Xczc

As such, it applied cultural relativism to justify the use of child labor, unsafe labor practices, and near slave labor in its factories. Since then, Nike has been a driving force to ensure fair labor practices across the apparel industry. In 1999, Nike was a key contributor to the establishment of the Fair Labor Association, an organization that is “…dedicated to protecting workers’ rights around the world” (Fair Labor Association, 2016). Today, Nike continues efforts to ensure that contract factories comply with its Code of Conduct to improve labor standards in overseas factories (Nike, 2016). Because of Nike’s efforts to expand and enforce social responsibility at its factories and given the lessons learned from its sordid past, it is unlikely that Nike would resort to any of the straw men fallacies. However, given the pressure by investors to expect solid returns, one hopes the company continues its altruistic social responsibility efforts while veering away from the Friedman Doctrine and its assertion that “… the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Hill, 2011).

Children who work in factories and sweatshops to make rugs or clothing do not receive the proper education that is necessary for them to advance their level of employment. This can lead them to a constant level of class where they do increase their profits and live uncomfortable and unfortunate lifestyles. These children are receiving very little if any education to produce items at very low wages in environments that are unenjoyable and unethical. The terrible working conditions which can consist of massive heat, large amount of infestation, or unsafe equipment can not only causes harm or illness, but can eventually lead to death. There are no children in the world who would want to work in an environment that can end their life at any given moment due to improper safety regulations. It is unfortunate that individuals who purchase the goods that these children produce such as cell phones, laptops, carpet, and clothing are unintentionally providing these children with their low wages of sub one dollar an hour. However this often occurs because of a lack of knowledge people have regarding child labor around the world. Also the endorsements that these major companies have by athletic programs at both the professional and collegiate levels such as the NBA and Washington State University reach such a large population of viewers that individuals feel it is good to buy these products. Unintentionally there are millions of supporters who buy sport jerseys and Samsung Galaxy phones who provide these companies with the money that they pay children, rather than working together to boycott them in order to damage their pockets. It is a lack of education and knowledge that several non-profit organizations are working on providing to not only the consumer but also to the children who are being affected worldwide. The

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

"Public Disclosure of the Sweatshop Practices of American Multinational Garment/Shoe Makers/Retailers: Impacts on Their Stock Prices." Competition & Change, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 2003, p. 23. EBSCOhost, cucproxy.cuchicago.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s8419239&db=bsh&AN=10077067&site=ehost-live. The article gives details about the anti-sweatshop movement such as the time it started in the 1990’to where the movements affected. The article contains a list of the specific occurrences of what happened at a retail store whether negative or positive to demonstrate the change caused by movements and legal action. There were many political involvements when discussing sweatshops such as the Clinton administration creating apparel partnerships to combat the conditions of sweatshops. There are also stockholders introducing no sweat labor codes that ultimately help not only the workers in sweatshops but the stockholders as well. There is the introduction of specific store names such as Walmart as well as the countries affected by the stores being named to target the emotional view of the public. The article discusses and mentions all the positive effects that movements and social action have created as well as the cause of laws that help prevent abuse at such a large scale to continue to

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

Furthermore, Jeffcott proves his point of view by mentioning important brands such as Nike who certainly become a part of the sweatshop abuse for their employees. He then mentions a way in which all the readers can stop

Activists say that global clothing brands like Tommy Hilfiger and the Gap and those sold by Walmart need to take responsibility for the working conditions in Bangladeshi factories that produce their clothes."

of a company by refusing to buy its products or services. The purpose of the boycott is not only to

Nike, Victoria’s Secret, GAP, Levis, Nordstrom, Calvin Klein. Other than their status as large fashion retailers, they all have one thing in common: the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation condemns their use of overseas sweatshops. Goods manufactured in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and many other Asian and African countries are often made in less-than-ideal conditions for low wages. While opponents of overseas labor champion stricter trading laws, this form of supply-and-demand economics remains a vital part of the global economy, as it enables prices to remain low in developed countries and employs many individuals in distant, poorer areas.

On an everyday premise, their representatives work extended periods under horrendous conditions for a little aggregate of cash (Hase, 2013). Nike has without any help brought down the human rights norms for the sole motivation behind amplifying benefits. Also, Nike items have turned out to be synonymous with slave compensation, constrained additional time, and subjective mishandle (Wilsey, & Lichtig,2012). Other than the uncalled for wages, Nike always manhandles their laborers in unbelievable ways.

In reviewing the case for module three on Mattel I couldn’t help but notice how similar a case study this was to another multinational corporation (MNC). That corporation is Nike. It seems that around the time I was entering my teenage years more and more corporations where being placed under this microscope. This was a direct correlation of globalization. Every industry leader has gone through this as a result of being a industry leader and a trailblazer in globalization; Wal-mart in retail, Nike in shoes and Mattel in toys. Still, in all investigative coverage there is the one that rips the lid of and sheds light on a world we couldn’t have imagined and have never seen.

In this video I learned incredible amounts of information about the Nike brand and how they run their factories. The video itself contained information about how two people, Jim Keady and Leslie Kretzu, flew to Indonesia to live off a factory worker’s wages in an attempt to inform people how inhumane the workers are forced to live. They experienced the physical as well as the mental issues involved with living on a worker’s wages. After paying for fee such as housing, water, and basic human amenities they were left with barely enough food for two meals and a drink. If they wanted or needed anything aside from the two meals and a drink then they would have to sacrifice one or more of their meals in order to attain such objects. The two people themselves had experienced such an issue when Leslie Kretzu became ill and in need of medicine as well as when Jim Keady decided to buy a small amount of shaving cream and one razor. Leslie Kretzu would have had to starve for the rest of the day if she was to buy an aspirin and a small juice in order to gain some nutrients. Jim Keady had to sacrifice three meals throughout his week due to the fact that he decided to buy the shaving cream and the individual razor. Throughout the experience, the two individuals lost a tremendous amount of weight as well as been depleted of energy and motivation. Eventually they tried to enter into a Nike factory and they were denied

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 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.