2023 Assignment 2 Case Analysis Nike and FOXCONN versus and International Labor Practices There are certain important differences between developed and | Assignments Online

 

Assignment 2: Case Analysis—Nike and FOXCONN versus and International Labor Practices

There are certain important differences between developed and developing countries, some of which may lead to difficult ethical problems. The article in this assignment describes NIKE and FOXCONN’s production/manufacturing strategies that lead to labor controversies.

Read the following case study:

• Outsourcing Corporate Accountability by: Parella, Kishanthi. Washington Law Review, Oct2014, Vol. 89 Issue 3, p747-818, 72p

Analyze the case. In your case analysis, address the following:

• Summarize the basic issues of government governance presented in the report.
• Describe NIKE and FOXCONN business strategies and how they involved controversial manufacturing relations. Discuss your opinions about these strategies.
• Explain why firms such as NIKE choose to outsource and send abroad what they used to do at home.
• Explain how the tragedies at FOXCONN could have been prevented by the Chinese government.
• Describe how outsourcing in this article has taken away some corporate accountabilities.
• Do you think that NIKE and FOXCONN have manipulated the International Labor practices? Support your rationales.
• As the U.S. Secretary of Labor, explain how you would help enforce global labor practices in under developed nations around the world?

Submit your work in a 4- to 5-page Word document. Apply current APA standards for writing style to your work. All written assignments and responses should follow APA rules for attributing sources.

Use the following file naming convention: LastnameFirstInitial_M5_A2.doc.

By the due date assigned, deliver your assignment to the Submissions Area.

Assignment 2 Grading CriteriaMaximum PointsSummarized basic issues of government governance presented in the report.10Described NIKE and FOXCONN business strategies and how they involved controversial manufacturing relations.15Explained why firms such as NIKE choose to outsource and send abroad what they used to do at home.10Explained how the tragedies at FOXCONN could have been prevented by the Chinese government.10Described how outsourcing in this article has taken away some Corporate accountabilities.15Supported opinion whether NIKE and FOXCONN manipulate International Labor practices10Explain how as the U.S. Secretary of Labor would help enforce global labor practices in under developed nations around the world.10Applied current APA standards for editorial style, expression of ideas, and format of text, citations, and references.20Total:100

Attachments

  Authors:Parella, Kishanthi1Source:Washington Law Review. Oct2014, Vol. 89 Issue 3, p747-818. 72p.Document Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*SOCIAL responsibility of business — Law & legislation
*CONTRACTING out
*HUMAN rights violations — Prevention
*LABOR laws & legislation — International cooperation
*VALUE chains
*INTERNATIONAL cooperation
*RANA Plaza factory collapse, 2013
SOCIAL aspects
KIOBEL v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (Supreme Court case)Company/Entity:APPLE Inc. — Management Ticker: AAPLNAICS/Industry Codes:926150 Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial SectorsAbstract:This Article addresses the problem of preventing human rights violations abroad that result from the globalization of business. It specifically explores the challenge of improving labor standards in global value chains. The modern business has changed dramatically and has “gone global” in order to court foreign markets and secure resources, including labor. Familiar household names, such as Nike and Apple, have “outsourced” many of their functions to suppliers overseas. As multinational buyers, they dominate one end of the global value chain. At the opposite end of the value chain are the local managers and owners of the factories and workhouses where tablets are assembled, running shoes are made, and gowns are sown. These facilities are often the sites of serious human rights violations, such as forced labor and child labor. Some actors have attempted to rein in transnational corporate misconduct through litigation in domestic courts regarding the corporation’s actions abroad. However, after Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, it is unclear how successful such strategies will prove in the future. This Article takes a different approach and focuses on preventing these human rights violations by improving labor practices in global value chains. Unfortunately, current approaches focus on encouraging better due diligence regarding the behavior of their suppliers. These approaches rely on auditing, monitoring, and disclosures and have dominated international (UN’s Protect, Respect, and Remedy Framework), national (Danish Act on Financial Statement), and sub-state (California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010) efforts to combat human rights violations. However, this Article explains that these and similar efforts will have limited effects because of the problem of misaligned incentives between buyers and suppliers in global value chains. Suppliers have different business profiles, interests, and constraints compared to their multinational buyers. Therefore, conventional drivers for better labor practices that rely on reputational risks and consumer boycotts will not work for suppliers. Instead, public actors and other stakeholders must identify incentives that are appropriate for suppliers. Second, they must also adopt a reflexive law governance approach in order to transmit these incentives effectively in global value chains. This Article concludes by offering examples of strategies that public actors should adopt in order to prevent another Foxconn or Rana Plaza tragedy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Washington Law Review is the property of Washington Law Review Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)Author Affiliations:1Assistant Professor, Washington & Lee University School of LawISSN:0043-0617Accession Number:99242144

• Detailed Record
• This PDF document opens in a frame, to view the document outside of a frame, please change your Adobe Reader settings. To do this, open Adobe Reader, go to Help Menu and select Accessibility Setup Assistant option then select Use Recommend Settings and Skip Setup. You only need to do this once with the current computer you are using.PDF Full Text (766KB)

Related Information

Tools

• Google Drive
• Print
• E-mail
• Save
• Cite
• Export
• Permalink
• Share