Ethical Issues Facing Nike

The video shows the pathetic lifestyle of Nike employees in Indonesia. As the original manufacturer of equipment, Nike should be responsible for holding the better life of its workers who are committed to their jobs. The video documents the widespread, oppressive and exploitative labor activities in the developing countries. For instance, workers of Nike in Indonesia barely live with $ 25 per day. They have no choice rather than accepting such exploitations to support their families. Nike provides housing to its workers who lack personal houses. Similarly, there is no running water in these houses. This leaves the residence unpleasant as water is obtained from a common borehole. Additionally, workers are sharing washrooms where water is running back to their houses. Even though the workers have no option but to work for Nike, they don’t deserve to be treated with less dignity, victimization, and bias whether they belong to western or eastern cultures (Van Buren III & Greenwood, 2013).

The ethical issues that Nike is facing in the case

According to the video, Nike was given several chances to remark on the situation but turned the crew away. At the time, the company said that it had open door strategies since it has nothing to hide. The activities of Nike is in contrary to the actions that truth can be determined. Therefore, some of these strategies led to key ethical issues that are discussed in the scenario such as extortion of poor workers, violating the environment, and human working conditions. The reaction of Nike is a reflection of ethics it put into in the case. For a corporation to act as a leader and conduct business with factories who force workers to work for more hour per week in unfavorable conditions so as to provide for their families, bring in the issue of hoe Nike exercise leadership. That is, the company meant that it does not care for its employees who make the products. However, Nike cared for how well the product sells. Therefore, actions of Nike represents a rational valuation of their ethical values.

What Nike has done to improve the situation after releasing the video

The corporate social responsibility makes a company stronger concerning the citizens as it inspires its stakeholders such as employees, and society through its activities. That is consumers are willing to engage with an organization that practice good corporate activities (MGM resorts international, 2015). As a sense of apology, the relationship of Nike with factories has predicted the concept the company will respond honorably towards each other (Kemp, 2001). After creating this documentary and airing it in 2011, Nike has accepted the allegations about the unethical treatment of workers in the contracted services. Therefore, it has been determined in encouraging the contract factories to obey the new code of conducts. For instance, Nike has stated that it is regularly reviewing the contract sweatshops with the aim of assessing their ability to meet the standards of the company.

Yes. My opinion about Nike is different after reviewing the video. However, this won’t change my buying behavior towards Nike products because it is based on personal factors such as lifestyle, occupation, personality, and economic condition. Moreover, Nike produces quality products despite practicing unethical behaviors. Therefore, I will not wear other brands since it is my lifestyle of wearing Nike products.

References

Kemp, M. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility in Indonesia Quixotic Dream or Confident Expectation? Retrieved 9 April 2018, from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/ (httpAuxPages)/EF8F86E50D18E6D480256B61005AE53A/$file/kemp.pdf

MGM resorts international. (2015). MGM Resorts Named One of America’s Most Reputable Companies for Corporate Social Responsibility by Reputation Institute | MGM Resorts International. Retrieved 9 April 2018, from http://newsroom.mgmresorts.com/mgm-resorts/latest-news/corporate-social-responsibility/mgm-resorts-named-one-of-americas-most-reputable-companies-for-corporate-social-responsibility-by-reputation-institute.htm

Van Buren III, H., & Greenwood, M. (2013). The genesis of employment ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 707-719.