“Marc Kasky versus Nike”
1. What responsibility does Nike have for conditions of work at foreign factories making its products?
The company expanded efforts to stop workplace abuse and started a public relations campaign. It became the only shoe company in the world to eliminate the use of polyvinyl chloride in shoes construction, ending worker exposure to chloride compounds. It revised its conduct code, expanding protections for workers. It set up a compliance department of more than 50 employees. Its staff members were assigned to specific Asian plants or to a region, where they trained local managers and did audits assessing code compliance.
Nike helped to start a voluntary CSR initiative called the Fair Labor Association to
…show more content…
Regarding the most controversial social and yet throughout the history of NIKE to the end of 2020 is expected to have only topics contract factories that demonstrate a commitment to their employees and include protection and workers ' rights, issues health and safety, and a progressive movement toward defining the approach of the "just wage" proposed by the fair Labor Association.
Although this is advertised, what really matters is to be met, so hopefully within the program when finished, have minimally met these standards have been proposed. And if so, NIKE would be an example of a brand with a good Corporative Social Responsibility
4. Did the California Supreme Court correctly decide the Kasky case? Why or why not?
The highest American court decided to send the famous record vs. Nike Kasky lower courts, saying that did not belong to his jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the Nike Company in which it was stated that an advertising campaign to refute accusations of exploitation of staff was protected by the right to freedom of expression.
The case of Nike vs Kasky, was rejected on a technicality, and in fact goes back to the lower courts of the American legal structure. But, anyway, has major implications for advertisers in general. If Nike had actually lost, would have severely limited the possibilities for companies to defend themselves publicly.
The highly recognized name brand—Nike— fails to notice the faults that are happening in factories that are violating a few disturbing rules. The company’s reputation has decreased due to demands and claims Nike; implying that they utilize sweatshops to produce more products at a lower pay. The company has been sued numerous times for abusing and exploiting their employees in factories for years. Another problem that Nike has faced throughout the years was making employees work in poor environments that affected the health of many— which contributed to being abused by the manager for not going to work. Nike distributes and sells merchandise of high quality for a high value. The company is giving the satisfaction of quality service to their
The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.
This case was one of federal jurisdiction. “Federal court jurisdiction is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress… cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws” (Federal
Since the 1990s, Nike has been embroiled in controversy over its use of sweatshops. Including numerous media reports of workers earning very little an hour (14 cents per hour), and even workers abused by sub-contractor (Allarey, 2015). Incidents such as these are ingrained in Nike’s history and not quickly forgotten. However, as CEO I would like to attempt to correct wrongs.
I am writing this letter to express my concerns over Nike's labor practices in Asia. There has been much debate and controversy recently concerning Nike's Asian labor practices. It is very difficult to determine which side of the argument to defend, as both acknowledge the problems yet put a completely different spin on the facts. I will try to show that Nike has created a cloud of smoke in Asia that the public cannot see through.
The appeal was sent to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mercer was the appellant and Duke and Goldsmith were the appellees. Duke and Goldsmith argued that because football was a contact sport, it was therefore excluded from Title IX coverage. Duke and Goldsmith said that under 34 CFR Sec. 106.41. Athletics, subsection (b) stated that:
I think that this case received strong opinions from both sides of the bench. I don’t think that it would have been appropriate to drop the case, as was initially attempted. However, based on the dissenting
By joining a task force that helps promote fair labor practices, Nike is taking responsibility for its actions and showing the global market that is does take an interest in those working in the factory. This helps to alleviate any hesitation consumers may have with purchasing products made by Nike.
For years, Nike has been sourcing from factories that seek to meet the company 's minimum standards for good labor performance. The policy of Nike is to evaluate potential contracted factories before they enter the supply chain. Throughout their business relationship with Nike to assess compliance with high standards of social and environmental performance, including country-related risk for issues including forced labor, human trafficking and slavery Nike (n.d).
Not only does Nike have a responsibility to be in compliance but also the host governments have a responsibility to protect the citizens who live and work in these countries. The enforcement of
They should be responsible for the legal, social and philanthropic aspects of its subcontracted factories. They are not paying their employees the legal minimum wage, caring about the working conditions and welfare of these employees and just not taking into consideration the well-being of others. Ten years ago, the company had been subjected to negative press, lawsuits, and demonstrations on college campuses alleging that the firm’s overseas contractors’ subject employees to work in inhumane conditions for low wages. With the introduction of the fair labour association and worker rights consortium, Nike is slowly trying to improve the working conditions on subcontracted factories and hopefully in 10 years, they would be able to re-establish themselves as a morally acceptable company.
American business should not be permitted to claim it is an ethical firm if it ignores unethical practices by its international suppliers. For the purpose of this assignment I will use the Nike Company to highlight its unethical practices. Despite the popularity of Nike in the American market, it has been accused of exploiting employees abroad. The corporate social responsibility stipulates that a company should maximize its profit and minimizes its cost in operations and manufacturing, also at the same time benefit the community it operates in. This paper will further elaborate on the global strategy employed by Nike Company as it outsources its goods and the unethical issues its
The Pou Chen factory is located in a place where the minimum wage is far below the national average. It has 10,000 workers who make Converse sneakers. Most of the workers are women, and they earn only 50 cents an hour. The amount that they earn is not even enough to cover their food and very poor housing. In this factory, the women are both physically and verbally abused. Nike’s own investigations have proved these complaints to be true. The company made a statement saying that immediate actions would be taken to deal with the situation. It is interesting to note that, “an internal Nike report, released to the Associated Press after it inquired about the abuse, showed that nearly two-thirds of 168 factories making Converse products worldwide failed to meet Nike’s own standards for contract manufacturers. Twelve are in the most serious category, ranging from illegally long work hours to
As such, it applied cultural relativism to justify the use of child labor, unsafe labor practices, and near slave labor in its factories. Since then, Nike has been a driving force to ensure fair labor practices across the apparel industry. In 1999, Nike was a key contributor to the establishment of the Fair Labor Association, an organization that is “…dedicated to protecting workers’ rights around the world” (Fair Labor Association, 2016). Today, Nike continues efforts to ensure that contract factories comply with its Code of Conduct to improve labor standards in overseas factories (Nike, 2016). Because of Nike’s efforts to expand and enforce social responsibility at its factories and given the lessons learned from its sordid past, it is unlikely that Nike would resort to any of the straw men fallacies. However, given the pressure by investors to expect solid returns, one hopes the company continues its altruistic social responsibility efforts while veering away from the Friedman Doctrine and its assertion that “… the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits” (Hill, 2011).
Nike took advantage of that and disregarded that the people making their products at an extremely low price were actually humans. It was ethically wrong for Nike to not see those employees as actual people but saw them as a machine that produced products. They did not care to see how being underpaid affected a person’s family. They also did not see that children were working to support families and continued to work in terrible health conditions because they needed the money no matter the environment. The biggest issue was that the company had a total disregard for human life.