1: Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where subcontractors make products for Nike?
Ans: Nike should be held responsible for its subcontractors, as it is operating in countries which lower its costs and increasing its profit. Nike should be accountable, as they are huge firm which holds considerable international authority and when making the contract it holds the final decision, as they can find other subcontractors, so Nike should be able to specify what kinds of working conditions it should have and not have in the factories and it is possible they might not have much influence in the foreign country but I am sure they can specify working conditions that are acceptable by …show more content…
What labor standards regarding safety, working conditions, overtime, and the like, should Nike hold foreign factories to: those prevailing in that country or those prevailing in the United States?
Ans: Labor standards regarding working at job are different everywhere and Nike is operating in foreign countries because it wants lower labor standards such as lower wage, more working hours and other conditions etc., so that it can grow and make more profit. So I think it should use conditions from the local country but if the conditions are too low Nike should improve on them such as giving higher minimum wage, better working environment and safety etc and conditions that are more accepted by the public, which will improve its image and reputation in the world.
3: An income of $2.28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers in Indonesia, 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 this is it correct to criticize Nike for the low pay rates of its subcontractors In …show more content…
Such as: having to care for their living cost, rent, food, clothing and health, so the minimum the workers should get is at least $4 day. Other than that there is also the issue of problems in the working environment of the workers, which is working over times, chemical and ventilation problems. So Nike with its subcontractors has the responsibility to provide safe and satisfactory conditions to its workers, which can increase its efficiency and reputation.
4: Could Nike have handled negative publicity over sweatshops better? What might it have done differently, not just from a public relation perspective, but also from a policy perspective?
Ans: Nike could have handled the publicity better, such as after the speech of Phill Knight to improve working conditions it should have done what it said but the problem continued without the Nike trying to solve the problem completely and not many actions toward solving it were done. Nike could have invested in trying to completely eradicate this problem and provide the standard working conditions and publicize this, which would improve its reputation and let Nike concentrate on other important things rather than negative
Ans: Nike should be held responsible for its subcontractors, as it is operating in countries which lower its costs and increasing its profit. Nike should be accountable, as they are huge firm which holds considerable international authority and when making the contract it holds the final decision, as they can find other subcontractors, so Nike should be able to specify what kinds of working conditions it should have and not have in the factories and it is possible they might not have much influence in the foreign country but I am sure they can specify working conditions that are acceptable by …show more content…
What labor standards regarding safety, working conditions, overtime, and the like, should Nike hold foreign factories to: those prevailing in that country or those prevailing in the United States?
Ans: Labor standards regarding working at job are different everywhere and Nike is operating in foreign countries because it wants lower labor standards such as lower wage, more working hours and other conditions etc., so that it can grow and make more profit. So I think it should use conditions from the local country but if the conditions are too low Nike should improve on them such as giving higher minimum wage, better working environment and safety etc and conditions that are more accepted by the public, which will improve its image and reputation in the world.
3: An income of $2.28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers in Indonesia, 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 this is it correct to criticize Nike for the low pay rates of its subcontractors In …show more content…
Such as: having to care for their living cost, rent, food, clothing and health, so the minimum the workers should get is at least $4 day. Other than that there is also the issue of problems in the working environment of the workers, which is working over times, chemical and ventilation problems. So Nike with its subcontractors has the responsibility to provide safe and satisfactory conditions to its workers, which can increase its efficiency and reputation.
4: Could Nike have handled negative publicity over sweatshops better? What might it have done differently, not just from a public relation perspective, but also from a policy perspective?
Ans: Nike could have handled the publicity better, such as after the speech of Phill Knight to improve working conditions it should have done what it said but the problem continued without the Nike trying to solve the problem completely and not many actions toward solving it were done. Nike could have invested in trying to completely eradicate this problem and provide the standard working conditions and publicize this, which would improve its reputation and let Nike concentrate on other important things rather than negative