“Just Do It.” Three simple words, yet together they represent one of the most popular sports apparel company in the world: Nike. However, over the years their great success has come with an even greater cost to those who suffer under their inhumane sweatshop practices. Nike faces strong criticism for their use of sweatshops in Asia where employees work under hazardous working conditions for meagre wages. Employees were often forced to work more than sixty hours a week and were punished if they refused to do so (Great Works of Literature Survey I, 2013). Despite this, they were only paid enough to barely survive. Reports of physical and mental abuse were common as well however, employees were unable to speak up for fear of losing their jobs
…show more content…
In it, article 34 states that a person has a right to work and be remunerated to a degree that he/she will be able to live humanely. However, in many low-wage countries, these laws are not valid because basic human rights are not legally binding. Hence, based on the normative theory of individualism, one could argue that the act of Nike in sending their production overseas for a cheaper work force, is ethical as it does not break the law. Despite this, it should be noted that while the practice of using a cheap work force helps to boost the financial state of the company, such an increase is short lived as the detrimental effect from the loss of reputation and trust from consumers outweigh the good gained from the short term increase in revenue and profits. Thus, in accordance to the egoism perspective, such an approach, while deemed as appropriate, would not be ethical as it does not maximize the greater good for Nike in the long …show more content…
In 2001, it released its first corporate responsibility report to communicate and assess the impact of its business operations. In 2005, Nike became the first in its industry to disclose a complete list of its contracted factories declaring the wages and working conditions of their employees. (Nisen, 2013). Despite this, many questioned the effectiveness of their new open policy especially when such standards are impossible to verify since birth records can be easily forged in developing countries. This gives the impression that such policies implemented are viewed as “quick fix” solutions to the ethical issue raised to save Nike time and trouble to resolve this issue entirely. Nike can consider adopting a utilitarian approach by looking towards more sustainable avenues of profit and growth through long term planning. This in turn could shift focus away from their use of child labour and sweatshops to improve the working conditions of their factories in Asia to create a mutually beneficial environment for both their shareholders and employees in the long
In it, article 34 states that a person has a right to work and be remunerated to a degree that he/she will be able to live humanely. However, in many low-wage countries, these laws are not valid because basic human rights are not legally binding. Hence, based on the normative theory of individualism, one could argue that the act of Nike in sending their production overseas for a cheaper work force, is ethical as it does not break the law. Despite this, it should be noted that while the practice of using a cheap work force helps to boost the financial state of the company, such an increase is short lived as the detrimental effect from the loss of reputation and trust from consumers outweigh the good gained from the short term increase in revenue and profits. Thus, in accordance to the egoism perspective, such an approach, while deemed as appropriate, would not be ethical as it does not maximize the greater good for Nike in the long …show more content…
In 2001, it released its first corporate responsibility report to communicate and assess the impact of its business operations. In 2005, Nike became the first in its industry to disclose a complete list of its contracted factories declaring the wages and working conditions of their employees. (Nisen, 2013). Despite this, many questioned the effectiveness of their new open policy especially when such standards are impossible to verify since birth records can be easily forged in developing countries. This gives the impression that such policies implemented are viewed as “quick fix” solutions to the ethical issue raised to save Nike time and trouble to resolve this issue entirely. Nike can consider adopting a utilitarian approach by looking towards more sustainable avenues of profit and growth through long term planning. This in turn could shift focus away from their use of child labour and sweatshops to improve the working conditions of their factories in Asia to create a mutually beneficial environment for both their shareholders and employees in the long