Nike Sweat Shops

With the above mentioned, there is a huge expectation from Nike in regards to their corporate responsibility but there have been many criticisms and protesters against Nike with regards to their labour noncompliance and several other CSR issues. One of the major claims of these protesters against Nike is that the organisation works virtual slave plants as a result of their use of sweatshops. The employees in these sweatshops are exposed to terrible working conditions such as low wages and forced overtime, where they are forced to work 65 hours per week and

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

“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.

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

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

One of the biggest and most popular brands in America, Nike, who targets athletes of all ages to be better athletes engages in unethical behavior by exploiting people from other countries by providing bad working conditions and low wages. Nike produces athletic equipment as well as apparel that is not only appealing to athletes, but also to the general public. However, the people that work for Nike and make these products are people being physically abused by supervisors and have to deal with horrible working conditions. According to an article written by Zaid Jilani, he said that thousands of women in Indonesia are being exploited by companies such as Nike where the wages being paid to these women are not enough to survive. Nike is well aware of what they are doing to these people in Indonesia, but still continue with it because the profits they receive at the end of the day is more valuable to them than the poor working conditions they offer to these Indonesian women. This shows that Nike uses the the Utilitarian approach because the company weighs out the pros and cons of the situation and still decides to produce products in Indonesia where it’s perfectly legal to pay low wages and have bad working conditions even though it is

In many ways, it seems obvious to me that Nike should be held responsible for working conditions in foreign companies where products for Nike are made. In my opinion a company is not only responsible for itsʼ own employees but also for the employees that produce for them even though theyʼre not in their own company. I think that every part of the supply chain is partially responsible for the entire supply chain. As Nike is the

Although Nike may be technically removed from responsibility in some areas, it clearly has the obligation to be certain that exploitation by subcontractors do not occur. Certainly the pay and working conditions that the workers of subcontractors receive is due in large part to the contract that has been negotiated by Nike. If Nike had chosen to make improved working conditions a part of the arrangement, them those benefits may have been passed on to the workers. Still, Nike is a publicly owned firm whose goal is to improve the wealth of its shareholders. The workers in these Asian countries were happy, even eager, to accept the conditions that were provided as a manufacturer of Nike. The reason is that those wages were probably equal or superior to wages available from other sources. If Nike were to leave the country because of the pressures placed upon it, the workers would undoubtedly suffer greatly.

Another attack on Nikes practices came from the Global Exchange in 1997 when they published a report on the working conditions from 4 factories in Southern China. According to their reports in one of the factories, owned by a Korean subcontractor, workers as young as thirteen were working for a mere ten cents an hour for up to seventeen hour days in complete silence. Talking while working was prohibited and violators were fined anywhere from $1.20 to $3.60. Global exchange stated that these practices were in violation of Chinese labor law, which states that no child under 16 may work in a factory. Also that the minimum wage requirement was $1.90 for an 8 hour day. Though once again Nike defended themselves and assured that the monitoring systems they had in place was in fact working and that most, if not all, of the issues were addressed. Global exchange though obtained a confidential report of an audit stating that thousands of young women were working more than 10.5 hour days, six days a week, in excessive heat, noise and foul air. Also many workers suffered from skin or breathing problems and many were not

Time and time again, there are stories of dishonest companies who take advantage of the fact that they have money, try to create more wealth and subsequently forget their workers well being. Although they have more then enough money, greed takes over and good morals are overlooked. Nike, a popular sports brand, makes billions of dollars a year selling various products. To manufacture them, Nike has created many sweatshops throughout the world. Although they can definitely afford to pay their workers fairly, it has been found that these workers,

Then in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Nike and its subcontractors began shutting down factories in South Korean and moved to China, Indonesia, and Thailand. Here they could pay women even less. And other athletic shoe companies also now have factories in these countries.” According to Oxfam, (http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/labour-rights/), workers producing some of the best shoe seller brands, including Nike, Fila, Adidas, Puma, and New Balance work in extremely bad and unsafe working conditions.  Many workers face low wages, long hours, verbal abuse, and denial of their worker rights.  Moreover, it has been reported that there is higher percentage of women working in these sweatshops and most of them are a victim of sexual harassment or some other form of abuse.

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

After several years of record breaking performance Nike's global labor practices were brought to the attention of the public as early as the 1990s. Which included publishings in Harper's magazine that a   Nike subcontractor paid woirker's just under 14 cents an hour. Other reports include

With a slogan of “Just Do It,” Nike is known all over the world for its products ranging from apparel to shoes. Receiving recognition and sponsorship from various celebrities and athletes including Michael Jordan, Nike’s brand is generally associated in a positive light. However, the brand itself, variety of products, and numerous sponsors exist as only a few aspects of this continuously expanding brand. Another aspect to consider when addressing the overall existence of a product as well as the constant introduction of new products is the production process itself: how the product came to be, who is involved in creating the product, and where the product is produced.