Nike Response Essay

Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight started Nike Inc. in 1971, formally known as Blue Ribbon Sports. Bill Bowerman was a former track and field coach at the University of Oregon, and Phil Knight was a student-athlete at the University of Oregon. After numerous years of supplying under Blue Ribbon Sports, the two decided to enter the athletic shoe manufacturing business. The first employee of the company was Jeff Johnson, who helped them with branding what is known today as NIKE Inc.

Nike’s employment of the cultural relativism philosophical approach, used to justify ‘sweatshop’ labor practices in developing countries, had a detrimental effect on the reputation of the company. In 1998, Nike had to lay off staff amid lagging sales resulting from the backlash against the company. Today, Nike is recognized as the leader in athletic apparel, and one of the favorite brands among millennials and teens. A significant part of that success is attributed to the company’s dramatic change in social responsibility, initiated by its then CEO, Phil Knight, in 1998 (Lutz,

In my point of view Nike was responsible for compensating the workers in Honduras because of corporate social responsibility. Nike should be socially responsible to do the “right thing” before their corporation decided to closed down their factories in Honduras. The right thing such as established proper procedure for employees benefits for post-employment, implement appropriate compensation, and set-up a wide-operational meeting in helping the employees understand the reasons of the closure.

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).

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.

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

This paper will discuss the company Nike. Nike has had many ethical issues, which will be addressed. The ethical dilemmas that Nike faced will be evaluated under two ethical frameworks. The whistleblower part that was played in exposing Nike will be analyzed. This paper will evaluate whether Nike used marketing or public relations successfully when trying to repair the damage caused by the reported lapse in ethics.

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.

1. A decision to retain an in-house arm of agency Weiden & Kennedy by Nike exemplify the concept of organizational design by allowing Nike use the agency’s creative designers to focus solely on Nike work, giving them un-parallel access to executives, researchers and anyone else who might provide Nike advertisers with their next inspiration for marketing greatness before listening to any other organization. Having the agency in the building is having them at their disposal at anytime they need them and also the agency will have to consider them first incase of any new ad or good idea discovered by the agency or when Nike needs to salvage a problem with the help of the agency. Thus, the agency at their finger-tips serves great advantages

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 could have observed the ethical and social guidelines of how an organisation should be managed. They should not have hired minors under 16 to work. And instead of purchasing two shoe-manufacturing facilities in the United States, Nike could have just purchased one plant and see how their operations went before thinking about purchasing another plant. When the firm finally saw success in 1980, eight years after the company was founded, and became the largest athletic shoe company in the world, they could have finally purchased the shoe-manufacturing plants in the United States and it would probably have been a success, without having the need to subcontract factories and

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

Nike’s CEO’s and management made a decision to begin using sweatshop labor in order to save money and begin aggressive marketing. They used this aggressive marketing to have a one up on their competitors, in fact, Nike spent 280 million dollars alone on advertising in 1994 (Schwartz, 2000). Nike would give great athletes million dollar contracts to endorse and wear their clothing. For an example, Andre Agassi received 70 million dollars to endorse Nike's tennis clothing line. The choice to start aggressive marketing is the reason why Nike entered into this crisis and started making unethical decisions. Once the top management of Nike realized the profitability and popularity of hiring professional athletes to wear and endorse their clothes, regular advertising would not suffice. The company became greedy and were willing to use cheap abusive labor so that they could pay professional athletes millions of dollars (Schwartz, 2000).