Case Study Nike Sweatshops

1. Do you believe that Nike is responsible for the working conditions that are present in their subcontractors’ factories? Why or why not?

Although Nike does not manufacture its products as stated in the provided case study, I believe that Nike is responsible for the poor working conditions their subcontractors’ factories. Just like any other multinational corporation, Nike has more power over what its subcontractors do, particularly when it comes to their decisions related to the operations and working conditions. Therefore, in the case of Nike, it possesses extensive authority over its subcontractors in the sense that it’s the primary decision maker when it comes to various issues that affect the working conditions at the subsidiaries’,

Young had been hired to look into the working conditions at the factories, but performed slipshod inspections by recommending that Nike was already doing a good job. It goes without mention that Nike formally responded to complaints with a factory code of conduct, instead of applying its corporate social responsibility policies to overseas subcontractors’ factories. This would be considered as an inappropriate approach to the complaints raised by the workers.

2. Regardless of your answer above, please analyze the “sweatshop” conditions present in overseas factories according to the utilitarianism approach. That is, when considering the positive and negative consequences for ALL stakeholders, is Nike’s approach to this issue ethical?

Consumers are currently benefiting from cheap products, and the subcontractors benefit from foreign investment. It goes without mentioning that the sweatshops would do less harm on the employees in the long term. Therefore, it can be argued that the sweatshops are more like a form of mutual exploitation because all stakeholders; employees, Nike, consumers and the subcontractors are enjoying definite benefits. Therefore, the Nike’s approach to the issue of poor working conditions overseas factories is ethical because the merits of the approach outweigh the costs.

3. Again, regardless of your answer to question one, please analyze Nike’s approach to the “sweatshop” conditions in overseas factories according to the RIGHTS approach.

The Rights Approach argues that the moral compass of managers ought to be based on the fact that the stakeholders have rights that must be protected. In this regard, it can be argued that Nike’s approach to the “sweatshop” conditions in overseas factories was unethical. As stated earlier, Nike had more power over the decisions made by its subcontractors. This implies that it had the primary responsibility to protect the right to safe and fair working conditions related to pay and work durations. However, this was not honored since Nike allowed the sweatshops to subject the employees to extremely long shifts