Although the Chinese supplier and Nokia are two companies that act on their own, with their own protocols, policy measures, business ethos and different governments in which they live, they are dependent on each other to sustain. Their overall business and ethos may be radically different, however, they need to find a way to work with each other, So they need to communicate. Nokia needs the supplier in China, and the Chinese supplier needs Nokia to ‘supply’ parts of electronic devices; they are inter-dependent.
This makes their relationship interesting.
Because, in which way are the two different companies looking at their
relationship? And how are they managing the relationship that they have in such
a way that it is financially interesting for their own sake?
If we look closely at the situation, we can state that Nokia is a western company that acts according to the measurements that are applied in the EU. So its business ethos underlines the discourse that is dominant in the west. Which means that certain concepts are seen as correct and others as illegitimate. Think about child abuse and working spaces, for example. So, Nokia is embedded in the west regarding its physical location, its mindset and the policies that are applied for that location.
The Chinese company however, has a total different approach on certain subjects and acts with its own business ethos, et cetera. We can see in the documentary that the Chinese supplier only focuses on efficiency and financial benefits by degrading every single step in the business to a chain. People are seen as a medium in the chain, which neglects the rights and wishes of the personnel.
The problems and contradictions arise when both the companies are trying to talk about the same subject. They need to talk about the same subject, for example about the chains in the supply, but this may lead to differences in believes and norms. However as mentioned before, the companies need each other, so they need to find a way to work for a legitimate business.
What happened?
The situation in the documentary is that Nokia’s ethics committee goes to the Chinese supplier and specifies the things that they want to see when they are there. Things like the motivation of the personnel and the location of goods.
What basically happens is that Nokia goes to China and tells them in which way to do its business. The question is if this is something that is logical to ask? Is it even possible to expect from a company that looks for its own way to achieve financial benefits by searching for creative bookkeeping in its own country, et cetera, to act as they do in the west?
At the end of the documentary the two companies come together and Nokia tells the Chinese supplier how to act and what to change in their business. The Chinese company promises to do and tells that they want to change their way of doing business so that it looks more like a western company, with westerns standards. Nokia tells them that Nokia needs to show the western stakeholders that they are acting sustainably and therefore need sustainable supply chains. The Chinese supplier tells Nokia that they are supporting this and are promising that they are going to work on it.
What I thought is interesting is that the promises are only showing that the situation will gradually change to a better situation, but not that the Chinese supplier will change everything radically. There were no contracts what so ever that made the promises valid.
Why not?
I think that it is because only a positive change and a positive image of Nokia are needed and interesting for its position as a producer of electronic devices. When the media shows that Nokia is investing in better working places in China and this can be underlined by telling that the committee went to China and the promises are made, then Nokia is safe. But is there actually changing something radically? Does the Chinese supplier changed is business ethos radically? I don’t think so and neither do I think that it is needed. When the ‘green’ image for Nokia occurs, then everything is fine. By only looking at gradual changes, the relationship between Nokia and the supplier will kept vivid. So at the end everything will be ok.
If we look closely at the situation, we can state that Nokia is a western company that acts according to the measurements that are applied in the EU. So its business ethos underlines the discourse that is dominant in the west. Which means that certain concepts are seen as correct and others as illegitimate. Think about child abuse and working spaces, for example. So, Nokia is embedded in the west regarding its physical location, its mindset and the policies that are applied for that location.
The Chinese company however, has a total different approach on certain subjects and acts with its own business ethos, et cetera. We can see in the documentary that the Chinese supplier only focuses on efficiency and financial benefits by degrading every single step in the business to a chain. People are seen as a medium in the chain, which neglects the rights and wishes of the personnel.
The problems and contradictions arise when both the companies are trying to talk about the same subject. They need to talk about the same subject, for example about the chains in the supply, but this may lead to differences in believes and norms. However as mentioned before, the companies need each other, so they need to find a way to work for a legitimate business.
What happened?
The situation in the documentary is that Nokia’s ethics committee goes to the Chinese supplier and specifies the things that they want to see when they are there. Things like the motivation of the personnel and the location of goods.
What basically happens is that Nokia goes to China and tells them in which way to do its business. The question is if this is something that is logical to ask? Is it even possible to expect from a company that looks for its own way to achieve financial benefits by searching for creative bookkeeping in its own country, et cetera, to act as they do in the west?
At the end of the documentary the two companies come together and Nokia tells the Chinese supplier how to act and what to change in their business. The Chinese company promises to do and tells that they want to change their way of doing business so that it looks more like a western company, with westerns standards. Nokia tells them that Nokia needs to show the western stakeholders that they are acting sustainably and therefore need sustainable supply chains. The Chinese supplier tells Nokia that they are supporting this and are promising that they are going to work on it.
What I thought is interesting is that the promises are only showing that the situation will gradually change to a better situation, but not that the Chinese supplier will change everything radically. There were no contracts what so ever that made the promises valid.
Why not?
I think that it is because only a positive change and a positive image of Nokia are needed and interesting for its position as a producer of electronic devices. When the media shows that Nokia is investing in better working places in China and this can be underlined by telling that the committee went to China and the promises are made, then Nokia is safe. But is there actually changing something radically? Does the Chinese supplier changed is business ethos radically? I don’t think so and neither do I think that it is needed. When the ‘green’ image for Nokia occurs, then everything is fine. By only looking at gradual changes, the relationship between Nokia and the supplier will kept vivid. So at the end everything will be ok.
The question is: who has more power in the
relationship? Who is more dependant? I think that Nokia has more power in the
relationship and can ask more from the supplier then the supplier. Nokia can
chose between more suppliers then the supplier can chose from companies that
sell electronic devices. I think that the committee is kind and soft in its
approach of the supplier. They tell the supplier what to do, but are not
stating the consequences. This will only lead to shifting the problems to other
parts of the business and changing things gradually.
If I had to decide what to do, then I would use certain protocols and policies that need to be evaluate every month, like ISO 14000 protocols. This will make Nokia’s sustainability criteria more fruitful, because it can be checked by institutions – think about NGO’s such as Greenpeace - and so the power on the Chinese supplier can be more decentralized and convincing.
References:
Balmes, T. (Director). (2004). A Decent Factory [Margot films]. Finland: Helsinki
If I had to decide what to do, then I would use certain protocols and policies that need to be evaluate every month, like ISO 14000 protocols. This will make Nokia’s sustainability criteria more fruitful, because it can be checked by institutions – think about NGO’s such as Greenpeace - and so the power on the Chinese supplier can be more decentralized and convincing.
References:
Balmes, T. (Director). (2004). A Decent Factory [Margot films]. Finland: Helsinki
I found that your explanations describe the situation well and show that culture and societal differences between Nokia and the Chinese supplier are the main barriers when trying to deal with each other. It is interesting that you mentioned that no contracts were made to change things on the side of the Chinese factory. It is obviously a very delicate situation, as changes could only happen very gradually and slowly.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenI think it is a good idea to create certain policies that could be regularly monitored by other organisations than Nokia, to create complete transparency. Now, only Nokia have the power to show or not what is actually happening in these factories.