Nike Debate

Nike has a very sophisticated sustainability strategy. The strategy is based on company’s prospects for future, to ensure that the company remains profitable and reputable, taking into consideration the social responsibility of the company (NIKE 2013). For instance, the strategy is supposed to ensure that the company gains a stable supply for the raw materials for the product manufacturing that will ensure stable supply of the products in the market at favorable prices. The strategy also targets make the company responsive to environmental concerns, aiming at reducing environmental pollution through emissions to the atmosphere (Charter, 2001). The strategy outlines the company

Nike started to open up manufacturing factories in countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Vietnam. Due to the wants of Nike to increase their revenue they tried to outsource the labor of their products since labor work in the US is very high and expensive. This was a bad idea due to that Indonesia pays their workers extremely low wages. Pakistan doesn’t have an age limit for them to be able to legally to work so many children in Pakistan were making

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).

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 highly recognized name brand—Nike— fails to notice the faults that are happening in factories that are violating a few disturbing rules. The company’s reputation has decreased due to demands and claims Nike; implying that they utilize sweatshops to produce more products at a lower pay. The company has been sued numerous times for abusing and exploiting their employees in factories for years. Another problem that Nike has faced throughout the years was making employees work in poor environments that affected the health of many— which contributed to being abused by the manager for not going to work. Nike distributes and sells merchandise of high quality for a high value. The company is giving the satisfaction of quality service to their

I am writing this letter to express my concerns over Nike's labor practices in Asia. There has been much debate and controversy recently concerning Nike's Asian labor practices. It is very difficult to determine which side of the argument to defend, as both acknowledge the problems yet put a completely different spin on the facts. I will try to show that Nike has created a cloud of smoke in Asia that the public cannot see through.

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.

Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own but where subcontractors make products for Nike?

For years, Nike has been sourcing from factories that seek to meet the company 's minimum standards for good labor performance. The policy of Nike is to evaluate potential contracted factories before they enter the supply chain. Throughout their business relationship with Nike to assess compliance with high standards of social and environmental performance, including country-related risk for issues including forced labor, human trafficking and slavery Nike (n.d).

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?

Not only does Nike have a responsibility to be in compliance but also the host governments have a responsibility to protect the citizens who live and work in these countries. The enforcement of

Nike should not be allowed to claim they are an ethical company especially when they are still outsourcing to impoverished countries in Asian. The company takes advantage of low living standards and lack of democracy in those countries. There was nonexistence of labor movements in countries like Indonesia. The government never allowed

They should be responsible for the legal, social and philanthropic aspects of its subcontracted factories. They are not paying their employees the legal minimum wage, caring about the working conditions and welfare of these employees and just not taking into consideration the well-being of others. Ten years ago, the company had been subjected to negative press, lawsuits, and demonstrations on college campuses alleging that the firm’s overseas contractors’ subject employees to work in inhumane conditions for low wages. With the introduction of the fair labour association and worker rights consortium, Nike is slowly trying to improve the working conditions on subcontracted factories and hopefully in 10 years, they would be able to re-establish themselves as a morally acceptable company.

Nike took responsibility and created stringent benchmarks for production associations - the Code of Conduct (CoC). While CoC became a need and necessity as it was evident that there still was more to be carried out to direct and deal with the inventory network. Nike constituted the CR Board. It also disclosed the locations of the source factories and manufacturing plants. Nike took measures to match the expectations and published its progress reports. This signalled Nike’s tough stand against these issues and that Nike takes is very seriously to strictly adhere to the best practices and find the solutions. This has resulted into transparency. It has empowered Nike to better fathom the issues and shape more fitting

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