to the firm if they were deprived of their contractor services. At the same time, this Taiwanese giant cannot survive without its clients, especially when talking about the designer of the iPhone, iPod and iPad, who represents about 60% of their income.