Unsocial Networks

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg (Wikipedia)

Facebook’s decision to draw back from one of the few evidences in the governance of social networks that they understand that social is actually coming to mean for the future of the corporate effort is perhaps no great surprise. For a company whose governance is designed top-down like that of a 19th century steel magnate (or, to be fairer, well, 21st century News Corp), the anomaly of leaving users free to make actual decisions, always open to being “exploited” (aka used) by users actually interested in said decisions, could not long endure.

But the question is raised, yet again: when will it be that companies in the ever-broader “social” space will evolve governance (and financing) models that are actually suited to social?

None of the major players has given that thought much thought, so far. The Facebook voting thing being nixed was a vestigial organ from an earlier, pre-IPO, day when the visionary aspects of the company had more logic than they do now (though, for my part, I have no reason to believe that MZ believes them any less). Something much bigger, and strategic, is needed for these companies to align their social mission with their social identity as vast networks of users. The future will not lie with playing cat-and-mouse on privacy and imposing corporate policies from (in Fb’s case) unbelievably non-diverse boards. And for future read profit.

I billion and rising. Well, we shall see. Think Kodak and RIM and HP and (ouch, ouch) Apple for curves whose rise is halted.

My take? MS soldiers on; Apple crests very soon in all respects; Fb is close to its zenith. MZ, like SJ and BG, has earned his place on Mount Rushmore. What interests me is what, and who, come nest; and how they manage to align their corporate efforts with their users. Hint: it may involve actually engaging this thing we call “social.”

Oh, and Twitter? As a company, it is in the balance, for just this same reason. Its daily users include some of the very smartest minds on the planet – from @rupertmurdoch down. The interest of the Twitter high command in what they/we think is somewhere around zero.

Facebook to users: Please vote to abolish your right to vote | Internet & Media – CNET News.

Brands will shape Global Labor Standards: Apple-Foxconn Company

Tim Cook, Apple COO, in january 2009, after Ma...

Tim Cook, Apple (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When Apple signed on to Fair Labor I wrote a column in which  suggested that the logic of their decision – a big shift in approach post-Jobs – would be to bring about alignment between western and  Chinese labor standards. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view. Not that this will happen overnight, of course. But it’s the result of several potent forces that are shaping, not least, this company’s effort: branding and global communications. Whereas these forces twisted the unwilling arm of Nike what seems a long time ago, the superlative quality of the Apple brand and the explosion of social media are together pouring gas on the flames.

While it has been traditional to label western brand efforts to ensure decent manufacture conditions for their products as “corporate social responsibility,” the logic of the Apple case demonstrates that it is naive to see CSR as an adjunct effort, or a marketing ploy, or as anything other than central to value. It’s a case where the values-value connection (another theme of mine) is especially glaring.

The harrowing case of the Foxconn worker with severe brain damage, whose family is now going to the Chinese courts to seek to maintain full company support of their son, drives the point neatly (if tragically) home. This man is, as all can see, a de facto Apple employee, whose conditions of service are so far removed from those of the guys at HQ as to be hard to compare. As his family struggles to ensure that he has long-term care after an undenied industrial injury, they have a bullhorn to the world, and that includes the fashionistas for whom the latest Apple gadget is a must, and who have helped drive up its astronomical share price and stack up a mountain of dollars that could buy Facebook twice over for cash (or buy everyone on the planet a half-decent bottle of wine). As the technological gap, and the design gap, between Apple products and those of its rivals narrow, the brand magic is going to be even more key – and therefore even more exposed.

It was a smart move for Tim Cook to jump into Fair Labor, and then arm-twist Foxconn into big wage increases. It would be even smarter for them to leapfrog the moral/CSR competition and drive excellence in Chinese manufacturing and labor practice without needing to be pressured further.


Foxconn goes to court over severely injured worker | Business Tech – CNET News.


Photograph showing Apple Newton hand held comp...

Image via Wikipedia




Apple, Foxconn – and a new day for American consumers, Chinese manufacturers, and more besides.


Nigel M. de S. Cameron


The opening of Foxconn to an American TV crew marks, to use an old term apt here, an epoch in the several histories of CSR, outsourcing, Asian labor practices, the role of the consumer in the digital age – and, just perhaps, a seismic move toward the reshaping of the idea of value in western capitalism. Oh yes, and in the history of Apple post-Jobs. In brief: Post-Jobs Asian jobs; value, meet values.

And just this week, wage were raised by 25%. . . .


We all know what makes Asian nations so interesting to innovative western manufacturers. 1. Highly skilled labor that is relatively cheap (though slowly equalizing with the developed world); and 2. Highly questionable labor practices. That’s why Apple Computer’s decision to sign on to the Fair Labor Association is both smart and risky. They work closely with Taiwanese giant Foxconn and the others in their supply chain, and the more innovative their products become, the faster models and devices change, the more wedded they will be. China, especially, has shown an extraordinary capacity to provide fast, reliable, manufacturing and assembly of the quality needed by the highest-quality consumer enterprise on the planet. The ridiculous levels of profit being reaped at the moment are drawing ever greater attention to its source, which is substantially the slice of the Chinese economy that assembles high skill, high quality, and low pay.


While Apple’s sign-on to Fair Labor may have been motivated entirely by moral conviction (Tim Cook just told his employees that he “cares about every worker in the supply chain”) and a generally eleemosynary disposition, it’s unlikely that was all it took to get to yes. According to a lengthy and important article in the New York Times, there are actually big disagreements among Apple execs on these issues (the Times piece is required reading). That suggests that the Fair Labor decision – and the release of a list of suppliers that preceded it – was the result of the classic alignment of interests that has tended to be necessary before major CSR-related choices are made by major corporations. That is, the do-gooders and the profit-maximizers sat down with the risk-managers and discovered that they all had reason to vote for the same motion. Yet this is very far from over. The Times quotes one inside as follows: “You can either manufacture in comfortable, worker-friendly factories, or you can reinvent the product every year, and make it better and faster and cheaper, which requires factories that seem harsh by American standards,” said a current Apple executive. . . .And right now, customers care more about a new iPhone than working conditions in China.” In a recent survey, only 2% of consumers mentioned concern about overseas labor conditions. Apple has yet to face the kind of consumer-interest tipping point faced by Nike, for example. Yet Nikes are worn by runners. Apple users are the most social-media conscious, connected beings of all. We can imagine the risk party pointing this out rather forcibly.


As the quote above suggests, not everyone is convinced. And the release of the list of suppliers (who account for 97% of Apple’s payments) is just a start. Back to the Times: “However, the company has not revealed the names of hundreds of other companies that do not directly contract with Apple, but supply the suppliers. The company’s supplier list does not disclose where factories are, and many are hard to find. And independent monitoring organizations say when they have tried to inspect Apple’s suppliers, they have been barred from entry — on Apple’s orders, they have been told.” Looks like Apple has opened the door just wide enough to need to discover they have to open it wide. Soon.


There’s a broader point here, which is why this is potentially very good news, both for Chinese labor (in developing and applying under public scrutiny model labor practices) and American business. The commitment to quality that has been core to Apple’s success is exactly the commitment needed to revolutionize the “wild west” of labor practice in a nation such as China. It will spread to other Chinese manufacturers who wish to be seen as working at the top end, and competing for western contracts; and also to other western companies – indeed, signing on to Fair Labor is now the industry standard.


It remains to be seen of course whether Apple will bring to this new, higher, and more public level of commitment to supervise the execution of its contracts the same diligence that has characterized its engagement with manufacturers in China and elsewhere, which has itself been a key to its remarkable success. Our brands are always on the line, but now our leading brand has chose to focus the super-trouper on the techno-sweatshops of the People’s Republic, and in especial of Foxconn. The kind of price squeeze that Walmart are famous for (which as we know has led to some sad supplier stories) is now entailed as a quality squeeze on hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers. I hope Apple has the people in place to make this work. And that fresh forces from the reserves of Chinese bloggers and western investigative journalists are rising to the challenge.


But the point is broader still. While many of us hope for a revival of American manufacturing as a component in our development of the next generation of innovative products, there’s no doubt that the next 10 years will see growing use of outsourced manufacturing a la Foxconn; perhaps, on some scenarios, a huge increase of it, if the United States continues to be chief global innovator.


And there are yet other benefits. Enlightened labor practices that are built into the pricing of outsourced products will both help U.S. and other western manufactures compete. And they will build a bridge of goodwill among the Chinese people.


(Revised version of a column originally written for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce BCLC)

Apple signs up to Fair Labor



News that Apple has signed up to the Fair Labor movement is highly significant. A risky move for a large company with many suppliers in parts of the world where labor conventions differ widely from those of humane western commentators, this exposes both Apple and its supplier network to public scrutiny. Apple must be confident that they can exercise enough sway over those suppliers, and especially the notorious Foxconn, to carry this off. At the same time, it significantly strengthens their hand in the process. Their entire supply chain just became an open book to the NGO community and the global press.

More fundamentally, this move aligns Apple with the trend into what I have terms Third Generation CSR – from philanthropy to what we have known as CSR into the world of Shared Value predicted and outlined by Michael Porter just a year ago.  While at one level Fair Labor is simple CSR, the risk involved in this move suggests a far-sighted conviction that value in the future will lie much more substantially in the alignment of labor practices and product. I wonder whether Jobs would have made this move. It’s a huge risk. We shall all be watching . . . .