Nike Sweatshops And Child Labour

The sneaker manufacturer began in 1972 by owners Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman. After their initial meeting at the University of Oregon in 1957, the two formed a lesser known shoe company that eventually evolve to Nike. The company was able to go public in 1980 after one short year of acquiring “50 percent of the U.S. running shoe market” (Parnell, 2008 p. 334). Although Nike has surpassed many of their competitors, such as Adidas, it did not come without controversy. Consequently, their strategic plan of utilizing cheap labor has cost them the reputation of being child labors in violation of human rights for their financial gains.

Nike is one of the top sports clothing industry in the world. However, for years there are fresh allegation for Nike, which dogged by sweatshops and child labour (Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). On the 13 July 2011, Nike has revealed several cases of worker abused at factory.

There are a large number of individuals who unintentionally support the work that these children do. A prime example of this would be consumers who purchase professional athletic gear such as the jersey of the Los Angeles Laker’s star Kobe Bryant or the former Most Valuable Player (MVP) Steph Curry of the Golden State Warriors. These are only two out of the thirty National Basketball Association (NBA) teams that will be required to use Nike produced gear. In 2015, the NBA signed an 8-year contract with Nike for them to produce all of the gear for all NBA Teams, such as jerseys and shorts as well as fan gear such as jerseys, t-shirts, socks, jackets and any other apparel that the league can use to generate large profits. However, the consumers

Since the 1990s, Nike has been embroiled in controversy over its use of sweatshops. Including numerous media reports of workers earning very little an hour (14 cents per hour), and even workers abused by sub-contractor (Allarey, 2015). Incidents such as these are ingrained in Nike’s history and not quickly forgotten. However, as CEO I would like to attempt to correct wrongs.

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.

Internationally recognized companies such as Nike make use of sweatshops and aid in the exploitation of labor workers in many parts of the world. A sweatshop is an industrialized provision that is known to have poor working conditions, infringement of labor law, and long hours coupled with low wages. In today’s world, sweatshops are prevalent all across the globe; however they raise the most concern in developing nations. Nike is one of the world’s most renowned sportswear companies, but has been involved in several controversies in relation to the possibility of them making profit out of sweatshop labor. In the late 1900’s most Nike products were manufactured in countries like South Korea and Taiwan, however, this changed when the labor

1. What responsibility does Nike have for conditions of work at foreign factories making its products?

“American companies pay workers in China and Vietnam less than $2 a day and workers in Indonesia less than $1 a day.” Stated in “Nike Pledges to End Child Labor and Apply U.S. Rules Abroad.” Children have been put to work in large factories at very young ages with dangerous and toxic working conditions, and a decreased amount of money in their pay. Working at large factories with heavy equipment and debris filling the air, children that have jobs in those factories may have a very high risk of injury or sickness. Although putting children to work provides them money and gets them ready for adulthood, it can deprive them from having the childhood they’re longing to have in the future. With that said, individuals should not buy items manufactured

The labor practices issues has became the biggest challenges for Nike. The unethical act of Nike caused a huge loses and experiencing dramatically dropped in net profit. In early 1998, the founder of Nike Phil Knigh have been announced that the Nike will taking actions to the sweatshops issues by raising the minimum age of worker to avoid the problem of child labor. Moreover, Nike will be strengthen the management over the sweatshops issues as well.

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

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?

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

The Pou Chen factory is located in a place where the minimum wage is far below the national average. It has 10,000 workers who make Converse sneakers. Most of the workers are women, and they earn only 50 cents an hour. The amount that they earn is not even enough to cover their food and very poor housing. In this factory, the women are both physically and verbally abused. Nike’s own investigations have proved these complaints to be true. The company made a statement saying that immediate actions would be taken to deal with the situation. It is interesting to note that, “an internal Nike report, released to the Associated Press after it inquired about the abuse, showed that nearly two-thirds of 168 factories making Converse products worldwide failed to meet Nike’s own standards for contract manufacturers. Twelve are in the most serious category, ranging from illegally long work hours to