What Are The Ethical Ethics Of Nike

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.

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

Nike places more importance on choosing the right local partners, not just the right ports. Nike doesn’t own any of its facilities, and local partners make important logistics decisions (Field, 2003a). To manage relationships, Nike has both a global and regional vendor management team – as output volume increases, Nike don’t expand the number of suppliers, but increase the volume of business they do with each supplier (Field, 2003a).

Nike is one of the world’s largest producers, marketers, and sellers of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessories. The company manufactures Nike products in 142 factories across 15 countries. Most of its product is manufactured in foreign nations, including Vietnam, China, and Indonesia, followed by Argentina, India, Brazil, and Mexico (Nike, 2016). In 1991, activist Jeff Balling raised national concern over Nike’s business practices in Indonesia. In a Harper’s Bazaar expose in 1992, Balling called out Nike for using an Indonesian subcontractor who paid workers 14 cents an hour, while working in dismal factory conditions. The report created a near-immediate backlash against Nike, which continued until 1998, when Nike CEO,

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

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.

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.

Many times, greed and the want of fast progress, cloud a company’s judgement. They do not think about all the small aspects it takes to get it. In the case of Nike, the objective was to keep costs of production as low as possible to make a large of as a profit as they could. With globalization on their side, Nike was able to “shop” around and look into using oversea

Nike took advantage of that and disregarded that the people making their products at an extremely low price were actually humans. It was ethically wrong for Nike to not see those employees as actual people but saw them as a machine that produced products. They did not care to see how being underpaid affected a person’s family. They also did not see that children were working to support families and continued to work in terrible health conditions because they needed the money no matter the environment. The biggest issue was that the company had a total disregard for human life.

During the late 80s and early 90s Nike was faced with a series of labor strike back at home due to unethical labor practices by its independent countries in third world countries. It is well known for Nike to outsource almost all its production from third world countries at cheap prices and sell them in U.S. market at an abnormal profit. The company began outsourcing its products from Japan where labor was competent and wages were very low. The living standards were raised which prompted Nike to outsource its products from Thailand, Pakistan and Indonesia since wages in these countries were extremely low and labor for these products were competent due to rapid development of the Japanese economy. The outsourcing of footwear products from Asian countries enables Nike to earn high profits and enjoy a competitive advantage over its rivals in the footwear industry. The company invests the high profits realized in marketing its products through celebrities. For instance, Michael Jordan was used to advertise the positive image of Nike Company (Lipschutz and James, pp. 87-96).

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.

This paper describes the legal, cultural, and ethical challenges that confronted the global business presented in the Nike sweatshop debate case study. The paper determines the various roles that the Vietnamese government played in this global business operation. This paper summarizes the strategic and operational challenges facing global managers illustrated in the Nike sweatshop case.

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.

The purpose and intent of this paper is to describe the legal, cultural, and ethical challenges that face the Nike Corporation in their global business ventures. This paper will also touch on the roles of the host government and countries where Nike manufactures their products and the author will summarize the strategic and operational challenges that Nike managers face in globalization of the Nike product.