as accused by the company, another important issue of concern to the company was the long-standing disputes between China and the United States generally in relation to human rights. Further, there was the issue of the policy of the United States government of linking human rights with economic trade between the two countries.
This Writer's Position on the Company's Decision
Levi Strauss & Co. made the decision to cease operations in China on the grounds that the issues identified in the preceding discussion created conflicts with the company's values. Thus, according to the company, operations within China could no longer be justified.
This writer's position on the company's decision is that the company was correct in ceasing operations in a country where the characteristics of the social environment were incompatible with the company's own values. The criticism that this writer has with respect to the company in the context of this decision is that neither China nor the company had changed since the company had initiated operations in China. Thus, while the company made the correct decision from the perspective of its value structure in 1993, the 1993 decision was simply a correction of a gross disregard of its own values by commencing operations in China in the first place.
Theoretical Justification of the Writer's Position on the Company's Decision to Cease Operations in China
The justification of the writer's position on the decision of Levi Strauss & Co. to cease operations in China is addressed in three contexts, as follows: (1) the relevance and validity of the company's values and terms of engagement to the issues; (2) the appropriateness of the company's terms of engagement for other firms based in the United States; (3) the legitimacy of China's position on human rights; (4) the policy of the United States government of linking trade and human rights; and (5) an assessment of the company's decision.
Rel...