Essay about Nike: The Sweatshop Debate

The factories are also known for providing very poor living arrangements for the workers to live in through the extent of their contracts. There has been evidence found of individuals being forced to live in extremely overcrowded and dirty quarters with poor bathroom facilities. Workers and organizations all around the world have tried to push the Nike corporation to put a stop to these sweatshops, but none has prevailed. In some of the factories that Nike owns, the workers have attempted to form a union to protest the conditions of their contract, but they have never succeeded. The Nike corporations fight the unions by shutting down the factories and relocating the jobs to a different non-unionized factory (Bain). Nike has been criticized ever since the start for allowing these conditions to continue, and to this day, this problem is still

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).

Legally the company has done no wrong doing, and the types of environments that these sweatshops are located in are normal within the countries cultures. The main issue in this case is the ethical responsibility of Nike to ensure that the workers work in humane work environments, and are paid wages that they are able to survive on (Vann, n.d.).

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

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.

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).

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.

If I were dealing with the same issues that Nike experienced, I would have probably done the same thing that they did. The need to get the suppliers and factories to adhere to save and fair treatment of the employees along with a decent wage would be my first priority. To openly talk to the press, customers or whoever would listen and inform then that yes, the ball was dropped and we have problems, but we are working on correcting the problems and then outline the steps that were being taken to resolve the issues. I grew up in Oregon and have heard numerous times how the company started. I know people who work in the corporate office and Nike treats their employees in the United States very good.

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, the world’s largest and leading innovator in athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment, is considered to be the quintessential global corporation. The company was founded in 1972 by Phil Knight, a former track star from the University of Oregon. Their company logo, “Just Do It”, has become one of the most recognizable marketing phrases throughout the world as well as their celebrity sponsors, which include Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, are also some of the most recognizable athletes. In 2006, Nike employed an estimated 650,000 people in 600 different factories scattered throughout the globe and had an annual revenue of

Nike would have known the right factories to outsource to instead of using factories that fail to meet their standards.

Instead of spending millions of dollars on their workers, who are the backbones of making the actual shoes, they are spending it on their advertisements to promote their company. I realize that advertisement is essential to the success of a product, but it should not be at the cost of another human being to make a profit. I know that Nike is just one of thousands of companies that have taken their labor overseas, so that the product can be made at a fraction of its cost. Unfortunately the public sees Nike as a company whose product is worn by the rich and famous, therefore it is something that they would want for themselves. We the consumer enable them to continue this kind of business, because we buy the product. Through global media, we the public are becoming more aware of this kind of exploitation of workers. Overall, I think there is no pride to be found in companies that exploit their employees at the cost of a better profit for themselves. Awareness is going to be the key to hopefully fix it in the near

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

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