Cross Cultural Perspectives
Cross Cultural Perspectives
ETH / 316
11/25/2013
PHOENIX
Cross Cultural Perspectives
For many years, Nike Inc has been known worldwide as the champion of athletic gear producers, being a global leader in business and marketing. The company experienced a tremendous growth between 1970s and 1990s, dominating the global athletic footwear and apparel market (Cartey, 2002). However, in 1990s, Nike started facing a fierce criticism for its unethical practices of conducting business in developing countries. Critics accused Nike for poor working conditions, exploitation of cheap overseas labor, and violation of minimum wage and overtime laws in countries, such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Mexico, where the company had outsourced its manufactures. Instead of using ethical means to developing a global brand, Nike used child labor and every possible cheap way to increase its profits.
Like many other U.S. companies, Nike manufactures its products in third world countries. Workers in these manufactures may earn as little as 12 cents per hour, working in unsafe, even dangerous working environments. These manufactures are called sweatshops, and have triggered many objections from human right organizations for violating the basic human rights. Victoria Carty (2002) explains that:
The Internet has significantly accentuated awareness of the controversies surrounding Nike’s business culture and practices. Information regarding corporate abuses has spread quickly through cyberspace, bringing bad publicity to new levels of awareness, and has facilitated mobilization among activists. It has also provided the resources and environment essential for organized mobilization in the form of a new social movement (NSM).
When the labor activists and scholars began observing Nike’s labor practices, they discovered systematic violations of workers’ rights in Nike factories. Their findings resulted on health and safety absences in the working environment,
ETH / 316
11/25/2013
PHOENIX
Cross Cultural Perspectives
For many years, Nike Inc has been known worldwide as the champion of athletic gear producers, being a global leader in business and marketing. The company experienced a tremendous growth between 1970s and 1990s, dominating the global athletic footwear and apparel market (Cartey, 2002). However, in 1990s, Nike started facing a fierce criticism for its unethical practices of conducting business in developing countries. Critics accused Nike for poor working conditions, exploitation of cheap overseas labor, and violation of minimum wage and overtime laws in countries, such as China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Mexico, where the company had outsourced its manufactures. Instead of using ethical means to developing a global brand, Nike used child labor and every possible cheap way to increase its profits.
Like many other U.S. companies, Nike manufactures its products in third world countries. Workers in these manufactures may earn as little as 12 cents per hour, working in unsafe, even dangerous working environments. These manufactures are called sweatshops, and have triggered many objections from human right organizations for violating the basic human rights. Victoria Carty (2002) explains that:
The Internet has significantly accentuated awareness of the controversies surrounding Nike’s business culture and practices. Information regarding corporate abuses has spread quickly through cyberspace, bringing bad publicity to new levels of awareness, and has facilitated mobilization among activists. It has also provided the resources and environment essential for organized mobilization in the form of a new social movement (NSM).
When the labor activists and scholars began observing Nike’s labor practices, they discovered systematic violations of workers’ rights in Nike factories. Their findings resulted on health and safety absences in the working environment,
References: Arnold, D. G. & Hartman, L. P. (2005, September 5). Beyond sweatshops: positive deviancy and global labor practices. Academic Journal. 14 (3), 206-222. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467- 8608.2005.00404.x. Retrieved from http://www.positivedeviance.org/pdf/research/ArnoldHartmanPositiveDeviance[1].pdf Carty, V. (2002, October 1). Technology and counter-hegemonic movements: the case of Nike Corporation. Academic Journal. 1(2), 129-146. DOI: 10.1080/1474283022000010646. Retrieved from http://egandb.uas.alaska.edu:2072/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=15&sid=76b2 b31a-0ca1-437b-aa88-371b70f141c7%40sessionmgr10 DesJardins, J. (2011). An introduction to business ethics (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, R. (2007, December 1). Sweatshops, exploitation, and moral responsibility. Academic Journal. 38 (4), 605-619. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00401.x. Retrieved from http://egandb.uas.alaska.edu:2072/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=21&sid=bb5e9 91f-9aa5-4a13-aeb7-4c29d2983a64%40sessionmgr14