Nord User Forum

It is not "virtue signaling" or a cynical marketing ploy for a company to have a publicly available set of ethical practices and standards.

That's all the OP was asking for. Piling on about wokeness and how you personally don't care isn't a response to the inquiry. It's more a reflection of your own issues.

Yes, Clavia should publish said practices and standards - like every other company in the world. That's how we are doing business now, or trying. If Clavia hasn't done this yet, and it appears they haven't - then they should heartily be encouraged to do so by us, their core customer base.

Gambold

Gambold wrote:It is not "virtue signaling" or a cynical marketing ploy for a company to have a publicly available set of ethical practices and standards.

That's all the OP was asking for. Piling on about wokeness and how you personally don't care isn't a response to the inquiry. It's more a reflection of your own issues.

Yes, Clavia should publish said practices and standards - like every other company in the world. That's how we are doing business now, or trying. If Clavia hasn't done this yet, and it appears they haven't - then they should heartily be encouraged to do so by us, their core customer base.

Gambold

I think the OP should rather insist and write again to Clavia, considering the nature of the question and the fact that this forum is not affiliated with Clavia, as written in the top banner and rules, so no one here is supposed to have the authority to provide any official answer about that.

Then I would really like someone to challenge all companies (no just musical instruments manufacturers I mean) that publish such practice/standards and see how many actually do follow them and fully, but that's not something I'd discuss on a musical instruments forum anyway.

Gambold wrote:It is not "virtue signaling" or a cynical marketing ploy for a company to have a publicly available set of ethical practices and standards.

That's all the OP was asking for. Piling on about wokeness and how you personally don't care isn't a response to the inquiry. It's more a reflection of your own issues.

Yes, Clavia should publish said practices and standards - like every other company in the world. That's how we are doing business now, or trying. If Clavia hasn't done this yet, and it appears they haven't - then they should heartily be encouraged to do so by us, their core customer base.

Gambold

We can agree to disagree. Publishing your "ethical practices and standards" is the very definition of virtue signalling. You are trying to tell the world "look at how righteous I am, I do the RIGHT thing". Sorry Gambold, but, that IS signalling how virtuous you are. Let your actions speak louder than words. People will find out what you do. Nike NEVER posted that they use slave labor to make those sneakers, yet the whole world knows.

I believe I said "for a company to have a publicly available" which is not the same as screaming it across your website in an easy-to-read font.

However, I can see that the very idea has rankled you. But I'm not sure why "virtue signaling," if indeed that's what it is, is any more offensive to you than the usual over-hyped braying about one's products or services, or building a raft of celebrity endorsements, or sponsoring golf events or football stadiums, or running a charity event for some cancer or other, or any other public action a company takes to keep its name upfront.

I think part of the problem is subjectivity. Who gets to be the arbiter of what is ethical -- and what is not?

The problem arises when people appoint themselves arbiter, and then cudgel and bully anyone who does not agree with them. While I don't think anyone here supports truly horrendous practices, unfortunately it doesn't stop there. What might look like degrading working conditions to some are actually a vast improvement over what was before, and -- as economies develop -- they improve. Let's not forget there are often negative consequences for workers in developing countries when privileged people from more developed countries start making uninformed ethical judgments.

I think this topic also makes a good generic troll comment, if you're looking to start something on another forum.

Gambold wrote: is any more offensive to you than the usual.....

No, it is not more offensive.

I think that Nord should quiz their potential customers on their ethics before selling to them (us).

JohnT wrote:

Gambold wrote:It is not "virtue signaling" or a cynical marketing ploy for a company to have a publicly available set of ethical practices and standards.

That's all the OP was asking for. Piling on about wokeness and how you personally don't care isn't a response to the inquiry. It's more a reflection of your own issues.

Yes, Clavia should publish said practices and standards - like every other company in the world. That's how we are doing business now, or trying. If Clavia hasn't done this yet, and it appears they haven't - then they should heartily be encouraged to do so by us, their core customer base.

Gambold

We can agree to disagree. Publishing your "ethical practices and standards" is the very definition of virtue signalling. You are trying to tell the world "look at how righteous I am, I do the RIGHT thing". Sorry Gambold, but, that IS signalling how virtuous you are. Let your actions speak louder than words. People will find out what you do. Nike NEVER posted that they use slave labor to make those sneakers, yet the whole world knows.

Two problems with this:

1. The term "virtue signalling" has a negative connotation and implies subtle bigotry or underhandedness. This ignores the rather important second point:

2. There is a secondary effect when this is done, far beyond making your own company appear in a better light. Perfect example: Apple. Remember when their work conditions became prime-time, front-page news about ten years ago? The reason this happened was because Apple was, at the time, the ONLY major manufacturer who cared enough to produce a full in-depth supply chain and workforce analysis AND PUT IT UP ON THEIR WEBSITE.
Apple took the full force of the often utterly unfair or misrepresented press, because they were the ones who were changing things, and came off looking bad because a) everybody focussed on the very points that Apple themselves identified as problematic, and b) people completely misrepresented what was going on. The biggest splash was a rather unknown stand-up called Mike Daisey who did a long performance that made it sound like he'd actually been to factories and had any idea what was going on there. He had not.

Net effect: EVERYBODY else followed suit, quietly and in the shadows. Because the pressure on the entire industry increased to the point where the topic couldn't be ignored by anybody, as it had been.

When, a few years later, Apple began rigorously following their rare earth and raw mineral supplies to the mine and found ways to guarantee that cobalt, for example, was mined under "humane" conditions and not by children, that went largely unnoticed. Their efforts and results have been documented in their yearly supply chain report for years now, but they don't advertise it.

The less is done in China, the closer the product will be to fair treatment standards.

Friendly reminder:
I would like to remind everyone that because this is a forum, so you only see text. Remember that even if some of you seem to have significant disagreements here, the very people you disagree with might be make for wonderful friends face to face. Pure and honest human connection can cure anything.

Thank you, that's all.