As I have previously argued in a recent post, many NGOs have quite conventional organizing forms, facing the challenge of openness and often not founding a way to deal with open networks and a two way conversation. A key step to openness and different understanding of roles such as an organization, its members and stakeholders comes from a cultural shift towards learning.

NGO as learning organizations

Mariëtte Heres wrote an interesting article called “Aid is a knowledge industry.” She emphasizes on the importance of knowledge sharing and learning within and between NGOs and states that, “although NGOs are taking more interest in knowledge management, they have so far failed to recognize that they are part of a knowledge industry, of which the delivery of goods and services is only a part.”

If an NGO wants to become a learning organization, it is important that – in addition to acquiring substantive knowledge – it learns more about learning. ‘You need a learning attitude in this sector. And if you want to learn, you have to experiment. Even if the experiment is a failure, you still learn from it. Knowledge is the result of reflection’.

The ICCO alliance is in this regard quite progressive. It established publicly available “Learning and Sharing Spaces.” This ambitious attempt for a learning organization results in better understanding and innovation through transparency.

Open source everything

Mark Surman marks in his post, “Open, philanthropy and a theory of change,” a step further and argues for radical transparency, which “means opening up not only your yearly books, but also openly sharing your planning, learning and relationships as you go along.” In an inspiring visualization he describes his vision for an open knowledge society filled with possibilities. All organizational boundaries diminish — a key is to listen, learn and evolve with the community. The result is open philanthropy with a constant flow of ideas.

No related posts.

Michael Gilbert wrote an article called “The End of the Organization?” in which he wonders how civil society organizations, such as NGOs, can continue working the way they do?

Whether the organization as we know it survives or not, it is by studying the changing patterns of communication that we will discover the new shape of civil society. Our methods of analysis – and possibly our methods of regulation, funding, and participation – will shift from those that reflect managerial thinking to those that reflect ecosystem thinking.

Here are five important innovations that we need to make this transition successfully: (1) We need ways of making network structures tangible to those who want to support civil society. (2) We need to develop and propagate the language of networks, with adjustments suitable to our many communities of practice. (3) We need models of collaboration and communication that help organizations make the most out of their new permeability. (4) We need financial structures that facilitate network centric funding and (5) legal structures that facilitate network centric employment.

This kicked off a debate among these bloggers: Joitske Hulsebosch, Andy Roberts, David Wilcox and Josien Kapma. Their interesting posts discuss whether the statement is valid and emphasize the role that communication plays within it, and to which extend a transformation of civil society and its organizations has already happened.

I think that organizations eventually have to change because of: (a) complexity, which can only be managed in open networks; and (b) pressure from members, stakeholders or competitors, who move on to other organizations, coalitions or simply form there own campaign. But, in my opinion, the organization will change slowly. Still, NGOs have been participating in networks or coalitions for decades although there internal structure has been often preserved conventional. Here lies the dilemma that most organizations are still pretty much self-contained and naturally driven by self-interest for funding, reputation, etc. — and this is a key obstacle for cooperation. However, civil society was one of the first ones to start working on the potential of the web and in networks if you look at campaigns against the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) or the Zapatistas in Mexico in the Nineties. A key challenge, for traditional NGOs in the next years, will be to compete with extra organizational activism or open networks for social change.

Allison Fine coined the phrase extra organizational activism in her book “Momentum igniting social change in the Connected Age.” She argues about how we should reconsider cooperation and external communication in an organizational context. I wrote about her book in this blog post: open source approach for organizations. One step in the same direction is The Membership project, where David Wilcox is also part of and which “explores changes that the social web and other factors may bring to groups and organisations … and to our ideas of belonging in an increasingly networked society.”

Replying to Michael Gilbert’s five value points, I think they tend to be very formalistic and I can see the web is changing faster and forming more loose networks with their own rules. So the question is whether traditional NGOs can match these loose and open networks with their sometimes quite conventional organization. And I wonder whether it is possible and even conducive to search and create”models of collaboration” or “legal structures” to harness the potential of these new networks.

No related posts.

This blog post is a contribution to the Net2ThinkTank from the netsquared community. It is great community of people discussing about non-profits and technology. I can highly recommend their podcasts. When I got from Britt Bravo an email to join the discussion about above topic I was more than happy to join.

How Can Nonprofits Use Twitter? Should They Even Bother?

NO,
because twitter has too many voices and not enough responses. It is too exhausting trying to follow a conversation. The quality of exchange is simply to random. Most important, twitter is a lot about web2.0 but not so about non-profits, activism, social change, politics or the digital divide. There is not enough attention and the speed washes every message away within minutes. The message space is too limited. What could be explained in 140 characters? Is that seriously enough for a campaign or advocacy?

Still curious? Check out whether your target audience is twittering or whether twitter users are potentially interesting for your work. Search with key words in terraminds.com and find out who talks about your topics on twitter. Twitter users and their networks might be influential, although topics on civil society are not so common. Non-profits should not only send but also allow for reception on twitter.

YES,
because with twitter a real network effect comes in. Networks overlap and people engage. It is not only about joining a cause but also interacting: ask questions, engage and link. There are three ways in which twitter can be interestingly used for non-profits (more to follow later):

1) Mobilization
Twitter allows quick mobilization either internally and externally. Activists can be alerted or informed about latest developments. Twitter users are often hubs themselves and can quickly spread a message. One obvious area is for human rights. Imagine if different NGOs could form networks in twitter for information exchange, broadcast and mobilize via mobile phone.

2) Internal communications
Most non-profits are still centralized and their network is far spread. Twitter can be used to have an ongoing conversation with members in a decentralized structure. It can give more life to an organization and bring the center more to the periphery. It can help to bring in expertise from members or sympathizers. An organization asks questions, test out ideas or brainstorm about next steps with its constituency.

3) Extra organizational activism
Twitter is a lot about chitchat but also a very open network. For non-profits this can be a interesting playground to form new co-operations, act in different alliances and coordinate campaigns or protests (via mobile phones). So far, twitter is for non-profits which use it only as a channel to spread news. But what about using it to interact in a network and react to feedback? It can help to be connect different actors on a daily basis if non-profits are willing to open.

No related posts.

Charles Leadbeater, well known for his book We Think, has released an interesting paper called “Social Software for Social Change.” The paper presents rich examples about civic action through the web and its impact on democracy. With the advice from Dan Mcquillan, Leadbeater greatly links different forms of activism and engagement; as well as elaborating how these new forms of engagements can promote social change, interact with the state and shape politics. Because it is one of the best peaces I have read for a while, I summarize it in this blog post.

This is the content of the paper:

1. The social web’s democratic potential
2. New media, new democracy?
3. The social web in practice
4. Conclusions

The social web’s democratic potential
Leadbeaters argues that the architecture of participation of web2.0 allows new forms of social activism. One outcome is the focus on causes and not as much on organizations that represent them. It can be called extra-organizational activism, as Allison Fine framed it, or simply ‘do it yourself activism.’ Users can individually start campaigns. The long tail theory can be also translated in unlimited ways for social change; one example is change.org. Leadbeaters also wonders whether civic organizations will be ready to exploit the potentials.

New media, new democracy?
The second chapter deals about potentials for democracy. Leadbeaters identifies three main respects:

1. Accountability: Citizens have new means to held politicians to account. Mzalendo.com in Kenya is such an example.
2. Debate: The social web allows for more people to have a voice and promotes collective problem solving.
3. Campaigning: The web dramatically cutting costs of mobilising people in campaigns.

So, is this really a push forward for e-democracy? For Leadbeater deliberation is a major aspect and mobilization another. The social web offers new venues for engagement and conversations about social change. It is not about technology or just signing a petition, but rather a continuous dialogue about public issues. Leadbeaters sees promising examples such as Wikipedia for an ethic of responsible self-governance and open debate. The challenge is about who will be hosting these deliberative conversations: The state, the media or civil society?

Very interesting are also the downsides Leadbeaters identifies:

• Cacophony of too many voices and few responses.
• Echo chamber: In a niche one hears from others a confirmation of what they already think.
• Quality: How can a certain degree of quality be obtained when the classical gatekeepers such as the media are lost.
• Equality: Those already rich in knowledge, information and connections may just get richer.

The social web in practice
This chapter analyses new web based actors or “quasi-political parties” such as moveon.org and identifies three forms civil society use the web:

1. Sustaining innovations in which the third sector uses the social web to do traditional tasks more efficiently
2. Disruptive innovations which create models for the third sector so it can organize itself
3. Hybrids in which organisations create a mix of traditional and new ways of working.

Example for the first point are online petitions or fund raising. NGOs are pioneers in widening own constituencies over the web. But another great potential lies in disruptive innovations. This can be for collective problem, e.g. I love Bees, as Leadbeater describes in his book “We Think” or for direct action. The mobile phone is a key for citizen engagement as examples from all over the world show. “A technology that can mobilise friendship networks for political ends thus is potentially very powerful.”

This is only a small summary as the paper goes in much detail and brings together a wide range of thoughts from scholars about this theme. I think it is a great way to learn about the young history for online civic action. Exciting times are ahead for how these new forms will emerge. But one point is the same obstacle online and offline, the citizen have to have an interest to engage and whether the web will open new ways to engage.

I also wonder whether it can and should work as Leadbeaters argues, that the third sector — mainly civil society — takes over to act as independent, trusted guides and moderators for debate, and whether this is necessary? Do you agree with the concerns or downsides? Do you share the potentials for deliberation and mobilization?

No related posts.

I was interviewed by the Deutsche Welle (German version) last week during the web2fordev conference. As a result from the interview, an interesting article was published (Entwicklungshilfe 2.0) in which not only the potential of web2.o in the context of development is discussed, but it is also questioned whether web2.o will do a shift to development aid in general. Interesting point I thought, and a bit visionary. “With the access to information,” the author writes, “development aid can come closer to its goal to help for self help.”

The articles also describes a bit the work of Kabissa in Africa, and emphasizes the potentials for organisations to network more effectively and share knowledge. I know, from my working experience with civil society in Egypt, that cooperation between civil society is a key factor, therefore I am very curious to see how this will develop within the next years. Right now it seems to me that it is often driven by the diaspora or development agencies although there are many great grassroot initiatives.

The article in general does not grasp exactly the implications of we2.0 for development aid. It mixes up different notions of development. But, on the other hand, it highlights the two way conversation for development and what it could mean for development organizations to be much better connected with beneficiaries and obtain direct feedback. But as I questioned before on a panel of the web2fordev conference, “Web2.0 offers and relies on open communication and knowledge sharing. Therefore it has great potential for participation and innovation. But are development organizations ready for this kind of openness?”

Full article translated by google

No related posts.

Overview
First of all, I would like to thank Jan Amos and and Rolf Lührs for their comments. Yes, I agree that in Germany some initiatives around e-democracy have been taken (e.g. e-petition in the German parliament), however, in comparison to German’s vibrant political life, its web is politically inactive. In that regard, politik-digital.de is a lighthouse for many years and a think tank that discusses and analyzes politics and the net. The European counterpart, Europa-digital.de, has done a lot for independent coverage. Their latest initiative, e-participation.net, is great but it also shows how only so little has arisen. Another website is abgeordnetenwatch.de, where citizens can address politicians directly, leading to direct pressure, as Jan nicely pointed out. It is this kind of approach which opens a two-way-conversation.

Politik2.0 and campaigns
However, taking a look at the German political activism in the web or initiatives for e-democracy you get the impression that web2.0 has not arrived in Germany. For example, if you look at the blogosphere, you will hardly see any political blog and rarely grassroot activism. This was also regretted on a discussion called “Politik2.0″ last Spring on the ‘Re-Publica‘ conference. Only few blogs are different, such is the case of netzpolitik.org, which works as a watchdog dealing with all sorts of topics around the Internet and liberty rights. Right now they are part of a campaign against the Minister of Interior’s latest idea of “Vorratsdatenspeicherung“. The current government initiated a law that will allow the saving of all personal web traffic including email, etc. for half a year. The minister of interior also elaborates the wrong idea to allow private investigation through hacking software. Another interesting recent campaign was the one of flickr and censorship in Germany.

Some challenges
The challenges that keep e-democracy from moving much further in Germany are multifold. Markus Beckedahl said on the Politik2.0 discussion, that the political arena has still not yet embraced or even understood the web. Best prove is a an interview on German television given by kids, who asked Germans such as the Minister of Justice about different browsers. She replied: “Browsers? What are browsers again?” Another problem is surely the missing transparency of the German political system in some regards. For example, information about politician salaries have been made public just recently. But shouldn’t that missing transparency make the web more political?
Most surprising is the fact that civil society has not embraced the recent web developments and has not even started to use web2.0 potential.

Web2.0 and politics
But what strikes me the most is that web2.0 is purely seen as a business topic. It surely is a buzz word, but it does offer a new form of participation. For example, on bar camps blogger, politics and activism play no role. In the realm of web2.0, German blogger focus mainly on start-ups. The great potential for participation, being it political or for knowledge sharing and social change, is not been seen here in Germany in the wide blogosphere. The best example of this development is trupoli.com, a new political web2.0 platform which offers “true politics” that can be experienced free from media show. What really occurs to me is that trupoli.de is a corporation! Will participation and political discourse be now a part of demand and supply? I am looking forward to see a maplight.org application analyzing trupoli in the future.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic, especially right now, that an unconference about e-democracy takes place in Berlin. I am eager to hear about the outcome.

No related posts.

The concept of e-democracy dates from the early days of Internet. To my understanding, it embraces everything that connects political processes and the web. Back in the 90s high promises were linked to the web and its implications for democracy and participation. One early example is the Electronic Town Hall, but nowadays e-democracy stands for many approaches such as e-activism, e-politics, e-participation or latest government2.0.

While the early beginnings were optimistic, they had often not fulfilled promises. Such is the example of new venues to engage digital citizens to participate directly through e-voting. Another example was e-government, which encompasses different layers such as networking government institutions, and makes or offers more direct services to citizens. On the contrary, civil society such as NGOs or social movements embrace the potential of web for their activism earlier, quicker and deeper. Already back in 1999, the Seattle protests were effectively organized over the web.

There are many reasons why especially governments respond slowly to the potentials of the web, and why civil society uses the web strategically. But both sides have not really used the potential of the web to enhance participation. From my point of view two difficulties arise: (1) Government institutions and most NGOs are not yet willing to open themselves for an authentic two-way conversation. (2) Information is still in many cases not transparent and citizens are not being offered to participate.

Developments during the last year show some interesting new approaches to enhance participation. Tara Hunt calls it feedback2.0 (listen and learn) in her interesting government2.0 presentation. She says in her presentation:

“We need to change the way we approach service, viewing the public not as a recipient, but as more of a partner.”

One great example of enhancing more participation in political processes has been realized in Kenya. Mzalendo is a website, ” which is a volunteer run project whose mission is to keep an eye on the Kenyan Parliament.” One of the initiator is Ory Okolloh, who has been interviewed by BBC. The website offers valuable information on decision making processes in the Kenyan parliament and opens new ways of participation for active citizens. I have not yet discovered such a promising “watchdog” website in Europe, meaning how Germany lags behind.

No related posts.

I just finished reading Allison Fine‘s book “Momentum igniting social change in the Connected Age.” I really liked it because it explains in detail how we should reconsider cooperation and external communication in an organizational context. Fine speaks mainly of civil society such as activist organizations but I think her thoughts can be applied for all kinds of nonprofit organizations (the authors of wikinomics would probably say the same for enterprises). She argues in her book that we have just started to exploit the full network potential and elaborates what the difference for the Connected Age is.

A nonprofit organization shall see its work and purpose closely connected to stakeholders such as partners, members or volunteers. The consequence is to join an “authentic two-way conversation“. This can be achieved by orientating the organization towards open source thinking. In contrast to the proprietary way, where organizations are vertical structured and act as information holders. “Just as learning needs to be more open and transparent organizational planing cannot be the proprietary, closed process it was in the broadcast days.” The open source approach emphasizes on listening to the audience, requesting feedbacks and engaging on equal basis with partners in a network. Openness is the key factor, so within a network everybody is a participant and internal and external boundaries of an organization get blurred.

For Allison Fine it goes as far as that “activists organization must lead by letting go. It’s counterintuitive but true that the more decision making you push away from the center, the more powerful a networked effect. That’s the power-to-the-edge-concept.” The web gives the opportunity to get feedback and interact directly within a wider network of potential like-minded people or even with competitive organizations. But this network approach, in her opinion, has to be facilitated “to fuel conversations” and to engage in social media exchange. However, “technology does not create a sense of community itself, but it can provide a virtual inexpensive place to gather to make community happen.”

But for Allison this not just an option to choose: “Those organizations that ignore the power of social networks will see their relevance and effectiveness sweep away like acid from a leak battery.” Not much more to add than: Yes, it is the web. Yes, it is what people make out of it. Yes, it gains momentum.

Interview and podcast with Allison Fine by Britt Bravo

No related posts.

The new web does not only offer a great potential for development in different domains, it also has its implications for traditional development aid, said Giulio Quaggiotto and Pierre Wielezynski in their recent article, “Development 2.0: A New Paradigm for the Non-Profit Sector?” The authors highlight different facets of web2.0 (e.g. free development data, the long tail and collective intelligence) and how it has already changed the nonprofit sector.

In my opinion, particular NGOs and new webbased actors redefine development and challenge traditional development agencies.

More at the web2fordev blog

No related posts.

Recently I met Toni Eliasz from Ungana-Afrika in Pretoria. We discussed over web2.0 in the context of development. His thoughts were interesting on that of the potential and challenges of the collaborative web, given his experiences in South Africa and the region. Ungana is a NGO which devotes its work to find solutions for the capacity crisis.

A ‘capacity crisis’ is a mild expression to describe the skill levels and understanding of information and communications technologies (ICTs) within non-profits and small-to-medium enterprises in Africa. It will take a decade before the young, technologically literate generation can address these challenges.”

No surprise Toni highlighted first, challenges regarding web2.0 for rural development:

• The general problems of connectivity, such as the lack or high price for access. For example, a 3 GB ADSL connection costs up to a hundred dollars in South Africa, which is 15 times the price compared to Germany.
• Web2.0 requires often bandwidth or instant access for videos, podcasts or tools such as google docs.
• Before investing time and resources into web2.0, there is a question to be answered, ‘How do these tools benefit local communities and how can they contribute to development?’
• The computer and its appliances are complex and often need to be demystified for beginners, and like everywhere else, training is needed and that can also take quite some time.
• To use web2.0 tools such as wiki, blogs etc., requires well written documentation and training.
• The lack of technical expertise, which is often required, is currently very expensive and very limited outside of urban areas.
• Like many other ICT4D projects, the question for sustainability is important and yet not proven for concepts based on these new tools.

For Toni many challenges have to be overcome first before web2.0 can be adapted in rural communities or small organizations. I stated that there are examples such as the the Nata Village Blog, which shows how communities communicate their messages and interact with a worldwide audience. However, we both agreed, that it is the know-how, which at this stage it is mostly limited to intermediate organizations, who nevertheless have already a real benefit from the opportunities to interact and collaborate over the web. Ungana is on the APC network and will be sharing documented work experiences and toolkits, especially from their eRider project, to local technology service providers and networks to make quality support and capacity-building programs a reality.

We both agreed, in terms of connectivity, that the mobile phone is very promising. Whereas widely distributed and affordable Internet access will still take many years to arrive in Africa, first, interesting applications to link the mobile phone and web have to be offered. In South Africa for example Mixit is a big web driven mobile chatting portal. It got so far over 4 million subscribers. Toni concluded that ideas and its implementation have to be localized. As an example, two weeks ago a workshop in Kenya launched the development of a mobile advocacy toolkit, which is focusing on the needs of the organizations from the developing world. Homegrown approaches, which emphasizes the
sustainable need, are decisive.

Crossposted: blog.web2fordev.net

No related posts.

In the arab region activists use sophisticated and creative blogs and tools to network nationally and internationally and to tackle issues such as human rights, freedom of speech and democracy. Especially in Egypt, where the blogosphere is very vibrant, in contrary to European political bloggers.
On Egybloggers more than 320 blogs alone are listed in the ‘politics section’. The blogs are written in English, Arabic or in both. This blogging network broadcasts campaigns and demonstrations, documenting human rights violations, for example, videos over you tube. Bloggers discus together with the diaspora the political future of Egypt. The global voice project links the Egyptian online activists to human rights bloggers worldwide. The Egyptian blog aggregator shows post on the latest news in Egypt.

The result is that blogs become important news sources in the Arab region. Even journalists turn to blogs such as arabist.net. http://www.arabist.net/ With the detention of many bloggers in Egypt and especially the ‘Free Kareem‘ campaign, where people rally for the release of a prominent blogger, blogging activism got worldwide attention. In Twitter you can also read comments send by a blogger facing trial: “There was a court hearing today. Very short. We asked for time to read the technical report. Next hearing 8 July”.
Recently, activists from the Muslim Brotherhood started to use blogs to promulgate their cause also and push for the release of members who have been jailed.

The Egyptian blogosphere is not a new phenomenon. For years Egyptian bloggers used the web as a channel to organize their protests and create a transational public sphere for their topics. In 2005, the ‘Kifaye‘ (Enough!) movement’s demonstrations and protests were widely documented on blogs. An especially creative way of campaign is done by Ahmad Sherif, who asks for messages about the Egyptian President over you tube, which are then placed as google adsense (further explained). Latest, Sherif works now on another assignment which he calls ‘Freedom Campaign‘ where he exposes topics such as premarital love and sex, freedom of faith and freedom of speech. There has also been some participation from the artists scene, such is the case of the creation of ‘Cairofreeze‘ a blog for political caricatures. For the latest developments of the Egyptian blogosphere check out this entry on global voices. I am personally impressed about the activism of these bloggers and what they have achieved. Unfortunately, my Arabic is to weak to get even more informed on what is going on the Egyptian blogosphere.

No related posts.

Sun Microsystems’ blogging approach changes the company’s communication and knowledge management. In wikinomics I encountered Johan Schwartz, the CEO of Sun, with his unusual approach of not being him the only one blogging but also his colleagues, whom he encourages to blog publicly about their work and anything else they are interested in. His concept has an outcome of about 3000 bloggers (around 10% of all employees).

The Sun blogger Jörg Moellenkamp did an interesting presentation last April during the re-publica conference. He explained enthusiastically how he communicates directly with his clients or other programmers, and how ‘direct communication’ improved his personal learning. Beside of a policy, the basic limited rule for blogging at Sun is: don’t tell secrets. This evokes the question: “Have you ever had a situation where a blogger posted something they shouldn’t have?“, which Linda Skrocki answered in her blog. In other words Sun has shaped its own blogosphere with almost 70.000 articles mainly in the realm of its work – as a provider for network computing infrastructure solutions.

I think this blogging approach offers a combination of internal and external knowledge management offering all sorts of community of practice. Blogs contribute to codify tacit knowledge and connect people inside and outside the organization. It also offers a different concept for customer relationship management.

I asked Möllenkamp if this approach is limited to the software industry or even those ones with an open source concept? He answered that it is rather Sun’s unique culture, being it very open and putting a high level of trust in its staff. I wonder how this model could be applied to other industries or even non-governmental organizations (NGOs)? It could certainly enhance the accountability of NGOs and even more important, give opportunity to a real multiple networking for an organization in order to make their work more creative and effective. And as Allison Fine argues in her book Momentum: Igniting Social Change in the Connected it would make members or sympathizers participants for social change.

No related posts.

Fair trade coffee is widely known and successful, but what about fair trade computers? This was the question of a session at the re-publica conference back in April with Frithjof Schmidt (member of the European parliament) and Andrea Manhart from the Ökoinstitut in Freiburg (ecological institute).

The labour conditions of workers, who manufacture notebooks in China are burdensome. Environmental problems of the production process are widespread as well. “A price raised of 30 euros would significantly improve these conditions,” says Andreas Manhart in a pioneer study (German) titled “Social implications of laptop production.” Other interesting findings from the study were:

• Despite rising commodity costs, laptop prices have fallen continuously throughout the last years. Production has been changed to locations such as China.
• Almost all laptop brands are produced by eleven Taiwanese firms, like Qanta, Compal or Wistron, who have the right manufacturing knowledge.
• The cost of labour is not higher than 30 euro per laptop.
• The ongoing competition between laptop sellers reduced the profit margin to 3% in average.

NGOs give now more emphasis to the problem of toxic waste. Greenpeace started a campaign with a green electronic guide ranking of laptops. As a consequence to ngo lobbying Apple announced last week “a greener apple” campaign, which promises more recycling efforts and the removing of toxic chemicals . The two blogs greenguy and being the change have a coverage on that.

But a fair trade approach also includes the social implication of laptop production. Its goal is to protect labour rights and guarantee environmental regulated production. A recent survey in Germany showed that many consumers are willing to buy fair trade laptops. Interestingly, A. Manhart said that a certification process does not necessarily bring the solution because it is impossible to monitor the widely distributed value-chain of laptop production especially in China.

No related posts.