Nike Case
1. Write a brief synopsis of the Nike case.
In the 1990’s, Nike, a well-known shoe company, came under intense fire for claims of labor issues stemming from wages to working conditions to child exploitation. Years of bad publicity plagued the company, including bouts with the media and even celebrities. Nike’s initial response was to deny and defend its company name. The activists continued to pursue to the point that Nike is forced to face its criticism head on.
2. What charges have Jeff Ballinger and others levied against Nike? What is the evidence?
Early 90’s: Nike contractors, in particular, he believed, were regularly flouting Indonesian labor laws and paying below-subsistence wages that did not enable workers to meet their daily requirements for food and other necessities. Additionally, working conditions were unfavorable.
1993: CBS Interviewed workers claiming to only make 19 cents an hour and needed special permission to leave the plant any other time then their Sunday off day.
1996: Kathie Lee Gifford realized her clothing line was manufactured by children. (Not directly related to Nike, but timely amidst the rising incidence of labor activist discussion)
3. How well has Nike responded?
Early 90’s: Nike’s initial response was to not take responsibility. They could not control the working conditions or wages in the countries they found themselves in. “Nike’s company line on the issue was clear and stubborn: without an in-house manufacturing facility, the company simply could not be held responsible for the actions of independent contractors.”
1992-1996: Continued avoidance from Nike on addressing the issues. “…draft a series of regulations for its contractors” “addressed seven different aspects of working conditions”, Michael Jordan refused to take ownership and Nike refused to let Jesse Jackson tour its plant
1996: Nike established labor practices department
Late 90’s: government got involved to develop AIP (apparel
In the 1990’s, Nike, a well-known shoe company, came under intense fire for claims of labor issues stemming from wages to working conditions to child exploitation. Years of bad publicity plagued the company, including bouts with the media and even celebrities. Nike’s initial response was to deny and defend its company name. The activists continued to pursue to the point that Nike is forced to face its criticism head on.
2. What charges have Jeff Ballinger and others levied against Nike? What is the evidence?
Early 90’s: Nike contractors, in particular, he believed, were regularly flouting Indonesian labor laws and paying below-subsistence wages that did not enable workers to meet their daily requirements for food and other necessities. Additionally, working conditions were unfavorable.
1993: CBS Interviewed workers claiming to only make 19 cents an hour and needed special permission to leave the plant any other time then their Sunday off day.
1996: Kathie Lee Gifford realized her clothing line was manufactured by children. (Not directly related to Nike, but timely amidst the rising incidence of labor activist discussion)
3. How well has Nike responded?
Early 90’s: Nike’s initial response was to not take responsibility. They could not control the working conditions or wages in the countries they found themselves in. “Nike’s company line on the issue was clear and stubborn: without an in-house manufacturing facility, the company simply could not be held responsible for the actions of independent contractors.”
1992-1996: Continued avoidance from Nike on addressing the issues. “…draft a series of regulations for its contractors” “addressed seven different aspects of working conditions”, Michael Jordan refused to take ownership and Nike refused to let Jesse Jackson tour its plant
1996: Nike established labor practices department
Late 90’s: government got involved to develop AIP (apparel