Regarding the Apple and Starbucks scenarios, we are dealing with two huge corporations which inevitably open themselves to a higher volume of examination. As with any growth in popularity, the more people like you, the more people will not, thus bringing one under the scrutiny of the consumer microscope. The availability of information in today’s global economy has made supply chains more transparent. Large factories in china that produce a majority of apple equipment and small coffee farmers who provide beans to Starbucks will not be held as liable for the conditions of the working environment and social ...view middle of the document...
It is imperative that companies look beyond the bottom lines and look at what consumers hold as valuable to their purchasing motivations. Many of these ”cost of goods sold” are not reflected on income statements and balance sheets but on blogs and tweets that influence todays in tune consumer. It is important that the cost to providing a service be it monetary or social is calculated in the companies end return game. If these companies want to stay atop their field, being a socially responsible leader can’t hurt in the public arena.
will bring them under the microscope and accountability
none the less will be balanced on apples shoulders not the factory making the equipment or the country providing the service.
You have a responsibility to the infrastructure that produces your product.
The great pocket ace that Apple has is that people, who truly cannot afford their product, take time out of their work schedule to stand in line and purchase their item. This goes beyond just managing your supply chain. There is a "culture", a distinct line that can be drawn between apple and PC. There is no metric than can measure fanaticism. The awesomeness that Apple brings is that they are able to forecast their own fanatical demand. They seem, somehow, to have their finger on the pulse of their own community. They essentially have built their own supply chain.