OPPapers.com

Nike Case Study

For all of its successes, the company was dogged for
more than a decade by repeated and persistent
accusations that its products were made in “sweatshops”
where workers, many of them children, slaved away in
hazardous conditions for below-subsistence wages.
Nike’s wealth, its detractors claimed, was built upon
the backs of the world’s poor. For many, Nike had
become a symbol of the evils of globalization—a rich
Western corporation exploiting the world’s poor to
provide expensive shoes and apparel to the pampered
consumers of the developed world. Nike’s “Niketown”
stores became standard targets for antiglobalization
protestors. Several nongovernmental organizations,
such as San Francisco–based Global Exchange, a
human rights organization dedicated to promoting
environmental, political, and social justice around the
world, targeted Nike for repeated criticism and
protests.2 News organizations such as CBS’s 48 Hours
hosted by Dan Rather ran exposés on working conditions
in foreign factories that supply Nike. Students on
the campuses of several major U.S. universities with
which Nike has lucrative sponsorship deals protested
against the ties, citing Nike’s use of sweatshop labor.

For its part, Nike has taken many steps to try to
counter the protests. Yes, it admits, there have been
problems in some overseas factories. But the company
has signaled a commitment to improving working
conditions. It requires that foreign subcontractors meet
minimum thresholds for working conditions and pay. It
has arranged for factories to be examined by independent
auditors. It has terminated contracts with factories that
do not comply with its standards. But for all this effort,
the company continues to be a target of protests and a
symbol of dissent.