Advertising or Free Speech? the Case of Nike and Human Rights

Nike, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that is engaged in the design, development and worldwide marketing and selling of footwear, apparel, equipment, accessories and services. The company is headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area. It is the world 's leading supplier of athletic shoes and apparel and a major manufacturer of sports equipment, with revenue in excess of US$24.1 billion in its fiscal year 2012 (ending May 31, 2012). As of 2012, it employed more than 44,000 people worldwide. The brand alone is valued at $10.7 Billion making it the most valuable brand among sports businesses. Nike and Precision Castparts are the only Fortune

As such, it applied cultural relativism to justify the use of child labor, unsafe labor practices, and near slave labor in its factories. Since then, Nike has been a driving force to ensure fair labor practices across the apparel industry. In 1999, Nike was a key contributor to the establishment of the Fair Labor Association, an organization that is “…dedicated to protecting workers’ rights around the world” (Fair Labor Association, 2016). Today, Nike continues efforts to ensure that contract factories comply with its Code of Conduct to improve labor standards in overseas factories (Nike, 2016). Because of Nike’s efforts to expand and enforce social responsibility at its factories and given the lessons learned from its sordid past, it is unlikely that Nike would resort to any of the straw men fallacies. However, given the pressure by investors to expect solid returns, one hopes the company continues its altruistic social responsibility efforts while veering away from the Friedman Doctrine and its assertion that “… the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Hill, 2011).

Unfortunately, the same factor that contributed to Nike’s exponential growth (low-cost labor and production) also contributed to hurting Nike’s public image as a leader in “athleticism, health and fitness, and innovative marketing and design” (Locke, 2002). Nike was criticized for unethical practices by their subcontractors, which included underpaid workers, poor working conditions, child labor, and abuse (Locke, 2002).

Nike at this time knew the situation could not be resolved. Nike has changed there working environments for their employees from past mistakes. Hopefully Nike and the Universities

As a company, Nike is extremely profitable; it is the biggest shoe company and has become the fourth biggest industry leader. Nike can easily afford to increase wages of people that do labor work for the company without even the slightest loss but unfortunately chooses not to. According to the SEC, “In 2007, Nike’s advertising budget was $678 million. Realistically, Nike could pay all its individual workers enough to feed and clothe themselves and their families if it would just devote 1% of its advertising budget to workers' salaries each year!” (A background on…) In Nike’s Code of conduct, they state that in the area of human rights and in the communities in which they do their business, they want to do everything required of them as well as what is generally expected of a leader and thus by magnifying on the wrongs an industry leader commits, changes in the entire industry is expected.

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Nike Company in which it was stated that an advertising campaign to refute accusations of exploitation of staff was protected by the right to freedom of expression.

Today Nike Inc is the largest manufacturer of sports footwear, apparel and equipment with worldwide revenue in excess of $25 billion in 2012 under various labels including Nike, Nike Golf, Converse and Hurley. Seventy percent of the company’s value is derived from footwear and apparel sold under the main brand Nike with Nike footwear commanding a market share

This paper will discuss the company Nike. Nike has had many ethical issues, which will be addressed. The ethical dilemmas that Nike faced will be evaluated under two ethical frameworks. The whistleblower part that was played in exposing Nike will be analyzed. This paper will evaluate whether Nike used marketing or public relations successfully when trying to repair the damage caused by the reported lapse in ethics.

Conclusively Nike should be held responsible for its subcontractors. They are not completely responsible for this but they should be aware of it and as a influencial company they should impose what they call basic rights to their subcontractors and make sure that their rules are followed.

Clearly, Nike has the responsibility to hold suppliers to those conditions that prevail only in the supplying

Nike is one the leading shoe and athletic clothing company in the United States and probably one of the largest in the world. In 1993, Nike's yearly revenue became as large as the NBA, NFL,

The purpose and intent of this paper is to describe the legal, cultural, and ethical challenges that face the Nike Corporation in their global business ventures. This paper will also touch on the roles of the host government and countries where Nike manufactures their products and the author will summarize the strategic and operational challenges that Nike managers face in globalization of the Nike product.

This case was about the struggles with sustainability with in Nike as well as the fashion industry. Greenpeace came out and slandered Nike, Adidas, Puma, and several other fashion designers for pollution resulting in the manufacturing process of their products. There are several chemicals used in the process of manufacturing clothing and shoes. Several chemicals are also used in the Dying process. Although these facility are 3rd parties and these locations are not used by Nike it has fallen on them along with their competitors to reduce pollution with in the manufacturing process.

This bad public image has led to loss of existing customers and potential customers switching to more ethical brands. Nike’s marketing team has had to make it a big priority to counter any negative publicity and re-focus consumer’s attention on what they are doing about the allegations.

Nike began as Phil Knight’s semester-long project to develop a small business, which included a marketing plan. This project was part of Phil Knight’s MBA course at Stanford University in the early 1960s. Phil Knight had been a runner at the University of Oregon in the late 1950s. His idea for his project was to develop high quality running shoes. He thought that high quality/low cost products could be produced in Japan and then shipped to the United States to be sold at a profit. His professor thought that Knight’s idea was interesting, but not much more than a project.