nokia sweat shop
DESCRIPTION
Nokia Compensation management class presentationTRANSCRIPT
Nike
Sweat shop case study ppt
Nike
Nike, Inc is a major publicly traded sportswear and equipment supplier based in the United States.
The company is headquartered near Beaverton, Oregon, in the Portland metropolitan area.
The company was founded on January 25, 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports by Bill Bowweman and Philip Knight, and officially became Nike, Inc. on May 30, 1978.
What Nike Does
Create authentic athletic footwear, apparel, equipment and accessories for sports and fitness enthusiasts
Through subsidiaries, design and sell a line of men’s and women’s dress and casual shoes and accessories
Nike In The U.S.A.
Contract Factory --109 apparel contract factories
--12 equipment contract factories 14% of Nike apparel was made in the
U.S. Cole Haan, Hurley and Converse are subsidiaries in US region.
Store: More than 1068 stores
(Nike)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
WellBelow
Average
BelowAverage
Average AboveAverage
WellAbove
Average
NoOpinion
Nike's Overall Reputation
Nike’s Overall Reputation
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
WellBelow
Average
BelowAverage
Average AboveAverage
WellAbove
Average
NoOpinion
Nike Compared to Competition
Nike Compared to Competition
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
WellBelow
Average
BelowAverage
Average AboveAverage
WellAbove
Average
NoOpinion
Fairness of Nike's Labor Practices
Fairness of Nike’s LaborPractices
0.00%5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
WellBelow
Average
BelowAverage
Average AboveAverage
WellAbove
Average
NoOpinion
Quality of Nike's Products
Quality of Nike’s Products
SWEATSHOP & NIKE’S SWEATSHOP
SWEATSHOP
What is a sweatshop? -Working environment which is
unacceptably difficult & dangerous -Long hours , low pay , disregard to
laws -Hazardous material & situations -Employee abuse
SWEATSHOP (contd)
The U.S. Government Accountability Office defines a sweatshop as an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation
ORIGIN OF SWEATSHOPS
Between 1830 and 1850 as a specific type of workshop in which a certain type of middleman, the sweater, directed others in garment making (the process of producing clothing), under arduous conditions.
Workers were kept isolated-unsure of their supply-unable to organise collective bargaining
ORIGIN OF SWEATSHOPS(contd)
Piece rate. Who were targetted? -Immigrants(women&children) from
Ireland. Starvation wages. Between 1850 and 1900, sweatshops
attracted the rural poor to rapidly-growing cities, and attracted immigrants to places like London, England and New York City's garment district
Nike Sweatshops
NIKE SWEATSHOPS
Nike, Inc has been accused of having a history of using sweatshops.
More than 14 hours of work a day. .Nike has denied this claim many times,
and expressed that they do not have any control over the factories.
However, Nike has begun to pressure its manufacturers to improve working conditions.
ALLEGATIONS
Nike has been accused of using "sweatshops" since the early 1970s, when it produced goods in South Korea and Taiwan. As their economies developed, workers became more productive, wages rose, and many workers moved on to higher paying jobs. Labor unions also gained more influence. Nike found cheaper labor offered in Indonesia, China, and Vietnam, which prohibited labor unions
ALLEGATIONS(Contd)
Throughout the 1990s, Nike was heavily criticized for selling goods produced in sweatshops.
They originally denied claims against them. However in 2001, Nike director Todd McKean stated in an interview that the "initial attitude was, 'Hey, we don't own the factories. We don't control what goes on there.' Quite frankly, that was a sort of irresponsible way to approach this. We had people there every day looking at quality. Clearly, we had leverage and responsibility with certain parts of the business, so why not others?"
PROTESTS GAINING MOMENTUM In 2005, protestors at over 40
universities demanded that their institutions endorse companies who use "sweat-free" labor, unlike Nike. Many of anti-sweatshop groups are student-led.
Team Sweat, an international coalition of consumers, investors, and workers committed to ending the injustices in Nike’s sweatshops founded in 2000 by Jim Keady
Nike Code of Conduct
Management practices that respect the rights of all employees, including the right to free association and collective bargaining
Minimizing our impact on the environment
Providing a safe and healthy work place Promoting the health and well-being of
all employees(Nike)
Specific Standard Of Conduct Forced Labor Child Labor Compensation Benefits Hours of Work/Overtime Environment, Safety and Health Documentation and Inspection
(Nike)
Specific Standard Of Conduct (cont.)
Compensation --Provide at least the minimum wage or
the prevailing industry wage, whichever is higher
--Provide each employee a clear, written account for ever pay period
--Eliminate deduction on employee pay for disciplinary infractions
(Nike)
Specific Standard Of Conduct (cont.)
Hours of Work/Overtime --Comply with legally mandated work
hours --Compensate overtime fully according to
local law --Inform employee if mandatory overtime
is a condition of employment at the time of hiring
--Provide one day off in seven, no more than 60 hours per week, or complies with local limits if they are lower
(Nike)
NIKE SWEATSHOPS IN CHINA
About Nike
Nike Inc., the world's biggest sneaker and sportswear maker, admits it found falsified documents, underage workers and unpaid wages at suppliers in china
Asia Pacific Region Of Nike
Employees: 3,000 First subcontracted factories are in
Taiwan and Korea (1977) Nike Office: Australia, China, Hong Kong,
Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Southeast Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand), and Taiwan.
Factory: 150
Subcontractor in South China
Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings Co. Ltd.
--Locates in Dongguan --Established in 1989 --Belongs to the Taiwanese shoe company,
Pao Chen Cooperative --Produces for Nike, Reebok, Adidas,
Clarks and new Balance --Employs total 140,000 workers and
12,000 are producing for Nike
Discrimination
Since 1999, the factory has adopted a policy of mainly employing female workers
The factory only employs female workers aged from 18 to 25.
Male workers are only employed with the specific approval of section managers; Ratio: 1 of 15
Why is discrimination an issue? China’s Labor Law: Laborers shall not be
discriminated against in employment due to their nationality, race, sex, or religious belief.
(China Labor Law, Ch.2, Article 12)
Nike’s Code of Conduct: There shall be no discrimination based on race, creed, gender, marital or maternity status or political beliefs, age or sexual orientation.
(Nike)
Contract
China’s Labor Laws: The draft collective contract shall be
submitted to the workers representative assembly or all the employees for discussion and passage. Collective contracts shall be signed by and between the labor union on behalf of the employees and the employer.
(China Labor Laws,
Ch.3, article 33)
Why is contract an issue?
Only “group leaders” sign the collective contracts in the name of the workers
The workers never see the contract and not aware of the details of the contract
Many workers have been working at the factory for over ten years, but remain employed on annual basic
Nike in china
It came as no surprise since the company's reputation operates one of the biggest sweatshop regimes in the fashion industry
The Oregon-based company's difficulties highlight the deep problems businesses face in manufacturing in China, particularly at a time of sharply rising costs and a stiffening legal environment.
In its first country-it said focused on China because of the forthcoming Beijing Olympics
Nike detailed the efforts it has been making to get suppliers to comply with its code of conduct and with Chinese law, including a program to monitor Olympics-related suppliers.
on Nike's website
"As China continues to develop, we see progress and best practices emerging,"
The report noted problems
Falsification of factory documents payroll records lack of effective grievance systems This is for disgruntled workers Hiring practices that did not ensure minimum age standards were met.
Status of Nike in china
China is Nike's largest single-sourcing country, with some 180 manufacturers and about 2,10,000 employees.
Last year, Nike rolled out a program to check the identity of about 150,000 of its workers in China and found 167 cases of people who were below minimum-age standards when they were hired, but were now 18 or older. Two people were found to be underage.
CHINA: At Nike Plant, no Sweatshop, Plenty of Sweat
China -- More than 4,000 workers who churn out athletic bags in a huge Nike contract factory here breathe ventilated air.
They wear earplugs when pounding rivets. They use bathrooms with running water.
And they read their rights on wall-mounted bulletins.
Employee’s faced
The acrid fumes, the scant protective gear and the foul restrooms evident during past years in plants making Nike products.
Workers flocking from poor villages to booming, smog-choked southeast China express eagerness for their jobs here, belying the image of sweatshop exploitation that has plagued the Beaverton-based company for years.
Contract payroll increases
Nike's contract work force, meanwhile, has grown to 653,000 in more than 50 countries. One of those workers, Lu Ling, a 26-year-old Golden Prene stitching operator, left her distant rural village eight years ago. She works a standard 60-hour six-day week.
As the eldest child, the middle-school dropout sends money home from her $145 monthly earnings so that her siblings can attend school. Hunched over a sewing machine, she races to exceed hourly production targets so her team can earn more.
On report
The workers were not exploited and clearly received benefits from working at the factories "by showing up for work every day, and by accepting a paycheck based on mutually-agreed-upon terms.
" In addition to pay, these benefits include free annual physicals, uniforms and clothing, a clinic and health service, a canteen stocked with food, recreation and entertainment, and transportation.
Nike response in china
Nike began to monitor working conditions in factories that produce their products.
Follow the code, adhering to regulations for fire safety, air quality, minimum wage, and overtime limits.
Nike introduced a program to replace its petroleum-based solvents with less dangerous water-based solvents.
Nike has developed a program to deal with claims of unfair practices
Nike also gave the Fair Labor Association, a working conditions watchdog, the privilege to randomly inspect any factory that produces Nike products.
Nike Subcontractor in Thailand MSP Sportswear Co, Ltd. -- Locating in Huatalea Moung,
Nakornrachaseama -- Managing by the Austrian director Owner: Mr. Peter Krautler Location: Huatalea Nakornrachaseama
Why Forming an Union?
Increasing quota without increasing pay Compulsory overtime Poor quality of drinking water Verbal abuse and body searches Forming an union on 9 November 2003
History of Union Organizers’ Dismissal
Samai Kongtaler was dismissed a ‘reduction in orders’
On 24 November 2003,Ms Atchara Sophon and Kongtalei were dismissed submitting worker’s demands to management
On 12 October 2004, the union was registered, but when the union launched a campaign for new members on 29 the same month, three union
executives were dismissed the company believed that the union would destroy the company ‘-a totally unfounded claim.
(Clean Clothes Campaign)
Due to
Due to
Due to
Urged them to discussThe matter directly with CLIST
and the fired workers
On November 23,04
Informing Of The Matter With Relevant Associations
(Clean Clothes Campaign)
Initial Negotiation Between Representatives From Each Group
On 14 December 2004 Attendants: a conciliator from the Welfare and Labor Protection
Department of the Ministry of Labor Thailand , two company representatives, three dismissed workers, CP Nothong Union and Nike
representatives Conciliator: the company has clearly violated the right to
organize, and attempted to destroy the labor union The owner: Mr. Peter Krautler no intention to rehire the
dismissed workers The mother of one of the union activists who was dismissed to be a
continuation of the company’s intimidation tactics
stated
stated
appeared
Respond From Nike On the 23rd of December Nike informed CLIST-They had requested
the conciliator to identify the appropriate next steps
After getting in touch with CLIST, conciliator provided two options for union dismissed workers:
Higher compensation Follow the standard legal procedure based
on the Labour relations committee
(Clean Clothes Campaign)
Union’s Executive and CLISTDisappointed at Nike’s Respond
If at the end of the day workers get referred back to the existing legal procedures then what is the use of having a Code of Conduct?
If this means that Nike’s Code of Conduct has no relevance if the legal procedure is followed, then why bother having a code at all?
(Clean Clothes Campaign)
Updated Negotiation Between Representatives From Each Group
On February 16th Met in Bangkok
Three union activities dismissal not related To the quality of their
work
The company believed that “the union would destroy the company-a totally unfounded claim
Result of Negotiation On March 18th,2005 CLIST and Nike have been
reached the agreement with three dismissal workers: all three workers will be rehired, including full back pay to the date of dismissal for two of the workers (the third one accepted settlement money which came to a higher amount).
(Clean Clothes Campaign)
Critiques
Lack of monitoring to its subcontractors Lack of training on code of conduct in its
subcontractor --To the management & workers
Nike Monitoring System (cont.)
Fair Labor Association Oversight of the monitoring
--Selected and paid for by Nike --Only 10% of Nike factories selected to the
assessment
Global Alliance for Workers and Communities
--A partnership between Nike, the World Bank and the International Youth Foundation
--Whether any particular standards are being met?
-- “Monitoring” to protect workers human rights?
(Clean Clothes Campaign, 2000)
Nike Monitoring System
Expatriate product manager Site visits on a yearly basis
(Nike)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers “Independent” monitoring
--Announced --Selected workers to speak
(Clean Clothes Campaign, 2000)
Training On Code Of Conduct Are the workers be trained or informed
of the code of conduct? Are managements of the subcontracting
firms receiving enough training of conduct?
Do the subcontracting firms implement the code of conduct?
Does the IHRM of Nike implement its conduct enough overseas?
Recommendations on Nike’s HR
Nike should explain and enforce the Code of Conduct aggressively.
--Education of Code of Conduct • Emphasize the importance of Nike’s “Code” as
covenant • Display Nike’s “Code” in public places in clear
language
--Training on Code of Conduct • Hold training sessions on the Code of Conduct
every three months • All workers in the training will receive a card
with the Code of Conduct in their local language (Andrew Young Report,
1997)
Recommendations on Nike’s HR (cont.)
Nike should improve their Monitoring System.
--Form a monitoring team within the HR department for internal monitoring
• Conducts periodic “checking” visits• Oversees external monitors and auditors where
used (IHRM, 2005, Chapter 8)
--External monitoring• “Ombudsman” model
(Andrew Young Report, 1997)
Recommendations Thailand Case PCN or HCN should respect the
rights of employees to have free association
Promote the development of “Worker representatives”
CHILD LABOUR
CHILD LABOUR
The International labour Organization, or the ILO, defines child labor as “some types of work” done by children under the age of 18.
The ILO also says that child labor includes full-time work done by children under 15 years of age that prevents them from going to school (getting an education), or that is dangerous to their health
The majority of the world’s soccer balls have, for decades, been produced in Sialkot,Pakistan, with leading international brands (e.g. Nike and Adidas) sourcing almost exclusively from Sialkot. Estimates of the number of stitchers employed in Sialkot’s soccer ball manufacturing cluster varied from a low of just over 30,000 (International Monitoring Association for Child Labour (IMAC) 2003) to a high of 65,000 (Awan, 1996: 5).
The great majority of children helped their parents at home who were in turn paid for the number of soccer balls rather than hours worked — an ILO estimate placing the number of children at approximately 15,000 (Husselbee, 2001: 133; ILO 1999).
Most of these balls were stitched in homes (mostly in the 1,600 odd villages surrounding Sialkot). Balls reached these homes through an elaborate chain of subcontractors
Seventy five percent of World’s $1 billion Soccer Ball Industry is in Pakistan, mostly in Sialkot. In which about 10000 Pakistani kids are stitching balls for approximately 10 hours a day6.
Pakistani Kids (mostly bonded labor) produced one quarter of
about 35 million soccer ball stitched in Pakistan7. About 80% of soccer balls sold in USA are made in Pakistan, where every 5th worker is a kid aging 7-12 years old.
As many as 7,000 children worked in the industry before
the international community intervened. In 1996 Punjab Labor Department revealed through a survey of child labor in soccer ball that 17 % of child labor were working in Soccer Ball Industry
Therefore buying a soccer ball from market meant that a product which came in to being after a long process in which 200 children (inclusive of children of 4-5 years of age) were involved.
The type of child labour in which Nike was involved in Pakistan was also present in countries like India, Indonesia and Bangladesh.
Nike denied all these charges, shifted the blame to the local contractors, however, Nike could not deny the fact that little girls hardly of 12 years of age, working 70 hours a week, in a very unfavourable environment making shoes for Nike
Nike seems to have begun sourcing production of soccer balls in Sialkot in 1995 (US Department of Labour, 1996). The deposition states that after they began soccer ball production in Sialkot (i.e., perhaps in the Fall of 1995), Nike ‘implemented more steps to protect worker rights than companies that have operated in the country for decades’ (cited in ibid).
The deposition goes on to state that at Nike’s insistence its
supplier (Saga Sports) began to ensure child-free production by establishing stitching centres that could be easily monitored, unlike homes in disparate villages, to ensure that no children were involved in the production.
Results and Impacts of the Project for Elimination of Child Labor in the Soccer Ball Industry:
On Aug 26th 1999 Nike informed ILO about recovering counterfeit GEO footballs bearing its un-authorized trade mark believed to be produced by un-authorized factory in Pakistan.
The incidences of soccer ball stitching by children at home are almost finished, after the organization of stitching centres and fall of demand. Now no child work exists in these stitching centres.
NIKE is boasting about eight big stitching centres indistrict Lahore. Average age of workers in these centres was 22 years, while the youngest of the workers was 18.
Free meals, medical, subsidized commodities, children education facilities, recreational centre facilities were available for the workers and their immediate families in these centres, for women a separate stitching centre was established where they could work separately from men in strict format with religious injunctions
NIKE RESPONSE
Nike began encountering criticism in the early 1990s for the sweatshop conditions that existed in its contractors’ factories
Nike responded by becoming one of the first American companies to establish and publish a code of conduct for the contract manufacturers in its supply chain.
According to Nike officials, the company’s Code of Conduct was an initial step in a conscious strategy to improve working conditions at its contract factories. Drafted in 1991, the Code of Conduct was distributed to the contract factories in 1992 and was intended to guide decisions in those production facilities.
In June 1996, Bob Herbert, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote two articles accusing Nike of exploiting workers in Asian sweatshops. Herbert charged that labourers earning $2.20 per day in Indonesia or $30 per month in Vietnam were manufacturing Nike’s athletic shoes. Herbert contrasted these miniscule wages with “the $20 million a year Nike was then paying basketball legend Michael Jordan to promote its products and to [Nike CEO Phil] Knight’s own $1.6 million salary and bonus for fiscal 1995.” Knight responded with a letter to the editor, which the New York Times promptly published. Knight maintained that “Nike has paid, on average, double the minimum wage as defined in countries where its products are produced under contract.
In January 1997, the accounting firm Ernst & Young, hired by Nike, conducted a labor and environmental audit of several Nike contract factories in Vietnam. Ernst & Young uncovered sweatshop conditions in numerous factories. Nike did not publicly disclose the audit report. Nike also hired Andrew Young, the former U.N. ambassador, to evaluate 12 factories that made its athletic footwear, most in Asia. Young, who had access to the secret Ernst & Young document, issued a favorable report in June 1997, and Nike issued press releases about his findings. Nike also “wrote letters to colleges faced with anti-sweatshop activists who were urging the schools to boycott Nike products. The company emphasized its code of conduct requiring contractors to adhere to decent labor standards.”
A worker at Tae Kwang Vina Industrial Co. (TKV), one of the factories covered in the secret Ernst & Young audit report, leaked the document to Dara O’Rourke, a consultant with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization in Vietnam and a research associate with Transnational Resource and Action Center (TRAC).
In November 1997, TRAC—now known as CorpWatch—released the leaked Nike document. O’Rourke’s independent assessment of the factory and photos from inside it made front-page news in the New York Times. TRAC asserted that its “release of the Ernst & Young report significantly increased the pressure on Nike to improve conditions in its overseas factories.” TRAC also cited an editorial in the Multinational Monitor, which argued that “for a whole year, Nike denied that its contractors in Asia abused and mistreated workers. The company said that the information was being sent out by fringe activists on the Internet. With the leak of an Ernst & Young report, the fringe became mainstream
In April 1998, Marc Kasky, a community activist living in San Francisco, sued Nike, alleging that Nike CEO Knight’s letter to the editor violated California’s consumer protection laws against deceptive advertising and unfair business practices. Kasky’s suit also “alleged that Nike officials had made false or misleading claims on at least eight other occasions in the course of responding to criticisms of its Asian labor practices: in five press releases, two personal letters to critics, and one form letter sent to scores of athletic directors at colleges and universities.”
Nike maintained that its campaign was designed to explain working conditions at factories of their overseas contractors. Nike further maintained “that its statements concerned labor practices, not products, and therefore should be considered protected political speech.” Kasky countered that Nike’s campaign was indeed commercial speech—it was intended to protect the company’s image and sell more sneakers. This set the stage for a legal battle over commercial speech and its First Amendment protection.
Over the years the boundaries between commercial speech and ordinary speech (sometimes referred to as political speech) became extremely murky as different courts and regulatory agencies—usually the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—dealt with specific cases. Some advertising claims that seemed very similar to public discourse were treated as regulated commercial speech. “To make matters even more confusing, courts also acknowledged that commercial speech was not necessarily limited to paid advertisements, nor, conversely, did messages in paid advertisements necessarily amount to paid commercial speech.”
A company can be sued if someone thinks its commercial speech is false or misleading, and the consumer protection laws don’t require that malice be intended. Moreover, under California’s extremely broad consumer protection laws, anyone can sue on behalf of the general public. Consequently, a person who brings suit in California need not have experienced any harm or damages from a company’s alleged false or misleading commercial speech, which was the case with Marc Kasky.
The Legal Battle over Nike’s Speech Kasky v. Nike alleged that Nike’s commercial speech contained false and misleading statements. Nike argued that the various communications in question were not commercial speech, but rather protected political speech.
And finally on September 12, 2003, Nike and Marc Kasky jointly announced a settlement of the case brought by Kasky. “The two parties mutually agreed that investments designed to strengthen workplace monitoring and factory worker programs are more desirable than prolonged litigation.”
Nike agreed to contribute $1.5 million over a three-year period to the Fair Labor Association (FLA) to help fund workplace-related programs
Nike’s Activities since the Settlement Nike’s Code of Conduct has been revised and updated over the years. In 2002, Nike instituted Code Leadership Standards (CLS) that included “23 safety standards, 13 standards for management concerns (including labor issues), 9 standards for environmental regulations, and 6 health standards.”
The CLS provided guidance for the company’s supply chain. As of early 2005, Nike’s supply chain consisted of more than 900 contract factories with more than 660,000 contract workers—predominately women, aged 19 to 25—in more than 50 countries including the United States.
Through its independent external monitoring (IEM), the Fair Labor Association’s verifies Nike’s and other participating companies’ compliance in their contract factories. The FLA conducts unannounced, independent, external monitoring visits in a company’s contract factories and reports all noncompliance findings in those factories
In preparing its 2004 report, the FLA conducted 40 IEM visits to Nike contractors. There were no noncompliance findings of employment of underage workers or forced or bonded labor in facilities producing for Nike.
Some noncompliance existed regarding health and safety as well as wages and hours. The noncompliance findings regarding health and safety issues usually related to inadequate postings and evacuation procedures, safety equipment, and personal protective equipment.
Noncompliance involving wage and hour issues primarily concerned overtime limitations, overtime compensation, and worker awareness of their wages and benefits. In all instances, Nike initiated appropriate remediation, either independently or in conjunction with other FLA participating companies.
Nike has made substantial progress in dealing with sweatshop issues in its supply chain, but more remains to be done.
All of the sweatshop issues probably will never be resolved. Of equal importance is the failure to resolve the issues raised by all the legal manoeuvring between Marc Kasky and Nike
Nike began to monitor working conditions in factories that produce their products. During the 1990s, Nike installed a code of conduct for their factories. They spend about 10 million dollars a year to follow the code, adhering to regulations for fire safety, air quality, minimum wage, and overtime limits. In 1998, Nike introduced a program to replace its petroleum-based solvents with less dangerous water-based solvents. A year later, an independent expert stated that Nike had, "substituted less harmful chemicals in its production, installed local exhaust ventilation systems, and trained key personnel on occupational health and safety issues. The study was conducted in a factory in Vietnam.
Recently, Nike has developed a program to deal with claims of unfair practices. Nike claims to have hired a staff of 97 people to randomly inspect several hundred of their factories each year.
Nike also gave the Fair Labor Association a working conditions watchdog, the privilege to randomly inspect any factory that produces Nike products.[
RECOMMENDED ACTIONA Closer Look At Labor Practices
And Potential Sales
OBJECTIVE 1
To increase positive public perception of Nike’s labor practices by 20% by April 16, 2003
STRATEGY 1-1
Increase communication of positive steps Nike is taking concerning labor practices
Key Publics: MediaConsumers (esp.university
students)
TACTICS
Create fact sheets outlining minimum wage discrepancies among countries
Circulate “Letters to the Editor” highlighting positive aspects of Nike’s labor practices
Bring a visible Nike representative to college campuses
TACTICS
Create focus groups to assess Nike’s labor practices
Distribute a video news release promoting Nike’s efforts in the global community
STRATEGY 1-2 Make changes to improve Nike’s current
labor conditions
Key Publics: Foreign government agenciesNike employeesSocial activist organizations
TACTICS
Create an anonymous system to protect whistleblowers
Specify and inform employees of their rights and responsibilities under the Nike code of conduct
Provide employees with time and money to enroll in Nike’s educational programs
Ensure surprise visits are a surprise
EVALUATION
Repeat surveys at six month intervals to gauge public perception
Revisit with focus groups to record their opinions of improvements
OBJECTIVE 2
To increase American shoe sales by $100 million by April 16, 2003
STRATEGY 2-1
Establish a better presence in the affordable shoe market
Key Publics:MediaConsumers only willing to spend
less than $85
TACTICS
Develop advertising tactics to promote Nike’s Presto line of shoes ($60-$85)
Aggressively target budget consumers through sales promotions and discounts on mid-priced shoes
Build a stronger relationship with moderately priced retailers through sales associates
Increase number of Nike outlet stores offering discounted merchandise
STRATEGY 2-2
Establish a competitive presence among female consumers
Key Publics:
MediaFemale consumers(potential and
real)
TACTICS
Create advertisements that showcase Nike’s female shoes by featuring professional athletes and non-celebrity females who use Nike products
Develop a shoe named for a celebrity female athlete, such as Mia Hamm, comparable to Air Jordan’s
Actively pursue more female athletes for endorsements and advertisements by extending competitive contract offers
EVALUATION
Measure growth of domestic shoe sales at six month intervals
Separately record sales of mid-priced shoes and women’s shoes
Conclusion:
Multinationals should learn lessons from Nike
Be careful to enforce their Code of Conduct
Minimize ethical issues.
Thank you