Nike Case Analysis With the increased monitoring and enforcement of labour practices; Nike being in the public spotlight and subject to negative publicity on their subcontracted factories is forced to readjust the working conditions of their cross ocean factory workers to abide with proper regulations. This has caused Nike to modify their factory standards and employee working conditions by; limiting the maximum hours worked a week, implementing proper ventilation systems to filter out toxic fumes, increase worker access to protective equipment, and increase the capacity of medical facilities and medical staff for their workers. Another area of concern is the discrepancy of differences in East Asian worker regulations and wages compared to the North American standards. Much speculation has gone toward attacking Nike for their blatant disregard of American labour ethics, but Nike is having difficulty explaining their justification of meeting offshore requirements. For example, the legal age in Indonesia was 14, an age at which compulsory Schooling has ended. Nike was criticized for apparently having girls at this age working in their factories (which wasn’t true), and was shunned for inhuman labour practices according to American standards. Economical Analysis Nike’s Asian operations had previously continued to soar generating US$300 million in 1994 in revenues to a whopping US$1.2 billion in 1997. However based on the Asian economic crisis, this had adversely affected revenues, while regional layoffs were inevitable. Nike also performed well in the European market generating about US$2 billion in sales and a good growth momentum was expected, however, some parts of Europe were only slowly recovering from an economic downturn. In the Americas (Canada and the U.S.A.), Nike experienced a growth rate for several quarters. The U.S. alone generated approximately US$5 billion in sales. The Latin American market at this point was exposed to economic volatility; however Nike still saw them as a market with “great potential for the future”. Social Analysis With the increasing awareness and publicity of poor working conditions in subcontracted factories in East Asia, Nike has stimulated an uprising of activist and watchdog groups working toward seeing these conditions changed. With Nike in the negative spotlight, various organizations have revolved around generating a negative outlook on Nike’s practices of social irresponsibility. Certain campaigns such as the “National Days of Consciousness” and “International Day of Protest” were organized to educate people on the deplorable working conditions in Nike’s Asian manufacturing plants, and were designed to get more people involved in global employment issues.
The first reason why it should be a matter of a concern to Green Plc is that the workers are underpaid and are forced to be in a harsh working condition. To illustrate this issue, Nike factory workers in Tangerang, Indonesia were paid basic wage of 1,250,000 rupiah (73.94 pounds) and this
Corporations in the United States have proved time and time again that they are all about profit and not about what is good for America. One example of this is the fact that many corporations have factories in other countries, or buy from other corporations that do. Nike (an athletic shoe and clothing company) produces most of their shoes and apparel in factories in other countries, including Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, China, Vietnam and Malaysia. According to Nike’s factory disclosure list released May 2011, only 49 of it’s over 700 factories are located in the U.S. (Nike, Inc.) This means that thousands of jobs that could be filled by needy Americans are instead being filled by workers in other countries. This reason that Nike and other corporations outsource is very simple, it is very cheap to do so. In an excerpt from Jeffrey St. Clair's book “Born Under a Bad Sky” the author describes the vast differences between Nike’s production costs and retail prices. “In Vietnam, it costs Nike only $1.50 to manufactu...
Many people in our society today are constantly asking, "Why do sweatshops exist?" The answer to this question is that companies like Nike and Wal-Mart use sweatshops to produce their goods for a much cheaper rate, to reduce the cost of their products. The problem with sweatshops is that the workers are subject to hard work in often times poor conditions for minimal pay. But although many people may condemn sweatshops, there are some advantages that many people overlook when arguing against sweatshops and their practices.
Nike has been under a great deal of pressure to correct the misdoings that have been done regarding production facilities in the East. As Nike is responsible for these plants, their reputation has been tainted with increasing public debate about ethical matters. While Nike still promotes itself as one of the industry leaders in corporate social responsibility, workers in Asia are still forced to work excessively long hours in substandard environments and are not paid enough to meet the basic needs for themselves or their families. They are faced to a life of poverty and are unfortunate subjects to harassment and violent threats if they make any attempt to form unions or tell journalists about labour abuses in their factories. Phil Knight’s speech regarding Nike’s steps to improving human rights in Asian countries was a step in the right direction for Nike, but it would have been much more effective had Nike fully followed through with these initiatives.
Only a week earlier, on June 28, 2001, Nike had held an analysts' meeting to disclose its fiscal-year 2001 results.1 The meeting, however, had another purpose: Nike management wanted to communicate a strategy for revitalizing the company. Since 1997, its revenues had plateaued at around $9 billion, while net income had fallen from almost $800 million to $580 million (see Exhibit 1). Nike's market share in U.S. athletic shoes had fallen from 48%, in 1997, to 42% in 2000.2 In addition, recent supply-chain issues and the adverse effect of a strong dollar had negatively affected revenue.
... ethics? Well, the honest answer would be to eliminate the sweatshops completely. This is unlikely because it would be very difficult for a company with such a broad reach in the corporate world to shut down its factories overseas. Companies will always continue to exploit lower wages as long as the opportunity is present. A possible way would be to improve their employee surroundings. Since Nike is benefiting from low wages, they should at least provide a safer working environment for its employees. No employee should ever be put at risk due to a lack of environmental awareness. Nike should also pay attention to wage laws that govern the area that they manufacture in. With all the profits Nike earns, it couldn’t possibly hurt them to pay their employees no less than minimum wage. Otherwise, any company that possesses such blatant greed will not last in the long run.
Everyone loves his or her new set of Nike apparel. In fact, Nike can be found on the bodies of many athletic team members. Why would such a prosperous and well-known company rely on the exploitation of child slave labor? It all started when CEO Philip Knight came up with a "brilliant idea": put shoe factories in Asia, paying the workers pennies on the dollar, and raking in immense profits. Nike can easily afford to pay workers a fair amount. One can see that this is the antithesis of Nike's philosophy: doing what's fair. Workers in Nike sweatshops are denied human rights, pressured into working long and hard hours, and worst of all can't provide for themselves or their families. It's ironic how an American company, which enjoys the rights given to it by the American government, takes away human rights in other countries.
In June of 1996, Life magazine published a article about Nike’s child labor that was occurring in Pakistan. The article showed a little boy who was surrounded by pieces of Nike sports gear. The articles were shoes and soccer balls. Nike then knew then that they had to make some major changes in the way they were producing their items.
First, we want Nike to play a role in effecting positive, systemic change in working conditions within our industries. If our efforts lead to a workplace oasis -- one solitary and shining example in a desert of poor conditions -- then we’ve not succeeded. Even if that single shining example were to exist (and we’re not claiming it does), we’ve learned that positive changes won’t last unless the landscape changes. Our challenge is to work with the industry and our contract manufacturers to collectively address these systemic non-compliance issues that our data so highlight. This is one of the key reasons we made the decision to disclose our supply base; we believe this could encourage other companies to do the same. Our belief is that in disclosing, the industry will find ways to better share knowledge and learnings. This, in turn, will facilitate the building of further partnership approaches that are built on best practice and gradually lead us to standard codes, standard approaches to monitoring, standard reporting and standard parameters for transparency. It’s our belief that for market forces to enable responsible competitiveness, consumers must be able to reward brands and suppliers using fact-based information. Compliance efforts need to be optimized, made affordable and demonstrate real return if better working conditions are to become widespread. Disclosure of our supply chain is done in an effort to jump-start disclosure and collaboration throughout the industry and support efforts towards that final goal of market forces, providing the tipping point for the mainstreaming of best practice.
Nike does not merely sell products these days. They spend billions of dollars for advertising contracts with famous athletes like Tiger Woods to increase the value of the brand by associating the factor of lifestyle to their products. The company's image has been damaged many times by press releases as well as a variety of NGOs who have long pointed out the inhumane working conditions in the production facilities of sporting goods manufacturers. This leads to the question whether should Nike orientate the regulations of the suppliers to the labor standards in their respective countries or those in the United States? The labor conditions are so inhumane that Nike at least should try to converse to the US standard to improve the situation. The following analysis of an abstract of Nikes’ Responsibility Concept, including SHAPE and their Code of Conduct, should give an insight into the difficulties of the Sweatshops.
Nike has suffered attacks from a number of agencies and organizations throughout the world that claim that the workers who manufacture Nike shoes are denied the basic essentials of living—a fair wage and decent benefits. All that occurs while several sport megastars are reaping in multimillion dollar contracts to promote Nike shoes. Over the years, Nike formulated tactics to deal with the problems of working conditions and compensation in subcontractors. It hired a strong consultant (Andrew Young), commissioned an independent audit of its subcontractors, and spelled out initiatives to improve those working conditions. Still, Nike’s critics were not satisfied. They protested on university campuses and accused Nike of continuing to hide the conditions of workers.
As we can see in the essay, “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg, the globalization of companies like Nike isn’t all bad. There is some positive light to it, for example, the fact that workers are finally making enough money to live a decent life and send their children to school. In addition to this, workers are guaranteed jobs and don’t have to endure the tough labor of working on farms in the harsh weather conditions. So from these effects we can conclude that the globalization of Nike in third world countries like Nike isn’t a disadvantage to these workers, in fact it serves as an advantage.
The reason that I reach these judgments, for the most unethical decision, Nike lacks of social responsibilities in term of both legal and ethical responsibilities. Although, there were some people agree with sweatshops because it was better than the firm leaves the workers, it was the best of the workers’ only bad options or it was a path from poverty to greater wealth, but if at least Nike improved their workers working standards, it would help to better increase their quality of lives.
Nike American Sportswear generated revenue of 7495 million US dollars in 2014, which was almost double of 2009 revenue of Nike Sportswear (Statista, 2015).The sales of (Athletic) Sportswear of Nike 90 million US dollars, however, the sale of Adidas Sportswear (Competitor of Nike) was 25 million US dollars, which was not even one third of Nike Sportswear sales (Statista, 2015).Nonetheless, the return on assets and equity are 13.41% and 26.43% respectively (Yahoo Finanace, 2015).
Pittman, B. (2012, September 14). Nike sweatshop history: Should action be taken?. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/americanlaborcrises/labor-crises/nike-sweatshop-action