我想那些說過制造業(yè)的工作機(jī)會(huì)將永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)回到西方國家的人應(yīng)該不確定自己所說的吧？要不然就是他們故意這么說──因?yàn)檫@是他們能夠?yàn)槲鉀Q定偏重實(shí)現(xiàn)短期目標(biāo)作出合理解釋的唯一方式。
當(dāng)制造業(yè)從大約20年前開始轉(zhuǎn)移到中國時(shí)，制造商們已在不知不覺中創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)巨大的猛獸。雖然這項(xiàng)決定一開始看來對于每個(gè)人都十分有利，如今這一過程卻可能讓世界上支持中國制造的其它地區(qū)(不只是西方國家)面臨制造生產(chǎn)完全流失的威脅，造成一個(gè)讓供應(yīng)鏈管理專家與業(yè)務(wù)主管都感到傷腦筋的不平等環(huán)境。
對于制造商而言，要在全球單一地區(qū)找到所有生產(chǎn)所需的資源，這可能會(huì)把他們給逼瘋，不過，這也就是高科技產(chǎn)業(yè)以及目前全球經(jīng)濟(jì)中許多其它制造領(lǐng)域之所以看重在中國制造的好處。在我看來，最近對于蘋果公司(Apple)以及其它主要OEM在中國制造廠房與工作環(huán)境的種種討論其實(shí)并不夠充份。對于蘋果公司主管以及高科技產(chǎn)業(yè)的其它供應(yīng)鏈專業(yè)人員們來說，除了關(guān)注輿論所指控的違反勞工與人權(quán)，也應(yīng)該重視可能發(fā)生的潛在生產(chǎn)混亂問題──如果中國發(fā)生任何變動(dòng)都可能中 斷西方制造商在該區(qū)的任何生產(chǎn)活動(dòng)。
這也就是為什么我并不同意前蘋果CEO Steve Jobs對奧巴馬總統(tǒng)說制造業(yè)工作機(jī)會(huì)不會(huì)再回到美國和西方國家的言論。隨著時(shí)間的推移，很快地我們將會(huì)知道他的預(yù)言有多準(zhǔn)確，但我個(gè)人深信制造業(yè)工作機(jī)會(huì)終將回流西方世界，同時(shí)，大規(guī)模轉(zhuǎn)移至中國的生產(chǎn)外包趨勢最終也將逐漸趨于緩和。目前采用的制度將無法持續(xù)，同時(shí)一切也將變得更明朗化──我們已經(jīng)處于這樣一種非比尋常的、極度不正確、不合理且?guī)в袧撛陲L(fēng)險(xiǎn)的供應(yīng)鏈管理情勢了。
各種制造業(yè)務(wù)大量外移至中國也為全球經(jīng)濟(jì)下許多地區(qū)帶來可能遭受重大沖擊的威脅。在此制造業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移過程中，對于世界許多地區(qū)帶來了重大的地緣政治意涵，我們已從廣大無助的勞動(dòng)社群以及世界各地越來越高的制造業(yè)失業(yè)率看到了這些現(xiàn)象。許多業(yè)界之士為此提出的解決之道──美國與歐洲等地應(yīng)轉(zhuǎn)而專注于更高階的設(shè)計(jì)與服務(wù)工作，但我認(rèn)為這樣的解決方案并不理想。中國工人也需要這些工作，當(dāng)?shù)卣⒁巡扇×艘恍┐胧?，為人們提供了在金融、服?wù)以及高科技設(shè)計(jì)的種種工作機(jī)會(huì)。
中國在全球制造業(yè)的地位是無庸置疑的。過去二十年來，中國持續(xù)地從國外制造商贏得大量的制造外包訂單，同時(shí)也在歐洲與北美等已開發(fā)國家中引發(fā)了工作機(jī)會(huì)流失以及失去自主性等種種爭議。
但這不是對于政治的一種譴責(zé)。最主要的原因就在于西方的資本主義制度，以及制造業(yè)的現(xiàn)行制度破壞了許多經(jīng)時(shí)間驗(yàn)證的資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)范。我想，在未來幾年內(nèi)， 制造業(yè)外包至中國的趨勢將逐漸減緩，最后先從一些高階的制造業(yè)活動(dòng)將開始向西方國家回流。雖然目前這樣的看法可能受到質(zhì)疑，但我真的深信，總有一天我們將能夠看到歐洲、北美以及全球其它地區(qū)的制造經(jīng)濟(jì)開始活絡(luò)起來。
本文下一頁：西方制造業(yè)復(fù)蘇可期的五個(gè)理由
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 偉創(chuàng)力徹底退出PC和部分消費(fèi)電子代工業(yè)務(wù)
• 勞工權(quán)益：做中國工人，拿美國工資才人道？
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”QaIesmc
{pagination}
西方國家的制造廠也許再也沒法像30年前那般地忙碌了，但總有一天將會(huì)再次活絡(luò)起來。這并不是個(gè)虛無渺茫的愿望，而是根植于一個(gè)在過去廿多年來致力于推動(dòng)制造業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)移至低成本地區(qū)而導(dǎo)致大部份生產(chǎn)集中于中國的相同經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)。
不可否認(rèn)地，我期待中的這種轉(zhuǎn)型并不會(huì)像生產(chǎn)外包至中國的過程那般地劇烈或深遠(yuǎn)，但隨著時(shí)間的進(jìn)展，制造商們將會(huì)開始重新評估其生產(chǎn)策略，并且更加仔細(xì)地權(quán)衡未來打造其制造設(shè)施的所在地。
針對這個(gè)議題，有些讀者認(rèn)為西方國家早已不再具有成本競爭力了。我并不同意這樣的看法。西方國家當(dāng)然能夠也將會(huì)再次找回成本競爭力，同時(shí)，一些曾經(jīng)失去的工作機(jī)會(huì)也將重新回流。以下提出我個(gè)人認(rèn)為西方制造業(yè)復(fù)蘇可期的幾點(diǎn)理由：
一、制造商們無法承擔(dān)單一地區(qū)主導(dǎo)制造系統(tǒng)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這可能是部份制造活動(dòng)移回西方國家最強(qiáng)而有力的理由?，F(xiàn)行制度存在對于全球供應(yīng)鏈的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)太大，大家都不能掉以輕心。去年日本發(fā)生強(qiáng)震與海嘯，以及泰國水災(zāi)，暴露出高科技制造策略的嚴(yán)重缺陷。雖然電子產(chǎn)業(yè)在幾個(gè)月內(nèi)克服了大部份的問題，但也已經(jīng)開始重新組織生產(chǎn)，以避免未來發(fā)生類似的情形。
整個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)還不算真正感受到危機(jī)意識(shí)，不過許多企業(yè)在去年日本強(qiáng)震中受損，尤其是日本廠商，如瑞薩電子(Renesas Electronics)正迅速區(qū)隔該公司的業(yè)務(wù)，甚至也展開縮邊行動(dòng)，不只是在日本企業(yè)總部，在成本較高但較穩(wěn)定的地區(qū)也一樣。業(yè)界的其它廠商正密切關(guān)注該公司的動(dòng)向，而我認(rèn)為其它廠商將會(huì)采取類似的作法。
二、今日在中國的生產(chǎn)變得缺乏效率且難以維持。廠房設(shè)施未能升級到生產(chǎn)下一代產(chǎn)品的高科技廠。在我看來，由于過份依靠人工去做一些其它地方都已經(jīng)采用自動(dòng)化生產(chǎn)的作業(yè)，已使得整個(gè)生產(chǎn)過程退化。
美國ABC新聞日前的深入報(bào)導(dǎo)證實(shí)了一些業(yè)界流傳已久的消息：在中國制造的大多數(shù)高科技設(shè)備都是由成千上萬名工人努力地用手組裝拼湊金屬與芯片、手工拋光外殼以及靠聽機(jī)器聲音進(jìn)行產(chǎn)品驗(yàn)證而完成的。
難道這是說富士康電子(Foxconn Electronics)將制造業(yè)帶回到黑暗時(shí)代，以低工資換取成本效益，以及在供應(yīng)鏈各層面任務(wù)投入大量人力？事實(shí)上，這些工作可以讓機(jī)器人更有效率地完成，而且他們也將會(huì)選擇采用機(jī)器人作業(yè)。因?yàn)檫@樣的制造業(yè)系統(tǒng)不僅缺乏效率，也備受爭議，從最近對于蘋果與富士康的合作伙伴關(guān)系報(bào)導(dǎo)可見一斑。
富士康及其它在中國的制造廠商們將必須采取更多的自動(dòng)化作業(yè)，以便顯著地減少手動(dòng)接觸產(chǎn)品次數(shù)。除此之外，中國的優(yōu)勢是什么？許多人(包括已故的Steve Jobs)認(rèn)為中國的工人可以在短時(shí)間通知后馬上就動(dòng)員起來制造產(chǎn)品。太好了，機(jī)器人也能做到這一點(diǎn)。再者，機(jī)器人不會(huì)在加工廠發(fā)生火災(zāi)時(shí)爆發(fā)激動(dòng)情緒， 也不會(huì)尋求自殺。如果自動(dòng)化生產(chǎn)能夠加速推動(dòng)，中國的優(yōu)勢很快地就會(huì)消失了，剩下與西方制造同樣關(guān)注的成本議題。
本文下一頁：中國勞動(dòng)力成本增加帶動(dòng)變革
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 偉創(chuàng)力徹底退出PC和部分消費(fèi)電子代工業(yè)務(wù)
• 勞工權(quán)益：做中國工人，拿美國工資才人道？
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”QaIesmc
{pagination}
三、西方國家需要更多的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。西方國家無法僅靠“服務(wù)經(jīng)濟(jì)”而生存，而在中國缺乏足夠的銀行、金融業(yè)、軟件開發(fā)、醫(yī)療以及其它所謂的服務(wù)工作。此外，許多這些職位需要的技能水準(zhǔn)較高，但許多人由于種種理由而缺乏這樣的技能。
為了支持經(jīng)濟(jì)成長并促進(jìn)消費(fèi)，西方社會(huì)需要制造業(yè)的職缺來補(bǔ)強(qiáng)服務(wù)業(yè)的工作。這些將不單單來自于能源和政府資助的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施。就算是在中國制造產(chǎn)品的公司也需 要西方國家的消費(fèi)者。在將產(chǎn)品銷售于其它國家以前，蘋果公司總會(huì)讓新產(chǎn)品先在美國上市。唯有開啟對于全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的新思維，減少大量外包至中國，才能相互確保避免“自我毀滅”的發(fā)生。
四、中國成本增加帶動(dòng)變革。據(jù)報(bào)導(dǎo)，Steve Jobs曾經(jīng)告訴美國總統(tǒng)奧巴馬，蘋果將不會(huì)在美國制造產(chǎn)品。如果現(xiàn)任蘋果公司CEO Timothy Cook了解目前的全球制造業(yè)供應(yīng)鏈，他將否決Steve Jobs對于工作的信念，并探討將部份生產(chǎn)帶回美國的方式。
對于蘋果和其它制造商而言，維持在單一供應(yīng)來源生產(chǎn)的成本正急劇增加，而且可能在未來幾年內(nèi)持續(xù)攀升。蘋果公司在亞洲的主要承包商──富士康已經(jīng)多次提高員工薪資，而且還可能持續(xù)每年調(diào)薪，以滿足員工的要求。然而，利用工資低以形成顯著差異化競爭環(huán)境的這種中國優(yōu)勢究竟還能持續(xù)多長的時(shí)間？
在未來的5到10年內(nèi)，我想中國仍能持續(xù)其成本優(yōu)勢，但在某些其它方面的發(fā)展將使得制造商產(chǎn)品所有權(quán)的總成本上揚(yáng)，而這些都將影響日后的委外決定。其中一項(xiàng) 值得關(guān)切的就是針對富士康廠勞工環(huán)境的爭議。對此，蘋果已經(jīng)公布其供貨商名單，并付費(fèi)請求美國公平勞動(dòng)協(xié)會(huì)(FLA)稽查中國工人的工作狀況。
但這樣就夠了嗎？當(dāng)然不。蘋果公司仍然面臨著排山倒海而來的負(fù)面新聞。為了扭轉(zhuǎn)這一壓力，該公司必須采取更實(shí)質(zhì)的行動(dòng)，例如要求富士康和其它承包商在其它地區(qū)生產(chǎn)部份產(chǎn)品。針對一家供貨商進(jìn)行稽查，并不能消除蘋果被描述為一家利用中國勞工以工廠宿舍為家且每周工時(shí)超過60小時(shí)僅換取微薄工資，而使該公司得以 獲取數(shù)十億美元利潤的形象。
這對于蘋果和其它制造商也帶來了法律上的影響。就在美國最高法院打算起訴一家美國公司在奈及利亞侵犯人權(quán)之前，另一項(xiàng)訴訟聲稱該公司與前奈及利亞軍事政府勾結(jié)共謀侵犯人權(quán)以及造成污染。Peter Weiss在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times) 發(fā)表評論：
最高法院將聽訊一件對于美國與國際法以及企業(yè)責(zé)任在全球人權(quán)方面具有許多潛在后果的案例。法官將必須決定是否也應(yīng)該追究企業(yè)法人在海外違反人權(quán)等不法罪行的責(zé)任。
這起案例具有重大的影響，特別是針對高技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)。任何在國外制造廠涉嫌違反人權(quán)的行為都可能得在美國法院付出昂貴代價(jià)。這意味著制造商將再也不能把不健康的生活條件歸罪于中國或承包商。而人權(quán)或勞工權(quán)利組織卻可能因此而將蘋果、戴爾、惠普、諾基亞等高科技OEM告上法院。
本文下一頁：中國的政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)制度本質(zhì)不穩(wěn)定
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 偉創(chuàng)力徹底退出PC和部分消費(fèi)電子代工業(yè)務(wù)
• 勞工權(quán)益：做中國工人，拿美國工資才人道？
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”QaIesmc
{pagination}
五、中國的政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)制度本質(zhì)不穩(wěn)定。這又是另一個(gè)受爭議的問題──但許多人寧可選擇忽略。中國的經(jīng)濟(jì)成功是建立在一種所謂的“竹節(jié)型”資本主義加上嚴(yán)密的共 產(chǎn)主義政治制度為后盾。如果您是一位在中國設(shè)廠的OEM或制造商的股東，應(yīng)該特別關(guān)注其政治制度的演變，因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)影響您的投資。
許多人認(rèn)為中國并不受到世界上其它地方發(fā)生的事件所波及。但中國真的那么與眾不同嗎？當(dāng)中國更深入于資本主義制度后，中國人民不會(huì)群起要求改變嗎？我們當(dāng)然希望中國能繼續(xù)和平地過渡到市場經(jīng)濟(jì)， 但如果因?yàn)檎我蛩囟茐墓?yīng)鏈時(shí)，又將會(huì)發(fā)生什么問題呢？
中國政府正重新思考慮國家的未來發(fā)展以及應(yīng)該發(fā)展得多快。在最近與世界銀行(World Bank)合作發(fā)表的“中國：邁向2030年的改革之路”(China: The Case for Change on the Road to 2030)報(bào)告中，中國官方關(guān)注于未來將如何進(jìn)行重整。根據(jù)美國《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(Washington Post)，中國官方歸納出必需減少國營企業(yè)的作用，“讓銀行和金融系統(tǒng)展開更多競爭，對技術(shù)創(chuàng)新給予更多支持，并緩解目前的居住限制，以促進(jìn)人口流動(dòng)?！?全球制造業(yè)已經(jīng)為2030年作好準(zhǔn)備了嗎？我們?nèi)詫⒗^續(xù)看到中國仍然是唯一或最佳的制造中心嗎？我相信OEM和其它制 造商將改變策略，即使只是為了預(yù)防以及降低風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而要求合約制造商在其它國家設(shè)廠。在此過程中可望受益的地點(diǎn)包括巴西、墨西哥、東歐國家，甚至在北美等 地，目前都能因應(yīng)高階、自動(dòng)化的大量生產(chǎn)。
對于一心只著眼于以產(chǎn)品成本為競爭力的廠商來說，討論這一切可能沒有多大的意義，但許多公司的高階主管們其實(shí)完全明白有些無法預(yù)料的事件將如何破壞原先縝密安排的計(jì)劃。對于這些公司來說，計(jì)劃各種方案已是日常營運(yùn)的一部份了，因而現(xiàn)在，全球制造社群已嚴(yán)重地偏向中國了。而這只是問題之一。
編譯：Susan Hong
本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
參考英文原文：Manufacturing Will Grow Again in the West，5 Reasons Western Factories Will Hum Again，by Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief
相關(guān)閱讀：
• 偉創(chuàng)力徹底退出PC和部分消費(fèi)電子代工業(yè)務(wù)
• 勞工權(quán)益：做中國工人，拿美國工資才人道？
• 中國制造業(yè)的原罪——“血汗工廠”QaIesmc
{pagination}
Manufacturing Will Grow Again in the West
Bolaji Ojo
Those who say manufacturing jobs will never return to the West don't know what they are talking about. Either that or they are purposely being disingenuous because it is the only way they can justify outsourcing decisions focused on the realization of short-term objectives.
Manufacturers unwittingly created a monster when they began transferring manufacturing to China about two decades ago. The process, while initially favorable to everyone, today threatens to completely drain production from other parts of the world (and not just the West) in favor of China, creating a lopsided environment that should be anathema to any supply chain management guru and business executive.
It's pure insanity for a manufacturer to locate all production resources in a single part of the globe, and yet that is what the high-tech industry and many other manufacturing sectors of the global economy celebrate in China today. Recent discussions about conditions at facilities in China manufacturing products for Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and other major OEMs are, in my opinion, misplaced. While the focus on alleged labor and human rights violations is pertinent, Apple executives and other supply chain professionals in the high-tech industry should also be looking at the potential production snafus that would occur if disruptions in China were to halt their activities in the region.
This is why I disagree with Steve Jobs, the late Apple CEO and chairman, who reportedly told President Obama manufacturing jobs won't ever return to the United States and western countries. In time we will know how accurate his prediction was, but personally I am convinced manufacturing jobs will migrate back to the West and that the torrential outsourcing of production to China will eventually slow to a trickle. The current system is unsustainable and will unravel as it becomes clear we have created an unusual, highly faulty, unsupportable, and potentially dangerous supply chain management condition.
The massive outsourcing to China by businesses threatens to inflict significant damages upon many regions of the global economy. There are major geo-political implications for the rest of the world in this manufacturing shift, and we are already witnessing some of these in the hollowing out of communities and growing production unemployment worldwide. The solution advanced by many that the US and Europe could instead focus on higher-end design and services job is faulty. Chinese workers desire these jobs, too, and the country is already taking steps to advance opportunities for its citizens in finance, services, and high-tech design.
That China sits astride the global manufacturing sector is indisputable. It has for the last two decades been winning outsourcing contracts from foreign manufacturers for its factories and setting off controversies in developed economies in Europe and North America over vanishing jobs and emasculated municipalities.
But this is not a political diatribe. The West operates a capitalist system, and probably the best reasons for the position I take here is that the current system violates so many time-tested norms of the capitalist economy. The outsourcing of production to China will slowly decrease over the next years, and eventually some high-end manufacturing activities will begin to migrate back westward. This may be a controversial position today, but I am fully convinced we will one day see a revival in the manufacturing economies in Europe, North America, and other parts of the globe.
In my next blog I will expand on this and advance five reasons I believe manufacturing jobs will eventually start growing again in the West.
5 Reasons Western Factories Will Hum Again
Western plants may never be as busy as they were 30 years ago, but many will hum again. This isn't a vain wish but one rooted in the same economics that drove manufacturing over the last 20-plus years to lower-cost regions and resulted in most production being centralized in China.
Admittedly, the shift I am expecting won't be as dramatic or as far-reaching as the outsourcing of production to China, but over time, manufacturers will re-evaluate their strategies and weigh more carefully where they put their plants. The odds are China won't be as attractive a location as it has been in recent years, when knee-jerk reactions pushed high-tech OEMs and other manufacturers to transfer or outsource most of their production activities there.
Some readers responding to an earlier post on this subject argued that the West is no longer cost-competitive. I disagree. The West can be and will be cost-competitive again. It will also regain some lost jobs. Here are my reasons:
1. Manufacturers cannot afford the dominance of the system by a single region. This is probably the strongest case for moving some manufacturing activities back to Western countries. The risks to the global supply chain inherent in the current system are too great for everyone to ignore. Last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the flooding in Thailand exposed a serious flaw in high-tech manufacturing strategies. The industry overcame most of the associated problems within months, but it has also begun to reorganize production to avoid future problems.
A real sense of urgency has yet to grip the industry, but many companies hurt by last year's earthquake, especially Japanese firms like Renesas Electronics Corp. (Tokyo: 6723), are quickly diversifying operations. In many cases, they are implementing redundancies, not just at home, but also in higher-cost but more stable regions. The rest of the industry is tracking their actions, and I believe they will learn to take similar steps.
2. Chinese production today is inefficient and unsustainable. The plants haven't evolved into the high-tech version of next-gen products. In my opinion, they have dumbed down the production process by relying heavily on humans to do jobs that would have been automated elsewhere.
A recent ABC News report confirmed something that was already well known in the industry: Most high-tech equipment manufactured in China is hand-assembled by hundreds of thousands of workers laboriously slapping pieces of metals and silicon together, polishing enclosures by hand, and listening to robotic voices announcing product verification.
It's as if Foxconn Electronics Inc. took manufacturing back to the Dark Ages, gaining cost efficiency on the basis of low wages and the ability to throw a lot of human hands at tasks at all levels of the supply chain. Many of these jobs could be done more efficiently by robots, and eventually they will be. This system is not only inefficient, but also highly controversial, as recent reports over Apple's partnership with Foxconn have demonstrated.
Eventually, Foxconn and other manufacturers in China will have to adopt more automation, which will drastically reduce the number of hands that touch products. Beyond this, what is the China advantage? Many, including the late Steve Jobs, have argued that workers in China can be mobilized at a moment's notice to manufacture products. Well, so can robots. And further, they don't generate emotions when a fire erupts in a processing plant, and they don't commit suicide. If automation were accelerated, the China advantage would quickly disappear, leaving the same concerns and cost issues associated with facilities in the West minus the negative PR.
3. The West needs the jobs. Western nations cannot survive solely on the "service economy." There just aren't enough banking, finance, software development, healthcare, and other so-called services jobs to go around. Plus, many of these positions require a higher level of skills that many in these societies won't attain for various reasons.
To support economic growth and increase consumption, Western societies need to supplement services jobs with manufacturing positions. These won't come from energy and government-sponsored infrastructure alone. Even companies manufacturing products in China need Western consumers. Apple offers its new products in the United States first before moving to other countries. Avoiding mutually assured self-destruction requires a new thinking about the global economy that I believe will curtail the grand outsourcing to China.
4. Higher costs in China are already driving change. Steve Jobs reportedly told President Obama that Apple would never again manufacture its products in the United States. If current Apple CEO Timothy Cook understands the global manufacturing supply chain as well as has been portrayed, he will repudiate the Jobs doctrine and explore ways to return some production to the US.
The cost to Apple and other manufacturers of maintaining a single-source region for production is rising steeply and will continue to climb in the coming years. Apple's main contractor in Asia, Foxconn, has been hiking wages for its workers and may have to keep doing so every year to satisfy restive employees. How much longer before the China wage advantage erodes, leaving a dramatically different competitive environment?
China may maintain its cost advantage over the next five to 10 years, but some other developments are driving up the total cost of product ownership for manufacturers, and these will factor into outsourcing decisions. One issue is the outcry over labor conditions at Foxconn plants. In response, Apple has published a listing of its suppliers and has paid the Fair Labor Association to review working conditions. (See: Will Apple, Foxconn, & Sweeteners Satisfy Labor Activists? and Who's on Apple's Supplier List?)
Will this be enough? No. Apple still is facing a tsunami of negative press. To reverse this, it will need to take more substantive action, such as asking Foxconn and other contractors to manufacture some products in other regions. A supplier audit cannot delete the portrayal of Apple as a company that makes billions in profits on the backs of low-paid Chinese workers living in dormitories and working at least 60 hours a week.
There are also legal implications for Apple and other manufacturers. A lawsuit before the US Supreme Court pitches a Western company against a Nigerian community, which alleges that the firm colluded with a dictator to pollute the country. Peter Weiss wrote about the case in a New York Times op-ed last week:
The Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and International law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.
This case has significant ramifications, especially for the high-tech industry. Any alleged violations of "human rights" in a foreign manufacturing facility can become the basis for an expensive lawsuit in a US court. That means manufacturers will no longer be able to put blame for cattle-pen living conditions on China or contractors. Could some human or labor rights organization drag Apple, Dell, HP, Nokia, and other high-tech OEMs to court for conditions at their contractors in China? Yes.
5. China's political and economic system is inherently unstable. This is another controversial issue -- and one many of us would rather ignore. The country's economic success is built on a doubtful version of capitalism tacked on to the back of a rigidly communist political system. If you are a shareholder in an OEM or another type of manufacturer in China, you should be concerned about how its political system is evolving, because it will impact your investment.
Many of us would like to think China is immune from events occurring in other parts of the globe, including last year's Arab Spring. But is China really that different, and will its citizens stop demanding changes as the country bites deeper into capitalism? We can hope it will continue to manage its transition into a market economy peacefully, but what happens if the country encounters massive protests that disrupt the supply chain?
The Chinese government is rethinking the country's future and how fast it should evolve. In a recent report done in collaboration with the World Bank, "China: The Case for Change on the Road to 2030," Chinese officials looked at how it should restructure. According to the Washington Post, the officials concluded that China needs to reduce the role of state-owned enterprises, "allow more competition in the banking and financial systems, give more support to innovation, and allow its population greater mobility by easing current residency restrictions."
Is the global manufacturing industry getting itself ready for 2030? Will it continue to see China as the sole or most optimal manufacturing center? I believe OEMs and other producers will switch tactics, even if this involves merely hedging and reducing risks by requiring contract manufacturers to put plants in other countries. Places that will benefit from this swing will include Brazil, Mexico, Eastern European countries, and even places in North America that can handle higher-end, automation-heavy production.
All this may not add up to much now for companies still bent on competing solely on immediate product cost, but many executives understand fully how unexpected events can derail carefully laid plans. For such companies, scenario planning is a part of daily operations, and right now, we are heavily tilted as a global manufacturing community toward China. That alone is a problem.
責(zé)編：Quentin
掃碼分享到好友
