Nike: the Sweatshop Debate Essay

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.).

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.

Conclusively Nike should be held responsible for its subcontractors. They are not completely responsible for this but they should be aware of it and as a influencial company they should impose what they call basic rights to their subcontractors and make sure that their rules are followed.

This criticism of Nike is not warranted because they have adopted numerous practices to change the working conditions of workers at subcontractor factories (Bixjournals.com, 2013). Although this article looks at the 25-year mark that began sweatshop reports, Nike continues to monitor and report on corporate responsibility (Nike, Inc., 2017). Nike led the charge in fair working conditions as many companies took advantage of lower labor costs overseas.

In the 1990s, Nike took a defensive position when confronted with the various labor, environmental, and occupation health problems found at their suppliers. Workers at these factories were not Nike employees, and thus Nike felt no responsibility toward them. In 1992, Nike formulated their Code of Conduct for is suppliers that required them to observe some basic labor, environmental, and health and safety standards. Nike required their footwear suppliers to adopt the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for indoor air quality. They also conducted training sessions with its suppliers as well as assembling a compliance staff that is based in 21 countries to monitor their

Clearly, Nike has the responsibility to hold suppliers to those conditions that prevail only in the supplying

Nike‘s vertical structure includes CEO Mark Parker and a board of directors chaired by co-founder Phil Knight. Although Nike has functional divisions and divisions based on specific products it is not a matrix organization. In a matrix organization, employees report to a functional and divisional manage. At Nike, employees report to the divisional manager and the president of each division reports directly to the CEO. Nike’s continued product innovation and successful marketing are due to the combination of functional and divisional organization using an operations department to insure communication between divisions. There is division of labor but it is not clearly identified. With a more pronounced division of labor and levels of direct supervision Nike can improve its

Nike products are sold in over 140 countries around the world and manufactured in 46 countries; over ninety percent of manufacturing is done in Asia alone (Connor, 2010). This wildly successful corporation took a drastic hit when the public began questioning how ethical Nike’s practices were in the early 1990’s. After years of consistent reports on low wages and poor working conditions, Nike established a department responsible for improving the lives of factory workers in 1996 (Nisen, 2013). However, many efforts made

This paper will examine how “NIKE Inc., came under scrutiny for various unethical practices, during its global expansion. The writer will further explain the impacts of the company strategy along with the company’s response to the situation. This paper will conclude with the author's opinion on the “NIKE” response of this case and the authors bias on the consequences of the company’s supposed action to recommendations made.

Nike is a company that is continually evolving with the people and society. Nike engages in public policy advocacy on a range of issues affecting their business, the industry and other areas of concern. They use their voice to advocate, promote and protect our business objectives with stakeholders around the world. Nike has developed its focus on six key public policy issues which are as follows: trade, tax and intellectual property, employment, supply chain, sustainability and sport. This is an international focus as their main goal is to be consistent across the board and across the market. Although this may seem simple, it can be quite complicated in some areas such as between trade and labor, or environmental standards, trade and poverty alleviation. It has taken numerous discussions, debates and rigorous education to try and establish consistency globally and to create a balance between different interests taking into account local, regional, global interests, and cultural and political dynamics. It requires that a strong stance is taken through internal and external consultation. (public policy and advocacy , 2015)

Nike is one of the most popular and successful footwear brands, and there are many manufacturing factories in different countries. In this case, it talks about Nike’s international labor practice between1980s to 1990s. At the beginning of the case, it mentions Nike started to attract teenagers’ attentions in 1970s, besides that, Nike’s revenue reached the first highest peak in 1980s by increasing not only the footwear styles but also the celebrity endorsements. With growing the global market of Nike, more and more independent factories were built in different countries, especially in some lower labor cost cities. Saving cost strategies of Nike are undeniable effective and can increase the revenue rapidly. The major strategy is to outsource all manufacturing for shaving the cost so that the marketing would have an enough capital to build unique and positive social media. For example, since the labor cost in U.S. is generally higher than most Asian countries, companies will try to set up or contract with some independent manufacturing in Asia. It can save the cost and help the company’s revenue, but Nike did not treat international labors fairly and well. There are many evidences from the case can reveal Nike’s poor labor practices, and the negative image of Nike’s international labor practice finally influenced the whole footwear market and even Media.

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 is one of those companies that has faced serious criticism from different stakeholders such as NGOs as well as Journalists which symbolizes the representation of the business in society. However, these stakeholders has criticized Nike on its poor handling on the issue

In his report of Nike’s suppliers, Young did not mention the serious health and safety issues at the plant.21 In short, more than simply another example of poor working conditions at one of Nike’s supplier’s plants, this episode called into question the company’s honesty about and commitment to labor and environmental/health standards. These three events, combined with the numerous others that were reported in the press, created a major public relations problem for Nike. (Appendix C traces the number of negative articles about Nike that appeared in major publications.) Increasingly, labor and environmental problems at Nike’s suppliers’ factories were becoming a major problem for Nike itself.At Nike shops. Nike’s Response: Learning to Become a Global Corporate