Justin Chan mentioned the question for the reason of apologizing. I agree with Justin that this is the company’s strategy to create a positive image. But, the use of a case from two decades ago is just not a good choice for IKEA. First, many customers will be indifferent to this case since it does not affect them in any ways. Second, the case might bring IKEA a negative image instead of a positive one. Despite apologizing, IKEA might now be seen as a company who once has used prisoners as labours to reduce cost. A company’s manager should never demonstrate the company’s image as unethical. Even the company is under the pressure of UOKG, the victim’s group, for an apology, the company should take an alternative way instead of exposing its unethical past to the media.
Categories