Nike's M-Audit Practices

Introduction

Consumer awareness of the maltreatment of workers in global supply chains has caused backlash towards Multinational Corporations (MNCs), as they have moral and social obligations regarding the protection of human rights (Meyer, 1996). Nike, one of the dominating companies in the athletic footwear industry, was criticized for taking advantage of countries with low wages and poor working conditions (Richard and Romis, 2007, p.55). In fact, Nike became “synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary abuse” (ibid.) due to the “lax health and safety standards, union repression, harsh disciplinary practices and sexual harassment” (Locke, 2013, p.6) found in its manufacturing subcontractors. This phenomenon provoked significant controversies on the corporate accountability of the company towards working standards. Due to the pressure exerted by external forces, Nike elaborated a Code of Conduct and adopted voluntary auditing standards in the hopes of pressuring its manufacturers to improve their unethical practices. Working conditions in Nike’s Code of

However, it must be noted that Plant A “suffers from problems of documentation and written communications regarding its nondiscrimination and harassment policies” (Richard and Romis, 2007, p.57), demonstrating that Plant A and Plant B lack improvements in different areas of working conditions. However, similar to the first case study, the M-audits scores contrasted those of CRs: Plant A received a higher CR than Plant B (ibid, p.58), suggesting better working conditions in Plant A. Again, it is evident that Nike’s diverse auditing techniques are unable to show the complexity of working conditions without ambiguity. Accordingly, Nike’s auditing must be revised to come with a universal quantitative measure that clearly displays a significant change in working