This week's blog is
about the documentary on Nokia and its supplying factory in China. The main
setting in the movie is two of Nokia's representatives checking the conditions
workers have to live and work in.
Legitimacy is defined as
the activities of a firm striving to be considered as ‘desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs,
and definitions’ (Suchman 1995).
Nokia is being
legitimate by sending investigators to check the conditions the workers have to
live and work in and by allowing the film crew to record the interviews,
arousing the impression to be a transparent company.
Actively striving to be concerned about the wellbeing of workers and transparency are very important norms and values within the western society, improving the brand's image to a proper, desirable kind.
Actively striving to be concerned about the wellbeing of workers and transparency are very important norms and values within the western society, improving the brand's image to a proper, desirable kind.
The supplying factory is
striving for legitimacy, recognised by Nokia's representatives, by answering
their questions as extensive as possible, showing them around and comparing
themselfs to competing factories. This way the factory is giving the impression
of being appropriate, using important values and norms for Nokia and its
customers.
The statement that Nokia
is diffusing the sustainability criteria in an effective way, is giving me
mixed feelings. In one way, watching the documentary gives me a very
unsustainable idea about how Nokia products are produced. The way women are
treated during pregnancies for example, or the rooms where the workers have to
sleep in, need a lot of improvement to measure up to my idea an sustainable
working environment. In that case, if Nokia is really willing to produce in a
sustainable way, the main idea a viewer would have after watching the documentary
would be very different because Nokia would not have chosen this supplier.
In the other way, the
supplier is not meeting my ideas of sustainability and therefore so isn’t
Nokia. But the fact that Nokia is hiring people to actually check what is going
on in the factories of suppliers, trying to comply to international standards
on working environments. Because consumers demand for the cheapest products, it
can be a dilemma for a company to be competitive on one hand and have a
sustainable organization and management on the other.
A coordination mechanism better than the current controls would be, according
to me, a system where the supplying factory would be rewarded for certain
sustainable policy on the workers or the production. In this way, the supplying
factory would not try to decrease its costs at the expense of the workers but
maybe even increase its costs a little, when improving the worker’s facilities,
to gain a certain bonus from Nokia.
Of course, this system is not in favor of Nokia, that would only consider to
implement this if it could somehow increase their profits. One way possible is
creating goodwill from customers that will prefer higher prices from a
sustainable company like Nokia, compared to lower prices from less sustainable
competitors.
Dear Josefine,
BeantwoordenVerwijderenYou give a clear, straightforward introduction to the documentary, and also by explaining how both companies thrive for legitimacy is very understandable. The effectiveness of Nokia’s sustainable agenda is very confusing to all of us. But, as Mr. Boons mentioned yesterday, try to include a bit the cultural clash that both parties experienced, that could enhance your point of view. About the coordination mechanism, also try to analyse your proposition a bit more from an intercultural management perspective. Perhaps, in China the mechanism that could bring more sustainability (people, planet, profit) might be how to overcome the strong significance of hierarchy.
I hope my feedback helps you well!