Nike: From Sweatshops to Leadership in Employment Practices

A Case Study: BUAD 560

Nike, one of the world leaders in sports shoes and apparel, has certainly had its share of ups and downs in the 40 year history of the company.  After decades of incredible growth from a small organization to a worldwide leader in its industry, it fell under scrutiny for its questionable ethical decisions, but has weathered the storm and enhanced and strengthened its brand and its commitment to corporate responsibility.

What were Nike’s mistakes in handling the negative publicity?

        Nike made several mistakes in handling the negative publicity, but first and foremost was the decision to ignore it.  As the study indicates, “the initial reactions of Nike officials to specific criticisms was to ignore them, the rationale being that they did not own the factories and were therefore not responsible for labor and human rights violations.”  While this specific response may have worked for Nike on other issues, it certainly is a poor response to issues involving labor and human rights.  

Second, in light of the allegations against Nike, the company chose to respond reactively rather than proactively.  Rather than addressing the allegations immediately and explaining how they were taking steps to prevent future misconduct, the company instead chose to try and detract attention from the real issues and claimed that the problems “had to do with public relations rather than actual factory conditions,” which is effectively an attempt to blame others for their issues rather than addressing them.  In doing so, Nike set a precedent of waiting to admit problems until they had become too large to continue ignoring, which became evident in their response to the lawsuit filed by Marc Kasky.

Join now!

Finally, by not enforcing pre-established rules, Nike in essence chose to condone the behaviors that they were aware of.  As the study indicates, while Nike had in fact followed suit with others in their industry by developing a code of conduct in 1992, “in theory, suppliers were required to sign the code of conduct and display it in their factories, but this was not enforced.”  The lack of enforcement of this code of conduct indicates that Nike was more concerned about their profits than they were about their social responsibilities at that time.

Discuss the intent of their ...

This is a preview of the whole essay