Being an avid Nike and Adidas fan for some years now, Sharon Hsu’s blog post naturally captured my intrigue.
While I do agree that Nike had acquired some bad publicity in regards to it’s poorly regulated production processes (that brought to light it’s poor business ethical behavior) in the manufacturing process of it’s commodities, I feel that Nike can only be held partially responsible for it’s actions. This ‘bad reputation’ Nike has accumulated by sourcing for cheaper labor (I strongly believe) is; or was at some point; secretly practiced amongst many other big firms in many different industries. Neither Nike, nor any other large corporation was the first (and only) to commit such a ‘horrible’ act against ethical business practices.
Having said that, I encourage you to think (and have an open mind) about it this way: by sourcing for labor from impoverished areas, they indirectly instigate growth in the economy as they stimulate job opportunities for the vulnerable. Children and adults, whom would otherwise be left with little to no alternatives other then to turn to the sex trade, selling their bodies for money, can now enjoy sustainable jobs.
Do not be mistaken though; our general views do not differ. I did not support Nike’s actions then, and am happy as a consumer to note that Nike is trying to make an amends in the eyes of the public in regards to correcting it’s business ethical behavior and tailoring it’s manufacturing process (even if its just a little change) to improve itself as a reputable corporation.
Leave a Reply