HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUSINESS. NIKE SWEATSHOPS essay

Let’s start this paper with the ‘sweatshop’ definition. Sweatshop is actually any working environment that is difficult or dangerous for its employees and it can exist in any country.

Its workers often work long hours for very low pay, regardless of local laws. Besides it, child labour laws sometimes may be also violated.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office “a sweatshop is an employer that violates labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation”.

Unfortunately, the use of sweatshops became widespread recently. Some well-known companies have been accused and criticized for using this way of production to keep their spending costs as low as possible. One of these companies is Nike.

Nike is the world’s most famous and one of the largest shoe brands. But although company has an annual millions shoes pairs sales, it doesn’t produce any of it by its own means.  In place of it, Nike has contracts with other manufacturing companies and use foreign workers located in such countries as China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico.

In place of it, Nike has a contracts with other manufacturing companies located in such countries as China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mexico.

Nowadays almost 800 thousands of employees work in Nike’s production system around the globe. While company earns millions of dollars some of it workers are forced to work to support their families in poor labour conditions.

It should be emphasized, that Nike Company is not the one that owns these factories where its shoes are produced and the company is focused rather on marketing issues, not on producing. But as a client it dictates the terms to the contractor. Companies used to avoid responsibility for factory conditions, so the anti-sweatshop movement has made this excuse unacceptable and forced the retailers — who are, after all, the ones who make the greatest profit, to take the responsibility for the employees of their manufacturing contractors.

1. Nike’s sweatshops: the beginning of story

First Nike’s contractors were the factories in Taiwan and South Korea. In the next years employees in these countries has achieved the improved wage rates and right for form unions.

Therefore, these productions were moved to the countries with a very weak situation with human rights in general and labour rights respectively. At first their factories were based in China, Indonesia, and Vietnam, where wage rates are the lowest in the whole world. The working conditions and low wages rates at the factories caused the critic against the Nike Company.

There were different kinds of accusations in 1990s, for example, accusations in child labor and that wages are well below the poverty level and of course the accusations in forced and unpaid overtime. Besides it, others reported physical abuse from the management, poor conditions at work desks including the poor air quality. For example, in the first years that Nike was in Vietnam, one factory official person was convicted of physically abusing workers, another fled the country during a police investigation of sexual abuse charges and a third official was accused for abusing workers.

2. The choice for criticism. Why Nike?

Attention of the media were drawn by the reports of human rights groups (among them were Education for Justice, Global Exchange, Students Against Sweatshop Labor etc.). They began to overview these scandal information expecting that public attention and their pressure would influence the changes.

Of course it’s not only Nike that was to blame for usage of sweatshops and we should be aware that while many company-producers of clothes and shoes are accused of engaging sweatshops, the attention of these rights groups and accordingly the public’s negative attention were concentrated on Nike as a leading company with a huge turnover.

So Nike was chosen as an example and target for pressure, and human right groups expected that other manufacturers will have to accept this criticism and change their production rules.

It was significantly important to choose the corporation that really could afford to implement the improvements. To be clear, improvements wouldn’t even influence the increase of Nike’s shoes retail price.

3. Nike factory workers strikes

Nike has faced the workers strikes after the start of human rights groups’ activities.

10,000 Indonesian workers from Nike’s factories went on strike to protest low and unpaid wages in 1997. At the same time 1,300 workers from Vietnam started their campaign in order to achieve a raise of one cent per hour. And finally, the next year, Nike’s employees in China decided to protest dangerous working conditions and low wages. I need to draw your attention to the fact that protest campaigns took place despite the fact that the strikes were not allowed in the countries mentioned above. (Facts About Nike Sweatshops)

4. The human rights groups’ demands that were denied by Nike

The rights groups define the list of general demands that were ignored by the company, among them are:

• Protect workers who speak honestly about factory conditions.
• Regular, Transparent, Independent and Confidential Procedures for Monitoring Factories and Investigating Worker Complaints.
• Decent Wages (Nike has rejected demands that it ensures that Nike workers are paid a living wage–that is, a full time wage that would provide a small family with an adequate diet and housing and other basic necessities. Instead, the company has used statistics selectively and in a misleading fashion to give the false impression that wages currently paid to Nike workers are fair and adequate. Meanwhile those workers struggle to survive on wages that are barely enough to cover their individual needs, let alone those of their children).
• Reasonable Working Hours
• Safe and Healthy Workplaces (Nike has made important progress in reducing the use of toxic chemicals in sport shoe production. Unfortunately, on the few occasions in recent years that genuinely independent health and safety experts have been allowed access to Nike contract factories, they have found serious hazards including still dangerously high levels of exposure to toxic chemicals, inadequate personal protective equipment, and lack of appropriate guards to protect workers from dangerous machinery. There is also considerable evidence of workers suffering stress from spending large amounts of time in high pressure and frequently abusive work environments).
• Respect for Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association (On those few occasions when Nike has taken any steps to advance this right in specific factories, it has done so grudgingly and after considerable public pressure.)(Butler , 2010)

5. Procedure’s improvements

The company’s Code of Conduct was issued in 2002 in order to regulate the safety and other work conditions. It was used as obligatory source by all of their contracting factories.

In 2004 additional health and labor standards and monitoring plans as well were regulated by Nike’s Responsibility Report. Full details of Nike’s factories from all around the world were included in it. That is why this report was perceived as a victory for workers and human rights groups, mostly because independent public investigations were allowed.

The public attitude towards Nike’s problem with sweatshops has become better with the appearance of these regulating documents.  These changes were considered as positive changes in the company’s politics.

But some analysts say that these initiatives on monitoring that were accepted are too new to be able to determine how effective they will be. No one will argue that independent monitoring is important, but workers themselves should be able to have a chance for labour and human rights through their own factories in the first place.

6. Nike Company’s official commitments to the public

In 1998 Nike’s CEO Phillip Knight made official announcements about his corporation policies on working conditions in manufacturing factories. He intended to set up the standards for apparel and shoes industries that other companies should follow. Here are these promises:

• All factories will meet the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s standards in air quality;
• The minimum age of employees will be raised to 18 for footwear factories and 16 for apparel factories;
• Nike will include non-government organizations in its factory monitoring;
• Nike will expand its worker education program, making free high school courses available to all workers;
• Nike will expand its loan program to benefit four thousand families in the following countries: Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand;
• Nike will fund university research on responsible business practices. (Connor, T., 2001)

The fight for the labour rights in Nike’s sweatshops made a an influence on the industry. The exploiting sweatshop workers companies are trying to improve the work conditions.

The wages of the Nike’s factory workers were increased, although not substantially.

Some critics say that it wasn’t a good will of the company’s management to obey the human rights but rather public relations actions to improve the Nike’s publicity. The projects announced haven’t influence much the benefits of Nike workers. (Nike’s New Game Plan for Sweatshops)

According Nike’s CEO promise, health and safety measures have been considerably improved (it’s actually the main field of improvement).

While the company positions itself as leader of sport shoes industry in corporate responsibility, some of Nike’s workers are still forced to work in insufficient work environments and in the most of cases are not paid fairly enough.

In regards to the financial side of these changes, the company profits are still very high, because as it was mentioned above, the main force of the Nike Company is it’s marketing and advertising that are very powerful.

Although nowadays public becomes very concerned about the fair labour conditions and it’s time for Nike to adopt all the suggested measures. Otherwise, Nike’s consumers may have turn their faces away of this famous brand and switch to its competitor’s products.