NIKE, INC., AND SWEATSHOPS Jonah Peretti decided to customize his Nike shoes and visited the Nike…

Need your ASSIGNMENT done? Use our paper writing service to score better and meet your deadlines.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper


Jonah Peretti decided to customize his Nike shoes and visited the Nike iD website. The company allows customers to personalize their Nikes with the colors of their choice and their own personal 16-character message. Peretti chose the word “sweatshop” for his Nikes. After receiving his order, Nike informed Peretti via e-mail that the term “sweatshop” represents “inappropriate slang” and is not considered viable for print on a Nike shoe. Thus, his order was summarily rejected. Peretti e-mailed Nike, arguing that the term “sweatshop” is present in Webster’s dictionary and could not possibly be considered inappropriate slang. Nike responded by quoting the company’s rules, which state that the company can refuse to print anything on its shoes that it does not deem appropriate. Peretti replied that he was changing his previous order and would instead like to order a pair of shoes with a “color snapshot of the 10-year-old Vietnamese girl who makes my shoes.” He never received a response.1


Before Nike could blink an eye, the situation turned into a public relations nightmare. Peretti forwarded the e-mail exchange to a few friends, who forwarded it to a few friends, and so forth. Within six weeks of his initial order, the story appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Village Voice. Peretti himself appeared on the Today Show, and he estimates that 2 million people have seen the e-mail. At the height of the incident, Peretti was receiving 500 e-mails a day from people who had read the e-mail from as far away as Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America.2,3

Nike refused to admit any wrongdoing in the incident and stated that they reserve the right to refuse any order for whatever reason. Beth Gourney, a spokesperson for Nike, had the following to say regarding the incident: Clearly, he [Peretti] was attempting to stir up trouble; he has admitted it. He’s not an activist. Mr. Peretti does not understand our labor policy. If he did, he would know that we do not hire children; our minimum age for hiring is 18 . . . and we don’t apologize for not putting the word “sweatshop” because our policy clearly states: “We reserve the right to cancel any order up to 24 hours after it has been submitted.”4

Nike, Inc., is no stranger to sweatshop allegations. Ever since the mid-1990s, the company has been subject to negative press, lawsuits, and demonstrations on college campuses alleging that the firm’s overseas contractors subject employees to working in inhumane conditions for low wages. As Philip Knight, the CEO and founder of Nike, once lamented, “The Nike product has become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary abuse.”5

HISTORY OF NIKE, INC. Philip Knight started his own athletic shoe distribution company in 1964. Using his Plymouth Reliant as a warehouse, he began importing and distributing track shoes from Onitsuka Company, Ltd., a Japanese manufacturer. First-year sales of $8,000 resulted in a profit of $254. After eight years, annual sales reached $2 million, and the firm employed 45 people. However, Onitsuka saw the huge potential of the American shoe market and dropped Knight’s relatively small company in favor of larger, more experienced distributors. Knight was forced to start anew. However, instead of importing and distributing another firm’s track shoes, he decided to design his own shoes and create his own company. The name he chose for his new company was “Nike.”6

Nike’s Use of Contract Labor. When the company began operations, Knight contracted the manufacture of Nike’s shoes to two firms in Japan. Shortly thereafter, Nike began to contract with firms in Taiwan and Korea. In 1977, Nike purchased two shoe manufacturing facilities in the United States—one in Maine, the other in New Hampshire. Eventually, the two plants became so unprofitable that the firm was forced to close them. The loss due to the write-off of the plants was approximately $10 million in a year in which the firm’s total profit was $15 million. The firm had a successful IPO in 1980, eight years after the company was founded. Nike became the largest athletic shoe company in the world.7

Nike does not own a single shoe or apparel factory. Instead, the firm contracts the production of its products to independently owned manufacturers. Today, practically all Nike subcontracted factories are in countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, China, and Thailand, where the labor costs are significantly less than those in the United States. Worldwide, more than five hundred and thirty thousand people are employed in factories that manufacture Nike products. On an earlier website that is no longer available, the company gave the following as a rough breakdown of the costs per shoe. With inflation ever with us, these figures increase over the years, but these data give us an idea of total costs relative to selling price: Consumer pays: $65 Retailer pays: $32.50 to Nike, and then doubles the price for retail

Nike pays:

$16.25 and then

doubles the price to

retailers for shipping,

insurance, duties,

R&D, marketing,

sales, administration,

and profits

The $16.25 price paid to the factory includes:





Overhead + Depreciation:


Factory Profit:


Total Costs:


Even in today’s high-tech environment, the production of athletic shoes is still a laborintensive process. For example, for practically all athletic shoes, the upper portion of the shoe must be sewn together with the lower portion by hand. The soles must be manually glued together. Although most leaders in the industry are confident that practically the entire production process will someday be automated, it will still be years before the industry will not have to rely upon human labor.Other Firms in the Industry.Nike’s use of overseas contractors is not unique in the athletic shoe and apparel industry. All other major athletic shoe manufacturers also contract with overseas manufacturers, albeit to various degrees. One athletic shoe firm, New Balance Inc., is somewhat of an anomaly, as it continues to operate five factories in the United States.9

Nike spends heavily on endorsements and advertising and pays several top athletes well over a million dollars a year in endorsement contracts. In contrast, New Balance has developed a different strategy. They do not use professional athletes to market their products. According to their“Endorsed by No One”policy, New Balance instead chooses to invest in product research and development and foregoes expensive endorsement contracts.10

THE SWEATSHOP MOVEMENT V S . NIKEOne pivotal event is largely responsible for introducing the term“sweatshop” to the American public. In 1996, Kathie Lee Gifford, cohost of the formerly syndicated talk showLive with Regis and Kathie Lee,endorsed her own line of clothing for Wal-Mart. During that same year, labor rights activists disclosed that her“Kathie Lee Collection”was made in Honduras by seamstresses who earned 31 cents an hour and were sometimes required to work 20-hour days. Traditionally known for her pleasant, jovial demeanor and her love of children, Kathie Lee was outraged. She tearfully informed the public that she was unaware that her clothes were being made in so-called sweatshops and vowed to do whatever she could to promote the antisweatshop cause.11

Nike Is Accused.In a national press conference, Gifford named Michael Jordan as another celebrity who, like herself, endorsed products without knowing under what conditions the products were made. At the time, Michael Jordan was Nike’s premier endorser and was reportedly under a $20-million-per-year contract with the firm.12

Nike, the number-one athletic shoe brand in the world, soon found itself under attack by the rapidly growing antisweatshop movement. Shortly after the Gifford story broke, Joel Joseph, chairman of the Made in the USA Foundation, accused Nike of paying underage Indonesian workers 14 cents an hour to make the company’s line of Air Jordan Shoes. He also claimed that the total payroll of Nike’s six Indonesian subcontracted factories was less than the reported $20 million per year that Jordan received from his endorsement contract with Nike. The Made in the USA Foundation is one of the organizations that ignited the Gifford controversy and is largely financed by labor unions and U.S. apparel manufacturers that are against free trade with low-wage countries.13

Nike quickly pointed out that Air Jordan shoes are made in Taiwan, not Indonesia. Additionally,


Minimum Monthly Wage

Average Monthly Wage at Nike Factories


14,124 NT$

25,609 NT$

South Korea

Won 306,030

Won 640,000


115,000 rupiah

239,800 rupiah


RMB 276

RMB 636


2,950–3,150 baht

4,435 baht


331.050 VND$

640.030 VND$

Nike asserted that the entry-level income of an Indonesian factory worker is five times that of a farmer. The firm also claimed that an assistant line supervisor in a Chinese subcontracted factory earns more than a surgeon with 20 years of experience.14In response to the allegations regarding Michael Jordan’s endorsement contract, Nike stated that the total wages in Indonesia are $50 million a year, which is well over what the firm paid Jordan.15Nike soon faced more negative publicity. Michael Moore, the movie director whose documentaryRoger and Meshed light on the plight of laid-off auto workers in Flint, Michigan, and damaged the reputation of General Motors chairman Roger Smith, interviewed Philip Knight for his movieThe Big One. On camera, Knight referred to some employees at subcontracted factories as“poor little Indonesian workers.”Moore’s cameras also recorded the following exchange between Moore and Knight:


Twelve-year-olds working in [Indone-

sian] factories? That’s OK with you?


They’re not 12-year-olds working in

factories…the minimumage is 14.


How about 14, then? Doesn’t that

bother you?



Knight, the only CEO interviewed in the movie,

received harsh criticism for his comments. Nike

alleged that the comments were taken out of

context and were deceitful because Moore failed to

include Knight’s pledge to make a transition from

a 14- to a 16-year-old minimum age labor force.

Nike prepared its own video that includes the

entire interview.17

Thomas Nguyen, founder of Vietnam Labor

Watch, inspected several of Nike’s plants in

Vietnam in 1998 and reported cases of worker

abuse. At one factory that manufactures Nike

products, a supervisor punished 56 women for

wearing inappropriate work shoes by forcing

them to run around the factory in the hot sun.

Twelve workers fainted and were taken to the

hospital. Nguyen also reported that workers were only allowed one bathroom break and two drinks of water during each eight-hour shift. Nike responded that the supervisor who was involved in the fainting incident has been suspended and that the firm had hired an independent accounting firm to look into the matters further.18Nike Responds.In 1997, Nike hired former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young, a vocal opponent of sweatshops and child labor, to review the firm’s overseas labor practices. Neither party disclosed the fee that Young received for his services. Young toured 12 factories in Vietnam, Indonesia, and China and was reportedly given unlimited access. However, he was constantly accompanied by Nike representatives during all factory tours. Furthermore, Young relied upon Nike translators when communicating with factory workers.19In his 75-page report, Young concluded that“Nike is doing a good job, but it can do better.”He provided Nike with six recommendations for improving the working conditions at subcontracted factories. Nike immediately responded to the report and agreed to implement all six recommendations. Young did not address the issue of wages andstandards of living because he felt he lacked the“academic credentials”for such a judgment.20Public reaction to Young’s report was mixed. Some praised Nike. However, many of Nike’s opponents disregarded Young’s report as biased and incomplete. One went so far as to state the report could not have been better if Nike had written it themselves and questioned Young’s independence.21,22In 1998, Nike hired Maria Eitel to fill the newly created position of vice president for corporate and social responsibility. Eitel was formerly a public relations executive for Microsoft. Her responsibilities were to oversee Nike’s labor practices, environmental affairs, and involvement in the global community. Although this move was applauded by some, others were skeptical and claimed that Nike’s move was nothing more than a publicity stunt.23Later that same year, Philip Knight gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, and announced six initiatives that were intended to improve the working conditions in its overseas factories. The firm chose to raise the minimum hiring age from 16 to 18 years of age.

Nike also decided to expand its worker education program so that all workers in Nike factories would have the option to take middle and high school equivalency tests.24The director of Global Exchange, one of Nike’s staunchest opponents, called the initiatives“significant and very positive.”He also added that“we feel that the measures—if implemented—could be exciting.”25


Colleges and universities have direct ties to the many athletic shoe and apparel companies (such as Nike, Champion, and Reebok) that contract with overseas manufacturers. Most universities receive money from athletic shoe and apparel corporations in return for outfitting the university’s sports teams with the firm’s products. In 1997, Nike gave $7.1 million to the University of North Carolina for the right to outfit all of UNC’ssports teams with products bearing the Nike Swoosh logo.26Additionally, academic institutions allow firms to manufacture apparel bearing the university’s official name, colors, and insignias in return for a fee. In 1998, the University of Michigan received $5.7 million dollars in licensing fees.27Most of these contract and licensing fees are allocated toward scholarships and other academic programs. Today, these practices continue and the amounts of money are much larger.Organized Labor.In 1995, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) was founded. The union, a member of the AFL-CIO, was formed by the merger of The International Ladies’Garment Workers’ Union and the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and represented two hundred and fifty thousand workers in North America and Puerto Rico. Most of the union members work in the textile and apparel industry. In 1996, UNITE launched a“Stop Sweatshops” campaign after the Kathy Lee Gifford story broke to“link union, consumers, student, civil rights and women’s groups in the fight against sweatshops at home and abroad.”28In 1997, UNITE, along with the AFL-CIO, recruited dozens of college students for summer internships. Many of the students referred to that summer as“Union Summer.”For the students involved, it had the same impact that“Freedom Summer” did for students during the civil rights movement.29The United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) organization was formed the following year. The USAS was founded and was led by former UNITE summer interns.30University Organizations.The USAS has chapters at dozens of universities across the United States. Since its inception, the organization has staged a large number of campus demonstrations that are reminiscent of the 1960s. One notable demonstration occurred on the campus of UNC in 1997. Students of the Nike Awareness Campaignprotested against the university’s contract with Nike due to the firm’s alleged sweatshop abuses. More than 100 students demanded that the university not renew its contract with Nike and rallied outside the office of the university’s chancellor. More than 50 other universities, such as the University of Wisconsin and Duke, staged similar protests and sit-ins.31In response to the protests at UNC, Nike invited the editor of the university’s student newspaper to tour Nike’s overseas contractors to examine the working conditions firsthand. Nike offered to fund the trip by pledging $15,000 toward the students’travel and accommodations costs. Ironically, Michael Jordan is an alumnus of UNC.32

Critics of the USAS contend that the student organization is merely a puppet of UNITE and organized labor. They cite the fact that the AFLCIO has spent more than $3 million on internships and outreach programs with the alleged intent of interesting students in careers as union activists. The founders of the USAS are former UNITE interns. The USAS admits that UNITE has tipped off the student movement as to the whereabouts of alleged sweatshop factories. Also, in an attempt to spur campus interest in the sweatshop cause, UNITE sent two sweatshop workers on a fivecampus tour. They have also coached students via phone during sit-ins and paid for regularly scheduled teleconferences between antisweatshop student leaders on different campuses. According to Allan Ryan, a Harvard University lawyer who has negotiated with the USAS,“[T]he students are vocal, but it’s hard to get a viewpoint from them that does not reflect that of UNITE.”33Many students have denied allegations that they are being manipulated by organized labor and claim that they discovered the sweatshop issues on their own. Others acknowledge the assistance of organized labor but claim it is“no different from [student] civil rights activists using the NAACP in the 1960s.”34John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, claims the role of organized labor is not one of manipulation but ofmotivation. Others assert that the union merely provides moral support.35Regardless of the AFL-CIO’s intentions, the students have had a positive impact upon the promotion of organized labor’s antisweatshop agenda over the years. According to the director of one of the several human rights groups that are providing assistance to the students:At this moment, the sweatshop protest is definitely being carried on the backs of university students. If a hundred students hold a protest, they get a page in theNew York Times.If a hundred union people did that, they’d be locked up.36By 2007, United Students Against Sweatshops claimed to have approximately 200 affiliated high schools, colleges, and universities, and contacts on more than 400 campuses. USAS currently has four staff members and offices in Washington, DC, and New York City. Today, USAS promotes The Sweat-Free Campus Campaign as a multifaceted, extremely successful program in which students organize antisweatshop campaigns on their campuses, mandating that the clothes bearing their collegiate logos be manufactured under fair and ethical conditions.37


In 1996, a presidential task force of industry and human rights representatives was given the job of addressing the sweatshop issue. The key purpose of this task force was to develop a workplace code of conduct and a system for monitoring factories to ensure compliance. In 1998, the task force created the Fair Labor Association (FLA) to accomplish these goals. This organization is made up of consumer and human rights groups as well as footwear and apparel manufacturers. Nike was one of the first companies to join the FLA. Many other major manufacturers (Levi Strauss & Co., Liz Claiborne, Patagonia, Polo Ralph Lauren, Reebok,Eddie Bauer, and Phillips-Van Heusen) along with hundreds of colleges and universities have also joined the FLA.38FLA Requirements.Members of the FLA must follow the principles set forth in the organization’s Workplace Code of Conduct. The FLA Workplace Code of Conduct sets member standards in the following areas: forced labor, child labor, harassment or abuse, nondiscrimination, health and safety, freedom of association, wages and benefits, hours of work, and overtime compensation. Member organizations that license or contract with overseas manufacturers or suppliers are responsible for ensuring that factory employees are paid either the minimum wage as required by law or the average industry wage, whichever is higher. Additionally, the code of conduct sets limits on the number of hours employees can work, allows workers the right to collective bargaining, and forbids discrimination.39Each member firm must conduct an internal audit of every manufacturing facility on a yearly basis. Furthermore, members of the FLA must disclose to the FLA the location of all subcontracted factories. This information will not be made public. The FLA uses a team of external auditors to monitor the compliance of these factories with the FLA’s code of conduct. These monitoring activities consist of a combination of announced and unannounced factory visits, and results are made available to the public.40The WRC Alternative.The USAS opposed several of the FLA’s key components and created the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) as an alternative to the FLA. The WRC asserts that the prevailing industry or legal minimum wage in some countries is too low and does not provide employees with the basic human needs. They propose that factories should instead pay a higher“living wage”that takes into account the wage required to provide factory employees with enough income to afford housing, energy, nutrition, clothing, health care, education, potable water, child care, transportation, and savings.Additionally, the WRC supports public disclosure of all factory locations and the right to monitor any factory at any time. As of August 2007, 174 colleges and universities had joined the WRC and agreed to adhere to its policies.41Nike, a member and supporter of the FLA, has opposed the Worker Rights Consortium. The firm states that a concept of a living wage is impractical, as“there is no common, agreed-upon definition of the living wage. Definitions range from complex mathematical formulas to vague philosophical notions.” Additionally, Nike was once opposed to the WRC’s proposal that the location of all factories be publicly disclosed. Nike also has claimed that the monitoring provisions set out by the WRC are unrealistic and biased toward organized labor.42The University of Oregon, Philip Knight’s alma mater, joined the WRC in the year 2000. Alumnus Knight had previously contributed more than $50 million to the university—$30 million for academics and $20 million for athletics. Upon hearing that his alma mater had joined the WRC, Knight was shocked. He withdrew a proposed $30 million donation and stated that“the bonds of trust, which allowed me to give at a high level, have been shredded” and“there will be no further donations of any kind to the University of Oregon.”43,44


In May 2001, Harsh Saini, Nike’s corporate and social responsibility manager, acknowledged that the firm may not have handled the sweatshop issue as well as it could have and stated that Nike had not been adequately monitoring its subcontractors in overseas operations until the media and other organizations revealed the presence of sweatshops.We were a bunch of shoe geeks who expanded so much without thinking of being socially responsible that we went from being a very big sexy brand name to suddenly becoming the poster boy for everything bad in manufacturing.She added,“We realized that if we still want to be the brand of choice in 20 years, we had certain responsibilities to fulfill.”45Oregon Reverses Its Decision.In early 2001, Oregon’s state board of higher education cast doubt on the legality of the University of Oregon’s WRC membership, and the university dissolved its ties with the labor organization.46In September of the same year, Phil Knight renewed his financial support. Although the exact amount of Knight’s donation was kept confidential, it was sufficient enough to ensure that the $85 million expansion of the university’s football stadium would go through as originally planned. In 2000, the stadium expansion plans suffered a significant setback when Knight withdrew his funding. Many of the proposed additions, such as a 12,000-seat capacity increase and 32 brand-new skyboxes, were made possible largely due to Knight’s pledge of financial support.47,48Nike released its first corporate social responsibility report in October 2001. According to Phil Knight,“[I]n this report, Nike for the first time has assembled a comprehensive public review of our corporate responsibility practices.”49The report cites several areas in which the firm could do better, such as worker conditions in Indonesia and Mexico. The report, compiled by both internal auditors and outside monitors, also notes that Nike is one of only four companies that has joined a World Wildlife Fund program to reduce greenhouse admissions. Jason Mark, a spokesman for Global Exchange, one of Nike’s chief critics, praised the report and stated that Nike is“obviously responding to consumer concerns.”50KASKY V . N I K E , I N C .Nike’s problems with fair labor issues continued on a related front. Labor activist Mark Kasky had sued Nike in 1998, arguing that Nike had engaged in false advertising when it denied that there was mistreatment of workers in Southeast Asian factories. At issue was the question of whether Nike’s defense of its practices was commercial speech, forwhich there are laws against making misleading claims, or political speech, for which free speech protections apply. The California Supreme Court ruled that Nike’s statements about labor conditions could be construed as false advertising. Nike appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent it back to the California court without making a judgment on the free speech issue. In September 2003, Kasky and Nike settled the case for a $1.5 million donation to the Fair Labor Association.51The settlement, however, left many questions unanswered.52Many feared that the risk of lawsuits would have a chilling effect, causing firms to stop releasing social responsibility reports, which unlike the SEC financial reports, are all voluntary. In 2001, Nike issued a corporate social responsibility report, but the company announced that, due to the California decision, they would not release a corporate social responsibility report in 2002–2003. Nike released a“Community Investment” report detailing its philanthropic efforts instead.53In 2004, the company did release a sustainability report.54


Nike’s critics have not gone away, but they have quieted down as the company has taken steps to address many of the criticisms made over the years. Though the critics are less vocal today compared to previous periods, there is still some ongoing opposition to the company. Typical of the continuing opposition is the organization Educating for Justice (EFJ) that runs a continuing Stop Nike Sweatshops campaign. In 2006, EFJ planned a film titledSweat. The film, as described on EFJ’s website, is the journey of two young Americans uncovering the story behind the statistics about Nike factory workers. Through the lens of their experiences, they claim viewers will discover the injustices of Nike’s labor practices in the developing world, specifically in Indonesia, and how Nike's cutthroat, bottom-lineeconomic decisions have a profound effect on human lives.55


In spite of its controversial record on the issue of sweatshops and monitoring labor practices abroad, Nike has been the recipient of a variety of CSR recognitions over the past several years. For example, Nike claimed the only spot in its industry for the 2007 list of the World’s Top Sustainable Stocks. In addition, in the Apparel category, Nike was named to the 2007 World's Most Ethical companies list compiled byEthisphere magazine. Finally, Nike earned the No. 3 ranking on the 2007“100 Best Corporate Citizens”list published byCRO magazine. Nike’s ranking rose from No. 13 in 2006 and No. 31 in 2005.56

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the ethical and social issues in this case?

2. Why should Nike be held responsible for what happens in factories that it does not own?

Does Nike have a responsibility to ensure that factory workers receive a“living wage”? Do the wage guidelines of FLA or WRC seem most appropriate to you? Why?

3. Is it ethical for Nike to pay endorsers millions while its factory employees receive a few dollars a day?

4. Is Nike’s responsibility to monitor its subcontracted factories a legal, economic, social, or philanthropic responsibility? What was it 10 years ago? What will it be 10 years from now?

5. What could Nike have done, if anything, to prevent the damage to its corporate reputation?

What steps should Nike take in the future? Is it“good business” for Nike toacknowledge its past errors and become more socially responsible?

6. What are the goals of the AFL-CIO? Does the campus antisweatshop movement help or hinder the AFL-CIO’s goals? Are the students being“used” by the AFL-CIO?

7. Regarding theKasky v. Nike, Inc. case, is Nike’s defense of its practices commercial speech or political speech? What are the long-term implications of your decision, not only for Nike but also for business in general?

8. Conduct your own personal research on Nike’s response to sweatshop-type situations.

What are they doing now?

Case Endnotes

1. Copy of e-mail exchange found at Department of Personal Freedom website, http://


3. ABC News website, http://abcnews.go .com/sections/business/DailyNews/ nike010402.html.


5. Bien Hoa,“Job Opportunity or Exploitation,”Los Angeles Times(April 18, 1999).

6. Philip Knight,“Global Manufacturing: The Nike Story Is Just Good Business,” Vital Speeches of the Day, 64(20): 637–640.

7.Ibid., 637–640.

8. These data were presented on an earlier Nike website that is no longer available. The site was: .shtml.

9. New Balance website, about.php, retrieved September 21, 2007.

10. New Balance website,

11. David Bauman,“After the Tears, Gifford Testifies on Sweatshops—She Turns Lights, Cameras on Issue,”Seattle Times(July 16, 1996), A3.

12. Del Jones,“Critics Tie Sweatshop Sneakers to‘Air’ Jordan,”USA Today(June 6, 1996), 1B.


14. Nike Press Release, June 6, 1996.

15. Del Jones, 1B.

16. Garry Trudeau,“Sneakers in Tinseltown,” Time(April 20, 1998), 84.

17. William J. Holstein,“Casting Nike as the Bad Guy,”U.S. News & World Report(September

22, 1997), 49.

18. Verena Dobnik,“Nike Shoe Contractor Abuses Alleged,”Atlanta Journal-Constitution

(March 18, 1997), A14.

19. Simon Beck,“Nike in Sweat over Heat Raised by Claims of Biases Assessment,” South China Morning Post(July 6, 1997), 2.

20. Matthew C. Quinn,“Footwear Maker’s Labor Pledge Unlikely to Stamp Out Criticism,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution(June 25, 1997), F8.

21. G. Pascal Zachary,“Nike Tries to Quell Exploitation Charges,”Wall Street Journal(June 15, 1997).

22. Simon Beck, 2.

23. Bill Richards,“Nike Hires an Executive from Microsoft for New Post Focusing on Labor Policies,” Wall Street Journal(January 15, 1998), B14.

24. Philip Knight, 640.

25. Patti Bond,“Nike Promises to Improve Factory Worker Conditions,”Atlanta Journal-

Constitution(May 13, 1998), 3B.

26. Allan Wolper,“Nike’s Newspaper Temptation,”Editor & Publisher(January 10, 1998), 8–10.

27. Gregg Krupa,“Antisweatshop Activists Score in Campaign Targeting Athletic Retailers,” Boston Globe(April 18, 1999), F1.

28. UNITE webpage,http://www.uniteunion .org/research/history/unionisborn.html.

29. Krupa, F1.

30. UNITE webpage.

31. Wolper, 8–10.

32. Wolper, 8.

33. Jodie Morse,“Campus Awakening,”Time(April 12, 1999), 77–78.

34. Krupa, F1.

35. Morse, 77–78.


37. USAS website:http://www.studentsagainst, retrieved September 21, 2007.

38. Fair Labor Association website:http://www., retrieved September 21, 2007.


"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"


Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper