Apple could audit them, but is it common practice to do so? Otherwise this seems like a case of hindsight is 20/20.

Chocolate, coffee, and banana producers are in a different context. If you want to stop child labor on the chocolate farms, there's currently no choice but to have Nestle and Hershey do it, because the governments in Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire either can't or won't enforce their own laws on the topic.

Their only power in this situation is to choose who to do business with. They can’t fine the company or revoke business licenses, as a Minstry of labor could do.

Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?

"Behave ethically or we don't work with you" is within Apple's power. Choosing not to exert it is choosing to endorse the alternative.

> Also, are you suggesting that the actual Indian government has no responsibility?

Of...course not?

But Apple wants to be a world-spanning power, they get to be treated like one. If they don't? There's a line once misapplied to government, about being shrunk 'til it can be drowned in the bathtub, that we can apply to all of these somehow-too-big-to-expect-moral-behavior-of corporations.

I agree with this. Presumably it’s what Apple is going to do in this case.

What would you suggest they do if they can’t find a more ethical alternative to Wistron?

“Apple wants to be a world-spanning power.”

Does it? Or does it just want to keep making computers and software? It’s not obvious what Apple’s size has to do with Wistron breaking their contract.

But Apple sells in China despite violating their policies regarding privacy, so their principles are already soft.

As a manager have you ever tried to change the behavior of even a single employee?

If there is a culture problem with the management, an observer won’t solve that.

In any case, how would that solve anything?

Can you think of a single example where acquiring a problematic company solved its problems?

If there is no company willing to agree to a contract like that, Apple would only be able to force them by offering more money until it was worth their while.

It's no more /force/ than employers have over employees - do what we say or lose your income. Which is not exactly a level of force I like all the time, but if you agree with contracts and employment in general then adding "and treat your workers well and let us see it" doesn't seem like a hill to take a stand of fundamental opposition on.

This one happens to have not taken it seriously.

Given that they have, that speculation is moot.

Clearly this kind of contract hasn’t been ‘powerful’ enough to prevent this kind of problem from emerging.

You're replying with "well they didn't keep their supply chain ethical". We know that, that's why this thread exists on HN. You don't address whether doing so would involve force, or is impossible, you're just saying "ah but they tried and failed" - and it's not even clear if they did try as much as they could, or if they tried a bit and could try a lot harder if they wanted or were held to it.

No - I’m saying that didn’t keep their supply chain ‘ethical’. Perhaps nothing could have done.

"ah but they tried and failed"

Weird that you put this in quote marks as if it’s something I said. It’s not. You might be saying that, but I am not.

Contracts aren’t magic. It’s not a ‘failure’ when someone breaks one. What a contract would do is give Apple the legal mechanism to switch to another supplier despite having agreed to pay Wistron to make iPhones.

The contract only means something if one of the parties doesn’t do what is expected.

This comment is confusing. The first half sounds pro-corporate ("corporations should self regulate themselves!"), but the second half you want large corporations to be broken up. Which one is it? Do you want a future where corporations rule over everything or not?

I am saying that, when the rubber hits the road, Apple has the ability to impose their will on their subcontractors when it comes to human rights and worker treatment (which, I stress for the wait-wait-but-for crowd so desperate for reasons to excuse large companies from having to act like citizens of the world, is a distinctly different use of power than self-enriching commercial ones, so save the handwringing). If they don't want to be held to account for doing so ethically and proactively, they must be made--significantly--smaller until that expectation can be reasonably removed.

That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations. And that we should break them with hammers until they are.

The problem here is that you want corporations to use their powers do The Right Thing™, but ignore what happens if they make a mistake. Sure, we want amazon to crack down on counterfeits, but then we hear of stories like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24914501. Or worse yet, when The Right Thing™ is in the eye of the beholder, see: conservatives thinking that facebook/youtube is censoring them, and liberals thinking they're not doing enough.

>That doesn't elide the role of the state--it recognizes that, to our general detriment, we have allowed corporations to grow to the point where they are not practically regulatable by any given state due to their extranational operations.

But is that the case here? Winston is operating a factory in india and is therefore subject to indian labor laws.

If you have to use a stick to align business with decency, use it liberally. Such is the burdensome life of a multinational company with more global pull than some companies.

Frankly, how do you know that Wistron wasn’t recommended to Apple by government officials? That would be the typical Indian way.