此外，童工也在增加，因为儿童提供了廉价的劳动力来源，帮助公司降低成本(Aaron Bobrow-Strain, 2012)。这些事态发展间接地给苹果公司带来了负面影响。这是媒体上出现的热门话题之一。尽管如此，苹果并没有遭受严重的后果，因为它的产品在客户中的受欢迎程度仍然是一样的。此外，在负面宣传期间，股价并没有下跌。这是因为苹果在那段时间里还做了其他几件好事。该公司已经推出了新产品，将利益相关者和客户的注意力转向了更光明的发展。苹果公司首席执行官蒂姆·库克参观了富士康工厂，分析了情况。这被认为是一个战略性的公关举措，因为它向人们保证，苹果致力于确保事情按照预期的标准工作(詹姆斯·凯悦，2010)。
根据苹果公司制定的道德标准，相信该公司永远不会将其服务外包给一个不道德的组织。究其原因，苹果公司一直强调不断加强企业社会责任政策。这是公司变得受欢迎的关键原因之一，因为它确保了每个利益相关者的需求得到满足。苹果与富士康合作的原因可能是后者是世界上最大的电子产品制造商。因此，人们普遍认为富士康这样的大公司会始终保持必要的道德标准。如果他们做不到这一点，就有可能面临媒体审判，并推动更多的批评(Ben Sin, 2016)。
随着这个特殊的问题出现在新闻中，苹果已经采取了严格的措施来防止这些问题再次出现。它迫使富士康在与供应商签订的合同上附加了不同的条件。有了这些条件，它将阻止供应商违背公司的道德准则。苹果公司坚持认为，如果任何供应商不遵守其条件，他们的合同将被终止(Anthony Cuthbertson, 2017)。
The association of Apple-Foxconn has been in the news for several wrong reasons over the last five years. Both the entities are separate organizations working from different geographical locations. Apple is a company based in the USA and is involved in designing, developing, and selling personal computers, software and a range of other electronic gadgets. Foxconn, on the other hand, is a multinational company based in China that procures contracts for manufacturing electronic products on behalf of some companies from around the planet (Lucy Atkinson, n.a.). The ethical issue between the two companies revolves around the working environment in which Foxconn was forcing its employees to work in.
In the year 2010, around 14 employees working at Foxconn had committed suicide due to the pressure for meeting the expectations of their respective job roles. These employees are believed to have been working for long hours in an environment that was hazardous to their health.
In addtion, child labour was on the rise as children provided a cheap source of labour that helped the company in bringing down its costs (Aaron Bobrow-Strain, 2012). These developments indirectly created negative publicity for Apple. It was one of the much talked about issues that surfaced in the media. Despite all these, Apple did not suffer serious consequences as the popularity of its products among the customers was still the same. In addition the stock prices did not decrease during the phase of negative publicity. It is because Apple had been involved in several other good things during that period. The company was already launching new products which turned the attention of its stakeholders and customers to the brighter developments. The CEO of Apple Tim Cook did visit the factory of Foxconn for analyzing the situation. It was considered to be a strategic PR move as it assured people that Apple was committed to ensuring things were working as per the expected standards (James Hyatt, 2010).
On the other hand, Foxconn suffered negative publicity due to these developments. It did not affect the operations of the company as none of the companies outsourcing their production stopped or terminated their contracts. However, the only repercussion was a revised suppler contract detail compelling the company to act ethically for all its operations in the future (Brian Merchant, 2017).
As per the ethical standards set by Apple, it is believed that the company would never outsource its services to an unethical organization. The reason for this is Apple’s stress towards enhancing its CSR policies constantly. It has been one of the key reasons for the company to become popular as it ensures that each stakeholder need is met. The reason why Apple might have overlooked when working with Foxconn is the latter is the largest manufacturer of electronic products in the world. Hence, it is generally expected that a big company like Foxconn will always maintain the required ethical standards. If they fail to do so, there is a chance to face media trials and drive more critics (Ben Sin, 2016).
With this particular issue coming in the news, Apple has taken strict measures for preventing these to surface again. It forced Foxconn to put different conditions over the contracts made with the suppliers. With these conditions in place, it will deter the suppliers to act against the ethics of a company. Apple maintains that if any supplier does not adhere to its conditions, their contracts will be terminated (Anthony Cuthbertson, 2017).