1. From a strategic point of view, in addition to having a supplier code of conduct, what...

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

1. From a strategic point of view, in addition to having a supplier code of conduct, what other instrument should organizations have to support their ethics?

2. What school of Ethics is Apple's supplier code based on? Should it be based on another? why?

3. What type of risks do you identify for this type of strategy (Code of Ethics a
Suppliers)?

Apple requires its suppliers to observe the Supplier Code of Conduct as a condition of awarding contracts. To ensure compliance, Apple has a supplier supervision program that includes audits of the plants of the suppliers, corrective action plans and verification measurements. In the 24-page report named the company's 2010 Progress Report or Supplier Responsibility, Apple reported that in 2009 it carried out 102 audits of supplier facilities in countries such as China, the Czech Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States; 80 of these audits were carried out for the first time and 22 were repeated.

Apple distinguishes between the severity of violations, and designates "essential violations" those that are committed directly against the essential principles of its code of conduct for suppliers
and must be remedied immediately. During the 2009 audits 17 of these violations were discovered, with three cases of underage employment, eight of excessive hiring fees, three cases of improper treatment of hazardous waste and three of deliberately falsified records for the audits. In response, Apple ensured that immediate corrective action was taken, tested the violators, and planned to audit them again the following year.

While Apple's six final assemblers had high compliance scores - on average, over 90% in all respects - other vendors were not highly rated in the 2009 audits. In 60 audited facilities, workers were required to work more than 60 hours a week more than 50% of the time - Apple sets a maximum of 60 hours per week (except in unusual or emergency circumstances) -. At 65 audited facilities, it was observed that employees were required to work more than six days Consecutive weeks at least once a month - Apple requires at least one day off for seven days of labor, except in unusual or emergency circumstances.

At 48 facilities, Apple found that overtime wages were miscalculated, resulting in less compensation. Apple auditors saw that at 24 facilities
workers received less pay than the specified minimum, and that 45 facilities disciplined employees through wage deductions. In 57 audited facilities, the
Employment benefits (such as retirement, disability or maternity) were lower than required by law.

Apple requires suppliers to provide a safe work environment and eliminate physical risks to employees whenever possible. However, the 2009 audits revealed that
Workers were not wearing the proper personal protective equipment at 49 facilities. Violations were found in 70 facilities, where workers were not properly trained, did not have a license to operate equipment, and did not carry out necessary inspections of the equipment. Apple's auditors noted that 44 facilities did not conduct environmental impact assessments, 11 facilities did not have permits for outdoor emissions, and four more did not meet the conditions specified in their emissions permits.

In addition, audits showed that 55 vendor facilities did not have staff assigned to ensure compliance with Apple's vendor code of conduct.

For Apple, audits represent a starting point to make its suppliers comply through increased surveillance, education and training of its staff, and incentives.

Apple collects quarterly data to hold its suppliers accountable for their actions and to make the appropriate decisions based in part on these figures. Providers who fail Complying with Apple's high standards of conduct ultimately ends up losing their contracts with Apple.