Is ‘Made in China' the only way?
At the height of her powers, Margaret Thatcher had a motto that encapsulated her determination to bring the discipline of the free market to Britain: coal mines had to be closed and lossmaking state-owned industries had to be privatised. There is no alternative, she used to say.
Her words came to mind last week when Sony announced that its profits to the end of March would be 31 per cent lower than it expected earlier this year. It blames the decline on falling prices in consumer electronics, caused by the move to digital products. These are now so easy to assemble from standard parts that Sony cannot maintain the premium it commanded in the analogue world.
There is another reason for this consumer bonanza: televisions, music players and phones are mostly made in China. As a subtle new documentary on how Nokia tries to ensure that its Chinese suppliers do not break labour laws shows, there is no alternative. When the monthly wages for workers in Shenzhen are less than ￡40 a month, it is nearly impossible for most other countries to compete. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, that leads to some soul-searching. Since Nike got into trouble for allowing the exploitation of workers in Asian factories, corporate social responsibility has become all the rage. For a week on a Swiss hillside, bosses talk earnestly about their commitment to good causes such as environmental protection and the employment of workers on decent terms.
It is tempting to dismiss such talk as merely well-meaning guff intended to placate the campaigners and non-governmental organisations that prowl around Davos. No chief executive would admit to exploiting workers, but the point of assembling products in China is to exploit a wage disparity with the west. Nokia's products would be very expensive if they were made in Finland.
Milton Friedman, one of Lady Thatcher's favourite economic gurus, believes that companies should not get a guilty conscience over where the global market leads them. His assertion that “the one and only social responsibility of business is to make profits” is quoted at the start of Made in China, the film directed by Thomas Balmès, backed by the BBC and Finnish and French television.
Friedman's scepticism has a lot to be said for it. Governments are in a better position than companies to make judgments about minimum employment standards. Most of the women employed at the Shenzhen supplier of phone chargers seen in the film live in dormitories near the factory and are paid the minimum wage equivalent to ￡36 a month before deductions for food and housing.
That would be a scandal in Bremen or Swindon, but there is no better alternative in China, as one woman worker points out. Living off the land in an inland province would not provide such rewards: “We have fields, but fields do not pay any more.” By coming to China for its chargers, Nokia is improving their lot.
It is clearly unwise for any company operating a global supply chain to ignore the terms on which its suppliers employ their workers. As Hanna Kaskinen, Nokia's “ethical and environmental specialist”, tells senior executives: “Nokia is a big company the spotlight is on us all the time so it is absolutely vital that we treat this issue as very important.”
But treating Chinese workers fairly in order to avoid adverse publicity, or a public backlash, is a matter of prudence rather than morality. Most senior executives grasp the logic of not becoming targets for activists, and human resource managers often sell corporate social responsibility to them in these terms. By implication, the important thing is not to be ethical, but to be seen to be ethical.
Maybe that comes to the same thing in practice, but it accounts for the air of cynicism that pervades a lot of CSR initiatives. That becomes plain in Shenzhen when Nokia's team of (female) ethicists arrives to inspect the conditions of the (female) workers and confronts a group of (male) managers whose attitudes vary from weary resignation to irritation at this intrusion of do-goodery.
“To be frank with you, you cannot replace these girls. Very reliable, low maintenance,” says the British factory manager, as he stands by two women workers measuring lengths of cable (the managers were so open because they thought the crew was making an internal Nokia film). Yet the visitors find nothing very disturbing; by Chinese standards, the managers are running a humane factory.
So is there a point to such exercises, beyond keeping activists off companies' backs? Actually, as Made in China shows, there is. Friedman is correct that a company achieves things for society by performing its basic task of making money for its shareholders. No company should be distracted by a misguided effort to become a paragon of social respectability.
But the objective of Nokia's managers was more modest: to make sure that its supplier was sticking to local labour laws. This can hardly be faulted, given that corporate customers such as Nokia determine how well suppliers can afford to treat their workers. It would be hypocritical unethical, in fact for the paymaster to shrug off responsibility.
There is something distasteful about companies grandstanding about their ethical standards, but there is nothing wrong with their doing their bit to ensure that those they indirectly employ are treated humanely. Friedman thinks companies have no business trying to ensure the world is a decent place. But for a 21st century global corporation there is no alternative.
企业社会责任是善意的谎言？
玛格丽特?撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)在权力颠峰期有一句格言，这句格言概括了她把自由市场准则引入英国的决心：煤矿必须关闭，亏损的国有企业必须私有化。她过去常说，别无选择。
上周索尼(Sony)宣布，截至3月底的利润将比公司在今年早些时候的预测低31%，这使人们想起她的话。索尼把利润下降归咎于电子消费品的价格不断下跌，而这种产品降价是由人们转而购买数码产品所致。如今用标准部件来组装这些数码产品如此简单，以至于索尼无法维持它在模拟产品时代的高价。
给消费者带来好运的还有另一个原因：电视机、音乐播放器和电话等产品现在大多在中国制造。最近有一部精致的新纪录片，讲的是诺基亚(Nokia)如何设法确保其中国供应商们没有违法劳动法规。正如这部纪录片所显示的，厂商别无选择。在中国深圳，工人的月薪不到40英镑，其它多数国家几乎不可能与之竞争。在达沃斯(Davos)的世界经济论坛(World Economic Forum)上，这一事实引起了人们的反思。自从耐克(Nike)因允许亚洲工厂中的剥削行为而碰到麻烦后，企业社会责任(CSR)已成为热门话题。在瑞士达沃斯山腰上开会的这个星期内，各家企业的老板恳切地谈论自己如何致力于做好事，比如保护环境，以及以较好条件雇佣工人。
我很想把此类言论斥为善意的谎言，其目的是安抚在达沃斯四处出没的活动人士和非政府组织。没有哪位首席执行官会坦承在剥削工人，但在中国组装产品是为了利用中国与西方国家之间的工资差距。如果诺基亚的产品在芬兰制造，它们将非常昂贵。
米尔顿?弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)是撒切尔夫人最喜爱的经济学大师之一。他认为，对于全球市场引领他们去何方，它们不该有负疚感。他断言“企业唯一的社会责任就是赚取利润”，这句话在影片《中国制造》(Made in China)的开头被引用。该片由托马斯?巴梅斯(Thomas Balmès)执导，由英国广播公司(BBC)和芬兰及法国电视台赞助拍摄。
弗里德曼的怀疑态度理所当然。政府比企业更有资格评判最低雇佣标准。电影中出现了深圳这家手机充电器供应商雇佣的女工，她们大部分住在工厂附近的宿舍里，每月拿相当于36英镑的最低工资，然后还要扣掉食宿费。
如果此事发生在德国不来梅(Bremen)或英国斯温顿(Swindon)，就是一起丑闻，但在中国，正如一名女工指出的，她们没有更好的选择。如果在内陆省份以种地为生，就不会得到这样的报酬：“我们有田地，但种地再也没什么好赚的。”通过来中国生产充电器，诺基亚正在改善这些工人的境遇。
对于任何一家运作全球供应链的公司来说，忽略供应商雇佣工人的条款显然是不明智的。正如诺基亚的“道德和环境专家”汉纳?卡斯基宁(Hanna Kaskinen)对高管们说的：“诺基亚是一家大公司，我们始终受到瞩目，所以我们对问题郑重其事，这点很要紧。”
但是，公平地对待中国工人，以免招致负面宣传或公众的强烈反应，这个问题关乎审慎而非道德。大部分公司高管抱定不要成为激进分子目标的思想，而人力资源经理们经常以这种话来劝诫高管重视企业社会责任。言下之意是，重要的不是要有道德，而是要让人家认为你有道德。
也许实践起来是一回事，但这种言下之意导致了许多企业社会责任计划中弥漫的讽刺意味。当诺基亚的(女性)伦理学家团队到深圳调查(女性)工人的环境，并面对一群(男性)管理人员时，这种意味就非常明显。对于这些行善之人的闯入，这些管理人员的态度各不相同，有的厌烦地告退，有的则发火。
“坦白说，你没法撤换这些姑娘。(她们)非常可靠，雇佣成本又低，”工厂经理、一个英国人站在两名测量电缆长度的女工旁边说道。（这些经理是如此坦率，因为他们以为这些来访者是在拍一部关于诺基亚的内部片)。但以中国的标准来衡量，这些来访者没有发现什么令人不安的事，这些经理经营着一座人道的工厂。
那么，除了摆脱激进分子对公司的虎视眈眈外，这种企业社会责任计划是否还有其他意义？正如《中国制造》所显示的，确实有意义。弗里德曼说，企业通过完成其为股东赚钱的基本任务，而为社会作贡献，他说得对。为充当承担社会责任的表率而努力是错误的行动，任何公司都不该为此分心。
但是诺基亚经理们的目标更为朴素：确保其供应商遵守当地劳动法规。诺基亚这样的企业客户可以决定，它的供应商能负担起给工人多好的待遇。鉴于这一点，上述的目标很难说有过错。事实上，对雇主来说，轻视社会责任是伪善、不道德的。
对于炫耀自己道德水准的公司，人们多少有些讨厌。但它们尽自己的一份力，确保间接雇员获得人道的待遇，这一点也没错。弗雷德曼认为，确保世界成为高尚场所不是企业的事，但对21世纪的全球性企业来说，它们别无选择。
