Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on NIKE, INTERNATIONAL LABOR, AND ETHICAL CHOICES. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 3-page paper handles Nike's international problems in the 1990s, explaining how, ethically and culturally, the company should have gone about outsourcing. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_MTnikecase.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the most spectacular, abuses in factories supplying the athletic wear giant had been going on for years (Spar, 2002). As more and more abuses started coming out, Nike went from
being cool to being considered an abusive company (Spar, 2002). Nikes problems came from one source - it outsourced all of its manufacturing, farming out all products to independent
contracting factories (Spar, 2002). The idea behind this was to create the worlds first "virtual" corporations, a manufacturing firm that had no physical assets (Spar, 2002). With the money saved
through outsourcing, Nike could advertise more (Spar, 2002). Nike originally signed its first contracts with Japanese manufacturers, then moved to firms in South Korea and Taiwan, which had more reliable
production and lower costs (Spar, 2002). But as costs in these two countries grew, Nike urged its suppliers to move operations to different, lower cost regions (Spar, 2002). The suppliers
complied, moving the plants to China and Indonesia (Spar, 2002). But the company ran into problems in Indonesia, as labor activities charged the company with underpaying workers and subjecting them
to poor working conditions (Spar, 2002). During the early 1990s, the media hinted at the issue - which Nike claimed was not its fault, as it was under the domain
of its supplier (Spar, 2002). However, when it was released in 1996 that a line of clothing endorsed by Kathie Lee Gifford was released, Gifford rallied to the cause, publically
condoning Nike (Spar, 2002). Things got worse for the sneaker company in the late 1990s. Negative publicity, combined with a seemingly uncaring company, caused earnings to fall and being anti-Nike
was in (Spar, 2002). The question to be asked is: What should Nike have done? Stating "not do what it already did" is no solution. Nike, to this day,
...