Nike Case Analysis

Nike Case A-5

In the nike case discussed in the book, Andrew Young a congressional representative, was sent to inspect fifteen nike factories around the world. He claimed they were doing a good job and treating workers fairly. Though workers across seas were kept in crowded dorms and paid very low income, the claim this was subsistence wages in those cultures. Nike joined a presidential task force to banish sweatshops. This would put overseas worker rights on U.S companies manufacturing in other nations, limiting work hours to a maximum of 60 hours and called for paying at least the local minimum wage in foreign factories. The FLA was established to make sure these guidelines were being followed. The FLA would monitor companies such as Nike, Reebok, and Levi Strauss. After some factories refused to comply with these rules, Nike terminated its relationships with these factories to show that they were against the use of sweatshops.

On may 12th 1998 Phil Knight gave out a series of initiatives to improve the working conditions for the 500,000 people that made products for Nike. Nike changed the ages needed to work in the factories on certain products, Factory audits would happen more frequently to assure the working conditions, and exposure levels to chemicals are mandated and kept to a certain level to insure employees health. Still Nike was being criticized for their overseas operations, saying that the minimum wage was still extremely to low and that all these other supposed improvements were "Just a way around the bush" to avoid its real problems. The critics claim the current strategy to reshape its public image was just a way to avoid what little possible change was happening for their workers. The auditors that were put into place for Nike supposedly were not well trained for their jobs and auditors were getting incomplete reports done on the factories. Criticism of how Nike handles their overseas operations is still going on and will probably continue on forever until they pull out of the country completely. There are report that workers are being intimidated about speaking out about the abuse and working conditions

-Case Questions:

1. Should Nike be held responsible for the working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where subcontractors make products for nike? In my opinion they can't have total control over it,

considering its not actually there company producing the products and it is a subcontractor. The best

nike can do is threaten to have them change the work conditions or pull their products from those

factories, of course