Levi Strauss

“Women sewing NBA jerseys make 24 cents per garment – an item that will eventually sell for $140 or more”(Brandon Gaille). Our most popular American sports uniforms are mainly produced by Nike, who possess a market cap of $ 90 billion. The question, therefore, becomes, why do immigrant workers from developing countries migrate to the United States to work for brand-name companies, when they don’t receive equitable wages and perform in inhumane working conditions? In,”Who Makes the Clothes We Wear”, Jesse Jackson discusses these conditions and unjust treatment of immigrants. Jackson highlights the extreme manual labor hours, inequitable pay, and rash mistreatment of immigrant workers inside name brand sweatshops. He also provides nationwide examples of unjust labor environments in order to think about the disturbing ethics behind name brand clothing production. When examining why workers endure such horrific environments, it is clear that most originate from developing countries. Due to immigrants attempt to obtain a better quality of life, receive any type of wage that they can acquire in the United States, and their constant struggle with the language barrier which affects job opportunities and daily interactions; immigrant workers endure the mistreatment of name brand companies because they seek the American Dream.

In this paper, I chose to apply the works of Marx to the Nike Sweatshop situation that has been going on for decades. The Nike corporation has been criticized for a long time, ever since there has been evidence linking them to sweatshops that exist in factories all around the world where they have outsourced jobs to for cheaper labor. Individuals who want a job with one of the clothing factories are forced to sign a contract that binds them to work for a certain length of time and forces them to live in the arrangements provided by the factory. In some cases, the workers don’t even know the conditions of their employment as the contracts are written in a different language. The name “sweatshop” has come from the extremely high temperatures that have been reported from inside of the factories that workers are forced to endure every day.

But, omnisciently speaking, both entities faced severe scrutiny and criticism from United States and international citizens for their capitalistic business practices. Furthermore, a vast number of American citizens, mainly teenagers, had been killed over Nike Air Jordan sneakers because of their high price tag, while the cost to produce the shoes were rapidly declining due to Nike’s unprecedented offshore production. Bill Bigelow’s, The Human Lives behind the Labels: The Global Sweatshop, Nike, and the Race to the Bottom accurately portrays this capitalistic mentality when mentioning, “children as young as 6 are ‘sold and resold like furniture, branded, beaten, blinded as punishment for wanting to go home...’ For pennies an hour, these children work in dank sheds, stitching soccer balls with the familiar Nike swoosh and logos of other transnational athletic equipment companies” (Bigelow, 113). What is most disturbing to fans of Nike and Jordan were their comments and proposed remedies on the matter. Essentially, Jordan did nothing to curtail the number of kids being killed for his shoes and, as far as his affiliation with capitalistic Nike, Jordan did not want to cause any kind of rift between himself and the corporation that made him millions

A positive impact of Nike’s offshoring strategy was that it allowed Nike to meet the growing market demand of its customers that resulted from global economic growth. It created convenience so customers in other parts of the world could easily acquire Nike’s products and increased customer satisfaction as a result. Moreover, their strategy had a positive impact on the quality of the products offered in various markets. Since labor in Asian markets was able and very willing to meet the quality standards of Nike’s demands in order to retain production contracts, they could meet the expectations that Nike customers presented (Locke, 2002).

This paper describes the legal, cultural, and ethical challenges that confronted the global business presented in the Nike sweatshop debate case study. It illustrates Nike’s part in the sweatshop scandal and it also takes a look at the ethical issues that surround this touchy subject. This paper

The company Nike operates in over 50 different companies. This makes them a very large global company. Nike makes all kinds of products including gym shoes, clothing and apparel, equipment and accessories. “In 2004, Nike products were manufactured by more than 800 suppliers, employing over 600,000 workers in 51 countries” (Locke, Kochan, Romis & Qin, 2007, p. 6). Nike came under fire because of their workers that work outside the United States. In other countries, labor laws are unlike those within the United States. Large corporations often exploit the fact that they can pay laborers significantly less outside of the United States. Companies may also provide less than favorable working conditions to its labor force outside of the United States.

In the twenty-first century, it is not a secret that many American companies are actually setting up factories in foreign countries, with the majority located in Asia. Notable examples of this include athletic shoe companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Reebok Additionally, most people know the reason these companies make their products overseas: “cheap labor.” However, what exactly does the term “cheap labor” entail? Moreover, how are international politics and the global economy affected by this outsourcing? While it may seem like a simple question with a simple answer, the cause of such a relationship and its effects on international commerce are deeply complex and morally questionable.

1. Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not won, but where sub-contractors make products for Nike?

Investigation on outsourcing within business. The outsourcing of trainer companies within developing countries with particular emphasis on Nike outsourcing history.

The topic of this paper is business ethics within Gap Inc., a multinational retail – clothing company. The foundation of its corporate ethical approach is summarized in the Code of Conduct . This paper outlines the ethical problems Gap Inc. faced in the last years and more important, the solutions they found in order to remain a successful company. It shows how large companies deal with common issues like child labour and sweatshops.

Apparel and shoe manufacturers continued to offload the more costly yet easily replicated part so their business models to concentrate on brand building, marketing, sales and attaining greater distribution channels globally. These are the pressures all apparel and shoe manufacturers face, and it is particularly challenging in the athletic show industry (Kynge, 2009). Adidas, Converse, Nike and Reebok have been outsourcing production of their shoes for in some cases nearly three decades. Nike was one of the leaders in this strategy, seeing to create a more efficient supply chain and also drop the labor and union costs of manufacturing in the U.S. (Boje, Khan, 2009). Adidas, Converse and Reebok have all followed Nike's lead, with Adidas benefitting from the fall-out generated when investigate reports showed Nike using child labor throughout Pakistan and Vietnam (Boje, Khan, 2009). All four of these companies share a common prioritization of manufacturing operations, yet none of them with the exception of Nike has a comprehensive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program in place to ensure ethical compliance to global standards of outsourcing in their industry (Nike Investor Relations, 2012). The intent of this analysis is to compare and contrast the four companies mentioned and their outsourcing practices. Their reasons for choosing to outsource are very much the same; the industry is shrinking

Ethics refer to what is defined as right or wrong in the morality of human beings and social issues are matters which could directly or indirectly affect a person or many members of a society. In this case study, Nike has been accused of subjecting employees in their subcontracted factories overseas to work in inhumane conditions for low wages. The CEO and cofounder of Nike lamented that “The Nike product has become synonymous with slave wages, forced-overtime and arbitrary abuse.” Initially, the firm purchased two shoe-manufacturing facilities in the United States but eventually had to shut them down due to tremendous loss

The modus operandi of the major apparel corporation has been a controversial issue for the longest time. After a while, it has become evident that whenever Nike moves its operation between countries, it has been to a place with an abundance of lower wage workers (Herbert, 1996). Doing business with independent contractors which are notorious for unethical practices is legal but not

This essay’s thesis is that there is currently a lack legal apparatuses that can be used to hold transnational corporations liable for human rights violations; specifically violation of labour rights. This paper seeks to discuss various legal instruments that are applicable to transnational corporations and human rights violations. It will also provide theoretical framework for understanding the nature of human rights and legal framework of labour laws. This essay will address the following questions: What is the legal status of transnational corporations? How can current legal apparatuses be used to hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations? This essay will also consider the case of human right violations by Nike Corporation in order to show that external pressures can produce development and accountability.

The main ethical issues were that there were sweatshops were being underpaid, there were children working in sweatshops, and some factories were violating health laws which exposed employees to harmful chemicals. When looking at all of these from an outside perspective one can see that Nike allowed these to happen because they did not care for the quality and rights that humans have. In the United States, these would never occur because of US Labor Laws to protect people, but in these third world countries there are no regulating laws.