FoxConn and Principles of the UN Global Compact

0 Comment

This paper is a case study analysis of Foxconn of the company’s compliance with the Principles of the UN Global Compact in a wide range of areas such as human rights, labor rights, environment, and anti-corruption. In terms of upholding human rights, the company has failed miserably. This is because it is has been widely reported that a number of serial suicides have happened in its factories both in Taiwan and China. However, most of the information collected by independent sources indicates that the deaths have mainly occurred in the Shenzhen factories (Noronha 2013). The independent sources include media reports and independent investigation reports from various non-governmental organizations. These reports delved into the living and working conditions of the employees, health and safety, compensation, working hours, and workers’ communication with management. According to news reports, a total of 18 deaths were reported from January to November 2010 in Foxconn’s Shenzhen factories. These events amounted to an abuse of human rights and they raised wide public concern about working conditions in Foxconn’s factories. In recent times, the company has been labeled as a sweatshop. In addition, the company has earned a toxic reputation for the militaristic labor discipline in its gargantuan factories. The extent to which the company has registered a string of deaths among its workers has focused international scrutiny on its Longhua factory campus in Shenzhen, which has an army of 400,000 employees. A majority of these employees are migrant youths from China’s hinterland (Mullally 2015). The deaths that occurred between 2009 and 2010 and dozens of others narrowly averted are often considered to be as a result of the brutal labor conditions, heightened by an oppressive desire brought on by the sharp marketdemand for Apple’s iPad. In Taiwan, the company is considering to move its manufacturing activities to Chengdu and Chongqing provinces as these are locations that are farther from the scrutiny of human rights groups.