The essay, “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg basically talks about the effects of Nike going into third world countries, particularly Vietnam. Norberg explains how Nike’s factory gains from being in its desired location, Vietnam. Vietnam being a communist country comes to Nike’s advantage, because if they were located elsewhere they would have to pay workers higher wages and use more of their machines. Workers in these countries are provided with an air conditioned building with regular wages, free meal plans, free medical service, and training/education to operate the machinery within the factory. The workers find all of this beneficial and in their own favor because of the fact their earning double to five times the amount in wages than if they were working outdoors on a farm. This great deal, blinds them to notice the meaning behind the company’s location in Vietnam. The Nike factory was rather clever in making their location in that specific area to gain benefits for Western owners. The catch Nike gains from is simple. The owners pay factory workers only a small monthly sum from what they make selling the shoes to customers. Globalists state that the company doesn’t pull this fast one on the Western population because of our advancements compared to the Eastern countries. Western people would protest and strike to demand better wages for their work, but the people in Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with the injustice in order to support their families and educate their children. I chose Johan Norberg’s essay because I found it interesting how big franchise companies, in this case like Nike, makes their profits but workers can still manage to maintain a decent living. Even though what Nike is doing is... ... middle of paper ... ... then, but these new sweatshops sound better and more desirable to work in. If workers are happy and the company is happy with what’s going on then I don't think it should be a big deal because there are more important things that the U.S. needs to keep their focus on. As we can see in the essay, “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg, the globalization of companies like Nike isn’t all bad. There is some positive light to it, for example, the fact that workers are finally making enough money to live a decent life and send their children to school. In addition to this, workers are guaranteed jobs and don’t have to endure the tough labor of working on farms in the harsh weather conditions. So from these effects we can conclude that the globalization of Nike in third world countries like Nike isn’t a disadvantage to these workers, in fact it serves as an advantage.
Nike has been under a great deal of pressure to correct the misdoings that have been done regarding production facilities in the East. As Nike is responsible for these plants, their reputation has been tainted with increasing public debate about ethical matters. While Nike still promotes itself as one of the industry leaders in corporate social responsibility, workers in Asia are still forced to work excessively long hours in substandard environments and are not paid enough to meet the basic needs for themselves or their families. They are faced to a life of poverty and are unfortunate subjects to harassment and violent threats if they make any attempt to form unions or tell journalists about labour abuses in their factories. Phil Knight’s speech regarding Nike’s steps to improving human rights in Asian countries was a step in the right direction for Nike, but it would have been much more effective had Nike fully followed through with these initiatives.
Sweatshops are factories that violate two or more human rights. Sweatshops are known in the media and politically as dangerous places for workers to work in and are infamous for paying minimum wages for long hours of labour. The first source is a quote that states that Nike has helped improve Vietnamese’s’ workers lives by helping them be able to afford luxuries they did not have access to before such as scooters, bicycles and even cars. The source is showing sweatshops in a positive light stating how before sweatshops were established in developing countries, Vietnamese citizens were very poor and underprivileged. The source continues to say that the moment when sweatshops came to Vietnam, workers started to get more profit and their lives eventually went uphill from their due to being able to afford more necessities and luxuries; one of them being a vehicle, which makes their commute to work much faster which in turn increases their quality of life. The source demonstrates this point by mentioning that this is all due to globalization. Because of globalization, multinationals are able to make investments in developing countries which in turn offers the sweatshops and the employees better technology, better working skills and an improvement in their education which overall helps raise the sweatshops’ productivity which results in an increase
The majority of multinational corporations have elected to outsource their production processes to Asia in countries such as Indonesia, China, and Vietnam. The logic behind such practices is that moving production abroad is that costs are significantly lower when compared to the costs if production is based in the States. Companies such as Nike have embraced the practice of using foreign factories to manufacture its products. Labor conditions and wages are two issues that have courted concern for the company. The concern stems from questions about the level of responsibility that a company such as Nike has regarding working conditions in the foreign factories.
Reebok and Nike are the two largest athletic footwear companies in the world. Much of their work is focused on product design and marketing, not on production of the shoes. Starting in the 1970s, Nike and Reebok really began using Asian contractors (mainly in Taiwan and South Korea) to manufacture their shoes because this offered the advantages of lowered costs and flexibility in terms of how many different kinds of shoes could be produced, but many questions have been raised in regards to the treatment of workers in the Asian countries and corporate responsibility for these human rights. With worldwide sales revenues at $25.33B for the 2013 fiscal year (June-May), Nike would rank higher than many countries, including Honduras, Nicaragua, Jamaica, and Afghanistan, in national GDP according to the 2014 IMF World Economic Outlook. As a result, companies like Nike, Apple, and Sony dominate not only their own industries but also dominate the world economy and as a result have more actual power, even abroad, than the governments of all but the largest countries. As the profits of these companies rise, the world economy grows, and as they fall, the world economy suffers. Any policy changes they implement internally have a huge impact on the economy as a whole.
Nike has a responsibility for the working conditions of their employees who produce Nike products. In cases of multinational companies, the question of whose ethics and standards to follow is in dispute. Best judgement and reasoning and a combination of the countries’ standards combine to decide on appropriate treatment. In Nike’s case, as part of their strategy, they moved work overseas to save on labor costs. However, the employees still work in Nike factories making Nike products, and Nike has responsibility to protect their working conditions and workers’ rights. They should guarantee workers are being paid fairly according to the minimum wage, ensure their overseas factories comply with child labor laws, and certify the working conditions
Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn are Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalists who spent fourteen years in Asia doing research on the country as well as the sweatshops of that country. In their article "Two Cheers for Sweatshops" they sum up clearly the misunderstanding of sweatshops by most of the modern world. "Yet sweatshops that seem brutal from the vantage point of an American sitting in his living room can appear tantalizing to a Thai laborer getting by on beetles." The fact of the matter is that sweatshops in the eyes of the actual workers are not as bad as they are made out to be, by many activists. Though many organizations that oppose sweatshops and their labor practices try to make the point that sweatshops do not have to exist. But one must consider the fact that, the companies that use sweatshops are creating at least some type of jobs for people that gladly accept them.
Nike ranked number one for many key attributes, such as innovation, people management, social responsibility, global competitiveness and quality of products and services (Fortune, 2015). Nike financials suffered from the scandal because it was taken to the US court of law. In 1991, Life Magazine published an article about child labor in Pakistan, where Nike was the number one concerned company. They have allegedly employed children as young as nine years old to produce soccer balls and sports shoes, and had to work exhausting hours in inhuman conditions. Child labor in Pakistan is a very important issue, it has been demonstrated multiple times by international medias, but nothing has been done about it by governments (TED, 1999). According to Unicef, in 2011, there was an estimate of more than thirteen million child working in Pakistan, of those, 73% are boys and 27% are girls (Unicef, 2011). They are working in different industries such as agriculture and manufacturing (Appendix 3). Following the allegations, Nike felt public-relations impacts in the short-run, but in the longer run, the growth sand sales of the company were not affected. Only their image has suffered, but the image customers now have is
With the increasing awareness and publicity of poor working conditions in subcontracted factories in East Asia, Nike has stimulated an uprising of activist and watchdog groups working toward seeing these conditions changed. With Nike in the negative spotlight, various organizations have revolved around generating a negative outlook on Nike’s practices of social irresponsibility. Certain campaigns such as the “National Days of Consciousness” and “International Day of Protest” were organized to educate people on the deplorable working conditions in Nike’s Asian manufacturing plants, and were designed to get more people involved in global employment issues.
The many steps to stay a competitive industry began with lowering the manufacturing costs from their less developed Third World Countries because their labor cost was much lower. This gave plentiful opportunity for Nike to mass-produce all of its products. In these countries like Indonesia, China, and Vietnam it’s enormously difficult to “keep track of and regulate the working conditions and wages of factories” Ferrell, Fraedrick, J. & Ferrell (2013) Nike was evaluated on their child labor, harassment issues, poor work environment, and abuse practices. Nike in an effort to fight against the presumed allegations launched a campaign towards child labor and employee
Athletic footwear production has moved to other places with low labor costs. The assembly of shoes began shifting in the 1960s to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and then China in the 1980s. Nike moved to overseas manufacturing as a way to cut costs on sports gear manufacturing. Japan became too expensive, so Nike moved to Vietnam, Indonesia, and China. Accusations of deprived conditions, child labor, harassment, and abuse have been issues for the company. The Asian factories have more subcontracted work and it is difficult for Nike to keep up with and control the working conditions and wages of the factories.
Christopoulos, D. (2007). “The problem with sweatshops is that there are not enough of them” . Hamilton Institute Weekly. Retrieved from www.hamiltoninstitute.com/index.php?option=com_content&task
In June of 1996, Life magazine published a article about Nike’s child labor that was occurring in Pakistan. The article showed a little boy who was surrounded by pieces of Nike sports gear. The articles were shoes and soccer balls. Nike then knew then that they had to make some major changes in the way they were producing their items.
For those marketing efforts, Nike does successful to promote itself with its not-quite-nice images and also generate some criticism that I think they are irresponsible as we can see from their ad that they does not create any positive effects to the society. For its use of overseas factories, it is great opportunity to expand the production base to the lower cost of labor, but it is totally irresponsible and unethical when labor practice does not meet the standard.
These corporations include Nike, Walmart and many more, these businesses function in multiple countries which can bring some issues as well as benefits. Multinational Corporations are involved in a great deal of corporate social responsibly(CSR) projects which means they strive to adhere so ethnical and social norms. In addition to CSR, multinationals provide a large number of jobs in developing countries in their factories, call centers, etc. Revenue in developing countries due global trade also increases which is a benefit. However, this triggers corruption and violations of regulations because governments are more concerned with higher GDPs and development rather than regulations restricting these large corporations. An example of this is the unsafe working conditions, as a result thousands of workers die or are injured because they are not given correct clothing and safety gear to work the machines. Another concern is factory audits are not legitimate, and managers improve conditions or hide certain workers when it is time for inspections. In order for free markets to work correctly and in a socially adequate manner, countries hosting multinationals should be harsher and consistent with
Nowadays, there are so many famous sportswear companies that exist in the market globally, which make people have more product varieties that they can choose. In addition, most of those companies have become very important for its host countries, in terms of supporting their economic development. Yet, the existence of those companies can also possibly bring some problems to the host countries, as well as negatively affect the countries’ people (Pettinger, 2008). In order to explain it better, the existence of Adidas in Indonesia is used in this report to give more information about what makes Adidas becomes a successful company in the world, as well as providing problems that Adidas has in Indonesia.