谷
歌(Google)对中国说不并不是破天荒的事：17年前，列维公司(Levi Strauss & Co.)就曾撤出中国市场。如今，李维斯(Levi's)品牌牛仔裤在中国生产，列维公司去年11月在北京开设了中国第501家店铺。
这其中发生了什么？
1993年，这家标志性的旧金山牛仔裤制造商宣布，由于中国普遍侵犯人权，公司将结束与中国承包方的合作关系。
Newscom
2006年李维斯在郑州的一场促销活动
和现在一样，20年前，中国凭藉着飞速增长、廉价劳动力和巨大人口吸引着西方公司。但由于人们对1989年天安门事件深恶痛绝的心理，人权活动人士当时拥有很大的影响力。在那些日子，并没有多少外国公司在中国盈利，在危险工作环境、监狱劳工以及其他中国滥用工作环境权利的证据面前，更没有多少公司能够说得服人权活动人士。
家族控股的列维公司一直自我定位为一家有良知的公司。列维公司当时的董事长兼首席执行长哈斯(Robert Haas)要求评估40个国家的人权状况，结果认定只有中国和缅甸的侵犯人权状况尤其严重，以致于只有撤出才是最有意义的。
一位美国纺织采购行业的高管说，在当时有关是否顺从当局的问题上，列维公司处于风口浪尖。这位高管当时曾经与香港贸易公司利丰(Li & Fung Ltd.)有过合作。
这位高管说，业内每个人都清楚，列维公司的策略帮助其成为了服装业的一个重要公司，他们将工厂的照明、消毒、卫生以及餐厅等方面的考量提到与价格和生产质量同等重要的地位。
列维公司与谷歌存在着诸多相似点。他们都在捍卫着一个凝聚美国价值观的品牌。此外，列维公司当时在中国规模很小，裤子和衬衫采购量只有5,000万美元。而谷歌则在中国网络搜索领域落后于百度。两家公司都让中国融入了其已经建成的全球网络──列维公司是通过其供应链，谷歌是通过互联网。它们的举措都引发了政治风暴。
中国人权组织发言人谭竟嫦(Sharon Hom)说，如果你看看列维公司与谷歌的状况，需要指出的是，两者存在类似之处，但也有差别。并不是每个人都需要牛仔裤，但所有人都需要信息。
领导列维公司撤出中国的哈斯为公司的人权立场进行了辩护。在被《列维的孩子：面对全球市场人权》(Levi's Children: Coming to Terms with Human Rights in the Global Marketplace)一书收录的一次演说中，哈斯说，注重成本而无视其他所有因素的决定不符合公司及其股东的长久利益。
该书写道，中国外交部对列维公司举动的反应是，宣称人权问题与他们无关。
很难具体评估列维公司此举给中国工厂状况带来的改变；2008年列维公司认为状况令他们感到满意，因此重返中国。
位于香港的中国劳工通讯(China Labor Bulletin)编辑克罗塞尔(Geoffrey Crothall)说，由于得到了关注，很多跨国公司下属工厂的状况得到了改善。但总的来说，中国工厂的情况尚未得到提高。
《列维的孩子》一书作者勋博格(Karl Schoenberger)在书中说，列维公司在中国采取了大胆的立场，但他们几乎立刻对这一决定感到了后悔，因此他们从未真正中断与中国市场的联系。
James T. Areddy
Google Inc.'s challenge to Beijing is not a first: Levi Strauss & Co. 17 years ago walked away from China.
Today, Levi's brand jeans are produced in China, and in Beijing last November the company opened its 501st store in the country.
What happened in between?
In 1993, the iconic San Francisco maker of dungarees declared it would end relationships with contractors in China because of what it called that country's 'pervasive violation of human rights.'
At the time, multinational corporations were pouring into developing countries, looking for cheap labor. Not far behind were human-rights activists, confident that Western companies were a vehicle for social change: Campus demonstrations demanding big U.S. companies sever ties to South Africa had just helped dismantle that nation's apartheid policies.
Two decades ago, as now, China was attractive for its fast growth, cheap work force and huge population. But in China, activists had leverage: disgust at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Not many foreign companies were making money in China in those days and fewer still were ready to shout down activists armed with evidence of dangerous working conditions, prison labor and other Chinese workplace-rights abuses.
Family-controlled Levi's had branded itself a company with a conscience. Robert Haas, its chairman and chief executive then, ordered a review of human rights in 40 countries, which determined that only China and Myanmar had rights violations so troublesome that pulling out made the most sense.
'They were at the forefront of all the compliance issues,' said an American executive in the textile sourcing business who at the time worked with Li & Fung Ltd., a Hong Kong trading firm.
Everyone in the industry was aware, he said, that the U.S. company's strategies helped make it 'a big deal' in the rag trade to consider a factory's lighting, ventilation, toilets and cafeteria on par with prices and production quality.
Parallels between Levi's and Google are strong. Each is defending a brand steeped in American values. Also, Levi's was small in China, sourcing only $50 million of trousers and shirts, while Google is the runner up in Internet searches after Baidu Inc. Each of the U.S. companies was plugging China into pre-existing global networks -- Levi's with its supply chain and Google via the World Wide Web. Their actions sparked political storms.
'If you look at the Levi Strauss and Google situations it's important to see there are similarities but there are differences,' said Sharon Hom, a spokeswoman for the group Human Rights In China. 'Not everyone needs a pair of jeans but everyone needs information.'
Mr. Haas, who led Levi's pullback from China, defended the company's human-rights positions. In a speech quoted in the book 'Levi's Children: Coming to Terms with Human Rights in the Global Marketplace,' Mr. Hass said 'decisions which emphasize cost to the exclusion of all other factors don't serve the company and its shareholders' long term interests.'
China's foreign ministry's reaction to Levi's move, the book stated, was to argue human rights had nothing to do with it.
How much difference Levi's stand made to factory conditions in China is hard to quantify; the company itself was comfortable enough to return in 2008.
'Conditions in many multinational-affiliated factories have improved because the focus has been put on them,' said Geoffrey Crothall, editor of China Labor Bulletin in Hong Kong. 'But conditions in Chinese factories as a whole haven't.'
Karl Schoenberger, author of 'Levi's Children,' argued in his book that Levi's took a bold stand in China, but came to regret its decision almost immediately and so never fully severed ties.
James T. Areddy
Today, Levi's brand jeans are produced in China, and in Beijing last November the company opened its 501st store in the country.
What happened in between?
In 1993, the iconic San Francisco maker of dungarees declared it would end relationships with contractors in China because of what it called that country's 'pervasive violation of human rights.'
At the time, multinational corporations were pouring into developing countries, looking for cheap labor. Not far behind were human-rights activists, confident that Western companies were a vehicle for social change: Campus demonstrations demanding big U.S. companies sever ties to South Africa had just helped dismantle that nation's apartheid policies.
Two decades ago, as now, China was attractive for its fast growth, cheap work force and huge population. But in China, activists had leverage: disgust at the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Not many foreign companies were making money in China in those days and fewer still were ready to shout down activists armed with evidence of dangerous working conditions, prison labor and other Chinese workplace-rights abuses.
Family-controlled Levi's had branded itself a company with a conscience. Robert Haas, its chairman and chief executive then, ordered a review of human rights in 40 countries, which determined that only China and Myanmar had rights violations so troublesome that pulling out made the most sense.
'They were at the forefront of all the compliance issues,' said an American executive in the textile sourcing business who at the time worked with Li & Fung Ltd., a Hong Kong trading firm.
Everyone in the industry was aware, he said, that the U.S. company's strategies helped make it 'a big deal' in the rag trade to consider a factory's lighting, ventilation, toilets and cafeteria on par with prices and production quality.
Parallels between Levi's and Google are strong. Each is defending a brand steeped in American values. Also, Levi's was small in China, sourcing only $50 million of trousers and shirts, while Google is the runner up in Internet searches after Baidu Inc. Each of the U.S. companies was plugging China into pre-existing global networks -- Levi's with its supply chain and Google via the World Wide Web. Their actions sparked political storms.
'If you look at the Levi Strauss and Google situations it's important to see there are similarities but there are differences,' said Sharon Hom, a spokeswoman for the group Human Rights In China. 'Not everyone needs a pair of jeans but everyone needs information.'
Mr. Haas, who led Levi's pullback from China, defended the company's human-rights positions. In a speech quoted in the book 'Levi's Children: Coming to Terms with Human Rights in the Global Marketplace,' Mr. Hass said 'decisions which emphasize cost to the exclusion of all other factors don't serve the company and its shareholders' long term interests.'
China's foreign ministry's reaction to Levi's move, the book stated, was to argue human rights had nothing to do with it.
How much difference Levi's stand made to factory conditions in China is hard to quantify; the company itself was comfortable enough to return in 2008.
'Conditions in many multinational-affiliated factories have improved because the focus has been put on them,' said Geoffrey Crothall, editor of China Labor Bulletin in Hong Kong. 'But conditions in Chinese factories as a whole haven't.'
Karl Schoenberger, author of 'Levi's Children,' argued in his book that Levi's took a bold stand in China, but came to regret its decision almost immediately and so never fully severed ties.
James T. Areddy
没有评论:
发表评论