Nike case study

Nike: The Sweatshop Debate

1. Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where subcontractors make products for Nike?

DespiteNike is not the owner of the factories, their products are being processed there. So, as a known brand, they should care about working conditions because to be a big company is always risky and ifsomething related with them is going wrong although it is not their fault, it is going to affect them and all eyes will be on them.

Also Nike should have a well established policy about theirsubcontractors; they should accomplish some requirements according to the human resources (employees), the environment, etc. and not only thing in reducing cost.

2. What labor standards regardingsafety, working conditions, overtime, and the like, should Nike hold foreign factories to: Those prevailing in that country or those prevailing in the United States?

The fair answer should be theone prevailing in the host country because it is for all companies including Nike; but as a known company, Nike, should give a little more than the standards in the host country, it is a thing ofimage or “publicity” of the company.

In addition, improving safety, working conditions, overtime, etc. helps to be more productive and efficient because workers have motivations to do thingsbetter.

3. In Indonesia, an income of $2.28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers, is double the daily income of about half the working population. Half of all adults in Indonesia are farmers,who receive less than $1 a day. Given these additional standards, it is appropriate to criticize Nike for the low pay rates of its subcontractors in Indonesia?

I think that Nike’s subcontractormade use of that data to engage workers that they were going to receive double pay than working on farms. But the working conditions are not better.

To take advantage of that information...