Nike: A Case Study in Corporate Social Responsibility - Essay Example

Workers' rights and environmental issues are two of the central concerns of Nike's opposition. By first examining the stance of Nike's opposition on each of these issues, then investigating Nike's own defense, it is possible to achieve a clearer picture both of where Nike successfully adheres to the principle of Corporate Social Responsibility and of where changes could be made. Perhaps the most common complaint about Nike's lack of corporate social responsibility has to do with the company's treatment of workers' rights.

Nike is perceived as having a reputation for "fostering sweatshops and lax safety standards abroad" (Caizares). Most of Nike's factories are overseas in underdeveloped countries. The workers at these factories, claim critics, are payed excessively low wages, are subject to substandard working conditions, and forced to work an inhumane number of hours. Over the past few years, "conditions for these workers has been a source of heated debate, with allegations made by campaigns of poor conditions, with commonplace harassment and abuse" (Baker).

For example, in 1997, it came out that because Indonesia's minimum daily wage had reached $2.47 Nike would have a problem continuing business in that country (Ballinger). Until 1998, most of the press about Nike and corporate social responsibility was decidedly negative on the matter of workers' rights and the company was suspected, in some instances, of large scale human rights violations. However, in 1998 Nike responded to the resounding criticisms of its treatment of workers with promises to reform.

Nike's CEO, Philip Knight, promised "a series of reforms that included new labor policies for health and safety, child labor,independent monitoring and workers' education" (Caizares ). Nike was praised for its efforts to improve its commitment to corporate social responsibility and was consequently marked as one of the movement's flagships. And after 1998, certain changes certainly took place that improved the conditions of Nike workers. For example, the company raised "age standards [for its workers] at 16 for apparel and 18 for footwear factories" (Nikebiz.com). It seems that although Nike has, admittedly, not reached complete compliance with the principle of corporate social responsibility, it has, in any case, certainly made some improvements in the area of workers rights.

Nevertheless, critics of Nike's workers' rights practices are unsatisfied with Nike's reforms. Although changes have been made, many believe that it is concern for the company's image rather than sincere concern for the workers that has prompted Nike's new attitudes. The way in which Nike handled the situation "suggests that public relations is Nike's only real political concern" (Caizares ). Furthermore, it is not clear that Nike has succeeded in reforming to the extent that the company would have the world believe.

Because although Nike made large public statements about what it would do to improve it's stance on social responsibility in the area of workers' rights, "there was little to back up claims that meaningful change had been wrought" (Ballinger). Thus, while it is not possible to determine what Nike's motives were in instituting the changes it did in 1998, the company certainly benefited from the positive press surrounding its