我想那些说过制造业的工作机会将永远不会回到西方国家的人应该不确定自己所说的吧？要不然就是他们故意这么说──因为这是他们能够为委外决定偏重实现短期目标作出合理解释的唯一方式。
当制造业从大约20年前开始转移到中国时，制造商们已在不知不觉中创造出一个巨大的猛兽。虽然这项决定一开始看来对于每个人都十分有利，如今这一过程却可能让世界上支持中国制造的其它地区(不只是西方国家)面临制造生产完全流失的威胁，造成一个让供应链管理专家与业务主管都感到伤脑筋的不平等环境。
对于制造商而言，要在全球单一地区找到所有生产所需的资源，这可能会把他们给逼疯，不过，这也就是高科技产业以及目前全球经济中许多其它制造领域之所以看重在中国制造的好处。在我看来，最近对于苹果公司(Apple)以及其它主要OEM在中国制造厂房与工作环境的种种讨论其实并不够充份。对于苹果公司主管以及高科技产业的其它供应链专业人员们来说，除了关注舆论所指控的违反劳工与人权，也应该重视可能发生的潜在生产混乱问题──如果中国发生任何变动都可能中 断西方制造商在该区的任何生产活动。
这也就是为什么我并不同意前苹果CEO Steve Jobs对奥巴马总统说制造业工作机会不会再回到美国和西方国家的言论。随着时间的推移，很快地我们将会知道他的预言有多准确，但我个人深信制造业工作机会终将回流西方世界，同时，大规模转移至中国的生产外包趋势最终也将逐渐趋于缓和。目前采用的制度将无法持续，同时一切也将变得更明朗化──我们已经处于这样一种非比寻常的、极度不正确、不合理且带有潜在风险的供应链管理情势了。
各种制造业务大量外移至中国也为全球经济下许多地区带来可能遭受重大冲击的威胁。在此制造业转移过程中，对于世界许多地区带来了重大的地缘政治意涵，我们已从广大无助的劳动社群以及世界各地越来越高的制造业失业率看到了这些现象。许多业界之士为此提出的解决之道──美国与欧洲等地应转而专注于更高阶的设计与服务工作，但我认为这样的解决方案并不理想。中国工人也需要这些工作，当地政府并已采取了一些措施，为人们提供了在金融、服务以及高科技设计的种种工作机会。
中国在全球制造业的地位是无庸置疑的。过去二十年来，中国持续地从国外制造商赢得大量的制造外包订单，同时也在欧洲与北美等已开发国家中引发了工作机会流失以及失去自主性等种种争议。
但这不是对于政治的一种谴责。最主要的原因就在于西方的资本主义制度，以及制造业的现行制度破坏了许多经时间验证的资本主义经济规范。我想，在未来几年内， 制造业外包至中国的趋势将逐渐减缓，最后先从一些高阶的制造业活动将开始向西方国家回流。虽然目前这样的看法可能受到质疑，但我真的深信，总有一天我们将能够看到欧洲、北美以及全球其它地区的制造经济开始活络起来。
本文下一页：西方制造业复苏可期的五个理由
相关阅读：
• 伟创力彻底退出PC和部分消费电子代工业务
• 劳工权益：做中国工人，拿美国工资才人道？
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”hwYesmc
{pagination}
西方国家的制造厂也许再也没法像30年前那般地忙碌了，但总有一天将会再次活络起来。这并不是个虚无渺茫的愿望，而是根植于一个在过去廿多年来致力于推动制造业转移至低成本地区而导致大部份生产集中于中国的相同经济基础。
不可否认地，我期待中的这种转型并不会像生产外包至中国的过程那般地剧烈或深远，但随着时间的进展，制造商们将会开始重新评估其生产策略，并且更加仔细地权衡未来打造其制造设施的所在地。
针对这个议题，有些读者认为西方国家早已不再具有成本竞争力了。我并不同意这样的看法。西方国家当然能够也将会再次找回成本竞争力，同时，一些曾经失去的工作机会也将重新回流。以下提出我个人认为西方制造业复苏可期的几点理由：
一、制造商们无法承担单一地区主导制造系统的风险。这可能是部份制造活动移回西方国家最强而有力的理由。现行制度存在对于全球供应链的风险太大，大家都不能掉以轻心。去年日本发生强震与海啸，以及泰国水灾，暴露出高科技制造策略的严重缺陷。虽然电子产业在几个月内克服了大部份的问题，但也已经开始重新组织生产，以避免未来发生类似的情形。
整个产业还不算真正感受到危机意识，不过许多企业在去年日本强震中受损，尤其是日本厂商，如瑞萨电子(Renesas Electronics)正迅速区隔该公司的业务，甚至也展开缩边行动，不只是在日本企业总部，在成本较高但较稳定的地区也一样。业界的其它厂商正密切关注该公司的动向，而我认为其它厂商将会采取类似的作法。
二、今日在中国的生产变得缺乏效率且难以维持。厂房设施未能升级到生产下一代产品的高科技厂。在我看来，由于过份依靠人工去做一些其它地方都已经采用自动化生产的作业，已使得整个生产过程退化。
美国ABC新闻日前的深入报导证实了一些业界流传已久的消息：在中国制造的大多数高科技设备都是由成千上万名工人努力地用手组装拼凑金属与芯片、手工拋光外壳以及靠听机器声音进行产品验证而完成的。
难道这是说富士康电子(Foxconn Electronics)将制造业带回到黑暗时代，以低工资换取成本效益，以及在供应链各层面任务投入大量人力？事实上，这些工作可以让机器人更有效率地完成，而且他们也将会选择采用机器人作业。因为这样的制造业系统不仅缺乏效率，也备受争议，从最近对于苹果与富士康的合作伙伴关系报导可见一斑。
富士康及其它在中国的制造厂商们将必须采取更多的自动化作业，以便显着地减少手动接触产品次数。除此之外，中国的优势是什么？许多人(包括已故的Steve Jobs)认为中国的工人可以在短时间通知后马上就动员起来制造产品。太好了，机器人也能做到这一点。再者，机器人不会在加工厂发生火灾时爆发激动情绪， 也不会寻求自杀。如果自动化生产能够加速推动，中国的优势很快地就会消失了，剩下与西方制造同样关注的成本议题。
本文下一页：中国劳动力成本增加带动变革
相关阅读：
• 伟创力彻底退出PC和部分消费电子代工业务
• 劳工权益：做中国工人，拿美国工资才人道？
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”hwYesmc
{pagination}
三、西方国家需要更多的就业机会。西方国家无法仅靠“服务经济”而生存，而在中国缺乏足够的银行、金融业、软件开发、医疗以及其它所谓的服务工作。此外，许多这些职位需要的技能水准较高，但许多人由于种种理由而缺乏这样的技能。
为了支持经济成长并促进消费，西方社会需要制造业的职缺来补强服务业的工作。这些将不单单来自于能源和政府资助的基础设施。就算是在中国制造产品的公司也需 要西方国家的消费者。在将产品销售于其它国家以前，苹果公司总会让新产品先在美国上市。唯有开启对于全球经济的新思维，减少大量外包至中国，才能相互确保避免“自我毁灭”的发生。
四、中国成本增加带动变革。据报导，Steve Jobs曾经告诉美国总统奥巴马，苹果将不会在美国制造产品。如果现任苹果公司CEO Timothy Cook了解目前的全球制造业供应链，他将否决Steve Jobs对于工作的信念，并探讨将部份生产带回美国的方式。
对于苹果和其它制造商而言，维持在单一供应来源生产的成本正急剧增加，而且可能在未来几年内持续攀升。苹果公司在亚洲的主要承包商──富士康已经多次提高员工薪资，而且还可能持续每年调薪，以满足员工的要求。然而，利用工资低以形成显着差异化竞争环境的这种中国优势究竟还能持续多长的时间？
在未来的5到10年内，我想中国仍能持续其成本优势，但在某些其它方面的发展将使得制造商产品所有权的总成本上扬，而这些都将影响日后的委外决定。其中一项 值得关切的就是针对富士康厂劳工环境的争议。对此，苹果已经公布其供货商名单，并付费请求美国公平劳动协会(FLA)稽查中国工人的工作状况。
但这样就够了吗？当然不。苹果公司仍然面临着排山倒海而来的负面新闻。为了扭转这一压力，该公司必须采取更实质的行动，例如要求富士康和其它承包商在其它地区生产部份产品。针对一家供货商进行稽查，并不能消除苹果被描述为一家利用中国劳工以工厂宿舍为家且每周工时超过60小时仅换取微薄工资，而使该公司得以 获取数十亿美元利润的形象。
这对于苹果和其它制造商也带来了法律上的影响。就在美国最高法院打算起诉一家美国公司在奈及利亚侵犯人权之前，另一项诉讼声称该公司与前奈及利亚军事政府勾结共谋侵犯人权以及造成污染。Peter Weiss在《纽约时报》(New York Times) 发表评论：
最高法院将听讯一件对于美国与国际法以及企业责任在全球人权方面具有许多潜在后果的案例。法官将必须决定是否也应该追究企业法人在海外违反人权等不法罪行的责任。
这起案例具有重大的影响，特别是针对高技术产业。任何在国外制造厂涉嫌违反人权的行为都可能得在美国法院付出昂贵代价。这意味着制造商将再也不能把不健康的生活条件归罪于中国或承包商。而人权或劳工权利组织却可能因此而将苹果、戴尔、惠普、诺基亚等高科技OEM告上法院。
本文下一页：中国的政治和经济制度本质不稳定
相关阅读：
• 伟创力彻底退出PC和部分消费电子代工业务
• 劳工权益：做中国工人，拿美国工资才人道？
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”hwYesmc
{pagination}
五、中国的政治和经济制度本质不稳定。这又是另一个受争议的问题──但许多人宁可选择忽略。中国的经济成功是建立在一种所谓的“竹节型”资本主义加上严密的共 产主义政治制度为后盾。如果您是一位在中国设厂的OEM或制造商的股东，应该特别关注其政治制度的演变，因为它会影响您的投资。
许多人认为中国并不受到世界上其它地方发生的事件所波及。但中国真的那么与众不同吗？当中国更深入于资本主义制度后，中国人民不会群起要求改变吗？我们当然希望中国能继续和平地过渡到市场经济， 但如果因为政治因素而破坏供应链时，又将会发生什么问题呢？
中国政府正重新思考虑国家的未来发展以及应该发展得多快。在最近与世界银行(World Bank)合作发表的“中国：迈向2030年的改革之路”(China: The Case for Change on the Road to 2030)报告中，中国官方关注于未来将如何进行重整。根据美国《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post)，中国官方归纳出必需减少国营企业的作用，“让银行和金融系统展开更多竞争，对技术创新给予更多支持，并缓解目前的居住限制，以促进人口流动。”
全球制造业已经为2030年作好准备了吗？我们仍将继续看到中国仍然是唯一或最佳的制造中心吗？我相信OEM和其它制 造商将改变策略，即使只是为了预防以及降低风险，而要求合约制造商在其它国家设厂。在此过程中可望受益的地点包括巴西、墨西哥、东欧国家，甚至在北美等 地，目前都能因应高阶、自动化的大量生产。
对于一心只着眼于以产品成本为竞争力的厂商来说，讨论这一切可能没有多大的意义，但许多公司的高阶主管们其实完全明白有些无法预料的事件将如何破坏原先缜密安排的计划。对于这些公司来说，计划各种方案已是日常营运的一部份了，因而现在，全球制造社群已严重地偏向中国了。而这只是问题之一。
编译：Susan Hong
本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载
参考英文原文：Manufacturing Will Grow Again in the West，5 Reasons Western Factories Will Hum Again，by Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief
相关阅读：
• 伟创力彻底退出PC和部分消费电子代工业务
• 劳工权益：做中国工人，拿美国工资才人道？
• 中国制造业的原罪——“血汗工厂”hwYesmc
{pagination}
Manufacturing Will Grow Again in the West
Bolaji Ojo
Those who say manufacturing jobs will never return to the West don't know what they are talking about. Either that or they are purposely being disingenuous because it is the only way they can justify outsourcing decisions focused on the realization of short-term objectives.
Manufacturers unwittingly created a monster when they began transferring manufacturing to China about two decades ago. The process, while initially favorable to everyone, today threatens to completely drain production from other parts of the world (and not just the West) in favor of China, creating a lopsided environment that should be anathema to any supply chain management guru and business executive.
It's pure insanity for a manufacturer to locate all production resources in a single part of the globe, and yet that is what the high-tech industry and many other manufacturing sectors of the global economy celebrate in China today. Recent discussions about conditions at facilities in China manufacturing products for Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and other major OEMs are, in my opinion, misplaced. While the focus on alleged labor and human rights violations is pertinent, Apple executives and other supply chain professionals in the high-tech industry should also be looking at the potential production snafus that would occur if disruptions in China were to halt their activities in the region.
This is why I disagree with Steve Jobs, the late Apple CEO and chairman, who reportedly told President Obama manufacturing jobs won't ever return to the United States and western countries. In time we will know how accurate his prediction was, but personally I am convinced manufacturing jobs will migrate back to the West and that the torrential outsourcing of production to China will eventually slow to a trickle. The current system is unsustainable and will unravel as it becomes clear we have created an unusual, highly faulty, unsupportable, and potentially dangerous supply chain management condition.
The massive outsourcing to China by businesses threatens to inflict significant damages upon many regions of the global economy. There are major geo-political implications for the rest of the world in this manufacturing shift, and we are already witnessing some of these in the hollowing out of communities and growing production unemployment worldwide. The solution advanced by many that the US and Europe could instead focus on higher-end design and services job is faulty. Chinese workers desire these jobs, too, and the country is already taking steps to advance opportunities for its citizens in finance, services, and high-tech design.
That China sits astride the global manufacturing sector is indisputable. It has for the last two decades been winning outsourcing contracts from foreign manufacturers for its factories and setting off controversies in developed economies in Europe and North America over vanishing jobs and emasculated municipalities.
But this is not a political diatribe. The West operates a capitalist system, and probably the best reasons for the position I take here is that the current system violates so many time-tested norms of the capitalist economy. The outsourcing of production to China will slowly decrease over the next years, and eventually some high-end manufacturing activities will begin to migrate back westward. This may be a controversial position today, but I am fully convinced we will one day see a revival in the manufacturing economies in Europe, North America, and other parts of the globe.
In my next blog I will expand on this and advance five reasons I believe manufacturing jobs will eventually start growing again in the West.
5 Reasons Western Factories Will Hum Again
Western plants may never be as busy as they were 30 years ago, but many will hum again. This isn't a vain wish but one rooted in the same economics that drove manufacturing over the last 20-plus years to lower-cost regions and resulted in most production being centralized in China.
Admittedly, the shift I am expecting won't be as dramatic or as far-reaching as the outsourcing of production to China, but over time, manufacturers will re-evaluate their strategies and weigh more carefully where they put their plants. The odds are China won't be as attractive a location as it has been in recent years, when knee-jerk reactions pushed high-tech OEMs and other manufacturers to transfer or outsource most of their production activities there.
Some readers responding to an earlier post on this subject argued that the West is no longer cost-competitive. I disagree. The West can be and will be cost-competitive again. It will also regain some lost jobs. Here are my reasons:
1. Manufacturers cannot afford the dominance of the system by a single region. This is probably the strongest case for moving some manufacturing activities back to Western countries. The risks to the global supply chain inherent in the current system are too great for everyone to ignore. Last year's earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the flooding in Thailand exposed a serious flaw in high-tech manufacturing strategies. The industry overcame most of the associated problems within months, but it has also begun to reorganize production to avoid future problems.
A real sense of urgency has yet to grip the industry, but many companies hurt by last year's earthquake, especially Japanese firms like Renesas Electronics Corp. (Tokyo: 6723), are quickly diversifying operations. In many cases, they are implementing redundancies, not just at home, but also in higher-cost but more stable regions. The rest of the industry is tracking their actions, and I believe they will learn to take similar steps.
2. Chinese production today is inefficient and unsustainable. The plants haven't evolved into the high-tech version of next-gen products. In my opinion, they have dumbed down the production process by relying heavily on humans to do jobs that would have been automated elsewhere.
A recent ABC News report confirmed something that was already well known in the industry: Most high-tech equipment manufactured in China is hand-assembled by hundreds of thousands of workers laboriously slapping pieces of metals and silicon together, polishing enclosures by hand, and listening to robotic voices announcing product verification.
It's as if Foxconn Electronics Inc. took manufacturing back to the Dark Ages, gaining cost efficiency on the basis of low wages and the ability to throw a lot of human hands at tasks at all levels of the supply chain. Many of these jobs could be done more efficiently by robots, and eventually they will be. This system is not only inefficient, but also highly controversial, as recent reports over Apple's partnership with Foxconn have demonstrated.
Eventually, Foxconn and other manufacturers in China will have to adopt more automation, which will drastically reduce the number of hands that touch products. Beyond this, what is the China advantage? Many, including the late Steve Jobs, have argued that workers in China can be mobilized at a moment's notice to manufacture products. Well, so can robots. And further, they don't generate emotions when a fire erupts in a processing plant, and they don't commit suicide. If automation were accelerated, the China advantage would quickly disappear, leaving the same concerns and cost issues associated with facilities in the West minus the negative PR.
3. The West needs the jobs. Western nations cannot survive solely on the "service economy." There just aren't enough banking, finance, software development, healthcare, and other so-called services jobs to go around. Plus, many of these positions require a higher level of skills that many in these societies won't attain for various reasons.
To support economic growth and increase consumption, Western societies need to supplement services jobs with manufacturing positions. These won't come from energy and government-sponsored infrastructure alone. Even companies manufacturing products in China need Western consumers. Apple offers its new products in the United States first before moving to other countries. Avoiding mutually assured self-destruction requires a new thinking about the global economy that I believe will curtail the grand outsourcing to China.
4. Higher costs in China are already driving change. Steve Jobs reportedly told President Obama that Apple would never again manufacture its products in the United States. If current Apple CEO Timothy Cook understands the global manufacturing supply chain as well as has been portrayed, he will repudiate the Jobs doctrine and explore ways to return some production to the US.
The cost to Apple and other manufacturers of maintaining a single-source region for production is rising steeply and will continue to climb in the coming years. Apple's main contractor in Asia, Foxconn, has been hiking wages for its workers and may have to keep doing so every year to satisfy restive employees. How much longer before the China wage advantage erodes, leaving a dramatically different competitive environment?
China may maintain its cost advantage over the next five to 10 years, but some other developments are driving up the total cost of product ownership for manufacturers, and these will factor into outsourcing decisions. One issue is the outcry over labor conditions at Foxconn plants. In response, Apple has published a listing of its suppliers and has paid the Fair Labor Association to review working conditions. (See: Will Apple, Foxconn, & Sweeteners Satisfy Labor Activists? and Who's on Apple's Supplier List?)
Will this be enough? No. Apple still is facing a tsunami of negative press. To reverse this, it will need to take more substantive action, such as asking Foxconn and other contractors to manufacture some products in other regions. A supplier audit cannot delete the portrayal of Apple as a company that makes billions in profits on the backs of low-paid Chinese workers living in dormitories and working at least 60 hours a week.
There are also legal implications for Apple and other manufacturers. A lawsuit before the US Supreme Court pitches a Western company against a Nigerian community, which alleges that the firm colluded with a dictator to pollute the country. Peter Weiss wrote about the case in a New York Times op-ed last week:
The Supreme Court will hear a case with many potential ramifications for American and International law, and for corporate responsibility for human rights around the globe. The justices will be asked to decide whether the corporations to which they have been extending the rights of individuals should also be held accountable for crimes against human rights, just as individuals are.
This case has significant ramifications, especially for the high-tech industry. Any alleged violations of "human rights" in a foreign manufacturing facility can become the basis for an expensive lawsuit in a US court. That means manufacturers will no longer be able to put blame for cattle-pen living conditions on China or contractors. Could some human or labor rights organization drag Apple, Dell, HP, Nokia, and other high-tech OEMs to court for conditions at their contractors in China? Yes.
5. China's political and economic system is inherently unstable. This is another controversial issue -- and one many of us would rather ignore. The country's economic success is built on a doubtful version of capitalism tacked on to the back of a rigidly communist political system. If you are a shareholder in an OEM or another type of manufacturer in China, you should be concerned about how its political system is evolving, because it will impact your investment.
Many of us would like to think China is immune from events occurring in other parts of the globe, including last year's Arab Spring. But is China really that different, and will its citizens stop demanding changes as the country bites deeper into capitalism? We can hope it will continue to manage its transition into a market economy peacefully, but what happens if the country encounters massive protests that disrupt the supply chain?
The Chinese government is rethinking the country's future and how fast it should evolve. In a recent report done in collaboration with the World Bank, "China: The Case for Change on the Road to 2030," Chinese officials looked at how it should restructure. According to the Washington Post, the officials concluded that China needs to reduce the role of state-owned enterprises, "allow more competition in the banking and financial systems, give more support to innovation, and allow its population greater mobility by easing current residency restrictions."
Is the global manufacturing industry getting itself ready for 2030? Will it continue to see China as the sole or most optimal manufacturing center? I believe OEMs and other producers will switch tactics, even if this involves merely hedging and reducing risks by requiring contract manufacturers to put plants in other countries. Places that will benefit from this swing will include Brazil, Mexico, Eastern European countries, and even places in North America that can handle higher-end, automation-heavy production.
All this may not add up to much now for companies still bent on competing solely on immediate product cost, but many executives understand fully how unexpected events can derail carefully laid plans. For such companies, scenario planning is a part of daily operations, and right now, we are heavily tilted as a global manufacturing community toward China. That alone is a problem.
责编：Quentin
扫码分享到好友
