1. How is the company’s and public’s view of “what makes IKEA who it is” related to this supply chain controversy? Specifically, how should Marianne Barner respond to the invitation for IKEA to have a representative appear on the upcoming broadcast of the German video program?
I think the public view of IKEA related to this supply chain controversy is negative, because the German produced program planned to take a confrontation and aggressive approach aimed directly at IKEA and its suppliers, meaning the public has a negative image and people know that IKEA is involved in child labor issue even though IKEA did something to address the issue.
I think Barner should the upcoming broadcast of the German video program by Showing the program child labor is a common scenario of India because of its poverty and in-development Showing the program what IKEA has done to avoid indirectly using child labor, such as contracting Rugmark, educating suppliers, meeting with the NGOs Showing the program that IKEA is still strategically working on addressing the child labor issue in India
2. What actions should she take regarding the IKEA supply contract with Rangan Exports and Rugmark? More generally, should IKEA continue operations in India, or exit? Why?
I think Barner should
Firstly, double confirm if Rangan is involved with child labor
Secondly, terminate the sourcing contract with Rangan as Rangan broke the contract by hiring child labor, which put IKEA in tough situation
Thirdly, re-evaluate the effectiveness and Rugmark, and then determine if Rugmark is good enough to co-operate to address the child labor in India
I still think IKEA should continue its operation in India as exiting from India will not positive solve the child labor issue that IKEA is involved. Exiting from India can also be perceived that IKEA is not take its responsibility and simply wants to avoid and escape.
3. What are the countervailing arguments...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document