"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.