Both Jeff Ballinger and Nike both have biased approaches to business and are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Nike is a corporation that considers itself not responsible for its contractors and treatment of its workers and has little regard for CSR. Ballinger on the other end is a crusader for closing the gap for low paid worker’s wages and holds corporations responsible for CRS.
In order to decide whether Jeff Balllinger has a convincing argument we need to understand his passion, beliefs and credibility.
Ballinger’s passion: Ballinger was personally concerned about the gap between wage rates in both developed/developing worlds and the opportunities this gap created for developed countries to exploit low-wage that do not have access to political connections. Jeff Balinger’s passionate argument is that “any company has a significant obligation towards even its lowliest worker” (Spa, 4).
Ballinger’s beliefs: Ballinger believed Nike contractors in particular were the one’s not following Indonesian labor laws and paying below means wages. Balinger believed, that Nike’s basis of cost fostered and encouraged contractors to mistreat their workers due to unrealistic Nike quotas.
Ballinger’s …show more content…
Nike flat out denied any obligation, and separated itself from its subcontractors, considering the low wages and mistreatment of workers neither its issue nor responsibility. But Nike did understand that the wages were considered severe and would be a potential problem in the future. Nike reacted with a responsive CSR and by creating new “Codes of Conduct” and a “Memorandum of Understandings” with its contractors that gave provisions for seven aspects of working conditions, safety conditions, environment regulations, and workers’ insurance. This document outlined Nike’s principles of respect, honesty, and nondiscrimination (Spar
In order to decide whether Jeff Balllinger has a convincing argument we need to understand his passion, beliefs and credibility.
Ballinger’s passion: Ballinger was personally concerned about the gap between wage rates in both developed/developing worlds and the opportunities this gap created for developed countries to exploit low-wage that do not have access to political connections. Jeff Balinger’s passionate argument is that “any company has a significant obligation towards even its lowliest worker” (Spa, 4).
Ballinger’s beliefs: Ballinger believed Nike contractors in particular were the one’s not following Indonesian labor laws and paying below means wages. Balinger believed, that Nike’s basis of cost fostered and encouraged contractors to mistreat their workers due to unrealistic Nike quotas.
Ballinger’s …show more content…
Nike flat out denied any obligation, and separated itself from its subcontractors, considering the low wages and mistreatment of workers neither its issue nor responsibility. But Nike did understand that the wages were considered severe and would be a potential problem in the future. Nike reacted with a responsive CSR and by creating new “Codes of Conduct” and a “Memorandum of Understandings” with its contractors that gave provisions for seven aspects of working conditions, safety conditions, environment regulations, and workers’ insurance. This document outlined Nike’s principles of respect, honesty, and nondiscrimination (Spar