Nike Controversy

Nike sought to take advantage of a supposed opportunity to use overseas sweatshop workers in Asia in order to manufacture their overpriced

(and poor quality) shoes. Even though I have only bought Nike after this situation was rectified, every pair I have bought has never lasted more than a month, so I refuse to buy them anymore. I had never bought them before because of this controversy, but thought maybe I would try them to see how they hold up to other shoes. Maybe I’m just hard on shoes, or maybe it’s because I have wide feet, however, I think that shoes should last longer than a month! Nike, like other companies, was looking to earn a profit, and despite having a record of exemplary work conditions, saw contracts overseas that would save them a lot of

money

Nike is based in the United States, and moving their manufacturing processes overseas presented both Nike and their contractors with an opportunity to save a lot of money and undercut their competitors, however, this strategy also took advantage of poor people (especially women) in a nation with strict limits on environment and health hazards that did little to enforce them until these events came to light.

Nike saw the media impact that was occurring in 1997, and removed Toluene from their shoe glue in order to improve the working conditions in their factories while improving wages, health conditions and access to care.

Nike also presented a goal of eliminating manufacturing waste by 2020.

I believe they handled the problem somewhat effectively because they were able to obtain majority market share as well as reducing costs, and ultimately were able to restore their public image after this so called hiccup; however, there may have been more efficient ways to obtain this market share. I am on the fence about automation; it drastically reduces costs while improving quality, accuracy,