These workers state the “only thing they have is their work”. This statement suggests that without this work they would have a lower standard of living. Should we inflict western values on this society? Bring in the concepts of social responsibility, integrity and other business ethics practices.
In their documentary video “Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh” Jim Keady and Lelie Kretzu, the founders and directors of Educating For Justice exposes the corporate injustices perpetuated by Nike Inc., one of the world’s largest apparel company (TeamSweat, 2011). More precisely, the two researchers critically explore the working and living conditions of Nike’s employees in Indonesia. Although the firm employs over one hundred thousand Indonesian labourers, it pays the workers approximately $1.25 a day, an income that leads the employees to live in poor neighbourhoods with faulty basic amenities and drainage systems (TeamSweat, 2011). Surprisingly, most Indonesians working for Nike admit that they would have lower standards of living were it not for their job opportunities at the firm.
Although Nike Inc. has greatly reduced the unemployment rates in Indonesia and relatively enhanced the workers’ living conditions, the firm should inflict western values on the host society. Nike should ensure that Indonesian workers enjoy ethical values and social norms similar to the privileges awarded to factory workers in America and other western countries. In other words, companies such as Nike Inc. have a moral obligation to enhance the well-being of individuals in the society ( MGM Resorts International, 2015). Not only should the company increase its employees’ wages but also ensure the workers’ children go to school, and protect the environment. In line with business ethics practices, Nike should ensure community involvement. The company should show integrity by treating every person with respect, establishing and sustaining trust, and meeting the consumers’ moral code expectations.
Question 2
From Nike’s standpoint, is this a fair assessment of their ethical standards? Explain the some of the ethical issues that Nike is facing in the case.
From Nike’s standpoint, Keady and Kretzu’s assessment is not fair. As evidenced by the company’s Chief Executive Officer, Phil Knight, Nike Inc. has tried its level best to enhance the working and living conditions of its employees. According to the firm’s website, Nike Inc is committed to protecting the environment and the enterprise uses eco-friendly materials including recycled and organic polyester and cotton. Additionally, the CEO states that Nike is dedicated to women empowerment and animal welfare and thus deems Keady and Kretzu’s assessment as unfair. In the case, Keady and Kretzu (2011) accuse Nike Inc. of ethical issues including “violating everything on Catholic social teaching.” Contrary to the enterprise’s code of conduct that states ‘do the right thing,” Nike underpays its employees and subjects them to poor working and living conditions. The company forces employees to work for long hours at low compensation rates. Rebellious workers risk severe punishments ranging from mistreatments to death (Kretzu, 2011). The reporters accuse Nike Company of exploiting thousands of poor laborers yet it awards millions of dollars to celebrities such as Tiger Woods for endorsing its brand. A small fraction of stakeholders lives Porsche lives at the expense of thousands of Nike’s employees who live in deprived neighborhoods, share amenities such as bathrooms and kitchens, and have to skip a meal to afford medicine and other basic products. Overall, the primary ethical issue that Nike faces in the case is its emphasis on enhancing profits instead of social responsibility.
Question 3
Explain what Nike has done to improve this situation since this 2011 video. Include the use of codes of ethics and other ethical standards implemented within the organization
After years of protests following Keady and Kretzu’s research in 2011, Nike Company has implemented several changes aimed at solving its ethical issues. Firstly, the CEO Phil Knight took responsibility for the firm’s unethical practices and pledged to make substantial changes. Secondly, the company increased the minimum wage from $1.25 to $3.50 (Nisen, 2013). Thirdly, Nike restated its commitments to the guidelines of Fair Labour Association, which recommends employees to work for eight hours and receive meaningful compensation after working for extra hours. Also, the company increased the minimum age of workers as a strategy of reducing likelihood of child labour. Fourthly, the enterprise has increased the number of annual factory audits to 600 to eradicate unethical practices (Nisen, 2013). Finally, the primary principle of Nike’s code of ethics is “doing the right thing.” The code guides the behaviour of all Nike’s stakeholders including suppliers and senior and junior employees.
Question 4
Is your opinion of Nike any different now after viewing this video? Would this change your buying behaviour with respect to Nike products?
Admittedly, the video “Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh” by Jim Keady and Lelie Kretzu has changed my perception about Nike Inc. For years, I have considered Nike to be an influential global company in the sports and athlete apparel sector. As a result, I purchased a number of products from the company ranging from shoes, sweatshirts, pants, and smartwatches. I assumed that by purchasing from Nike Inc. I was not only buying quality products but also helping the company’s thousands of employees. However, following Keady and Kretzu’s video, I am disappointed by Nike’s unethical practices and the exploitations of thousands of Indonesian workers. Consequently, I am no longer confident in purchasing products from the brand. Additionally, I am willing to petition against Nike as well as inform my friends of the company’s unethical practices via social media platforms. As Van Buren III & Greenwood (2013) state, it is uncouth for any company to make millions of dollars in profit yet fail to ensure friendly working and living conditions for the employees.
References
MGM Resorts International. (2015). MGM Resorts named one of America's most reputable companies for corporate social responsibility by Reputation Institute. Entertainment & Travel. Retrieved from < https://search-proquestcom.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/1718100980?accountid=33337>
Nisen, M. (2013). How Nike solved its sweatshop problem. Business Insider, 9 (1) 2-7.
TeamSweat. (2011, Jul 28). Nike Sweatshops: Behind the Swoosh [Video File]. Retrieved from < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5uYCWVfuPQ>
Van Buren III, H. J., & Greenwood, M. (2013). The genesis of employment ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 707-719.
