NIKE: THE PERFECT STORM
A SOCIAL AUDIT OF NIKE INC’S
GLOBAL BUSINESS
SECTION 3 GROUP 9
RACHEL GEIGER
MONTE SHAFFER
MONICA BERRIO
JEFF BRIGHTON
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
DEFENSIVE: “IT’S NOT OUR JOB TO FIX THAT” ............................................................................... 2
COMPLIANCE: “WE’LL DO JUST AS MUCH AS WE HAVE TO”......................................................... 3
MANAGERIAL: “IT’S THE BUSINESS, STUPID”.................................................................................. 4
STRATEGIC: “IT GIVES US A COMPETITIVE EDGE” ............................................................................. 5
CIVIL: “WE NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT” ...................................................... 8
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE ........................................................................................................... 10
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 11
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
1
The Perfect Storm
1997-1999. It was “the perfect storm” — a tempest that may
happen only once in a century — created by so rare a combination
of factors that it could not possibly have been worse. The storm
whipped the sea to inconceivable levels few people on Earth have
ever witnessed. Few, except the crew of Nike — with Phil Knight
at the helm — which headed towards its hellish center.i
INTRODUCTION
Traditional 20th century economic business theory was on a collision course with the new age
beliefs of Corporate Responsibility. From the wake of this storm, Corporate Social
Responsibility was born. Nike rode the traditional wave to the center of the storm, and defiantly
tried to withstand the storm’s effects – to no avail. A conflict consisting of a complex array of
Phil Knight’s personal ego, Nike’s corporate initiatives and activists developed to make Nike one
of the most criticized companies of this century. Finally, Nike has yielded to the onset of the age
of CSR, and is making profound efforts to become a Good Corporate Citizen. However, the
attempt to withstand the torrent of change cost Nike dearly – quantifying the new beliefs that
Social Responsibility has Economic Impactsii.
A historic narrative of this “labor” issue will best demonstrate the dynamics of this situation as
one company is isolated in the evolution of corporate citizenship. There are five basic stages in
this evolution in society and within a corporation: Defensive, Compliance, Managerial, Strategic
and Civiliii. An examination of Nike’s journey through these stages to their current position in
strategic and civil CSR illustrates their transition from business leader to societal leader.
DEFENSIVE: “IT’S NOT OUR JOB TO FIX THAT”
Passionate about sports, Phil Knight has always been considered a free-spirited and resourceful
competitor. In 1964, Phil Knight partnered with his former University of Oregon track coach
Bill Bowerman, “shook hands,” and began Blue Ribbon Sports, based on an innovative strategy
created during his years at the Stanford business school. The strategy had two major elements:
one, all manufacturing would be outsourced creating one of the world’s first virtual corporations;
two, saved money would be poured into marketing celebrity, high-profile, athletic endorsements.
Phil Knight created a unique culture around Nike – a culture of confidence, an iconoclast defying
the Establishment. This air of excellence, with great marketing slogans like “Just Do It” and “Be
Like Mike” helped create a Nike brand of unparalleled value. Nike was the definition of brand
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
2
in the early and mid 1990s. Key to Nike’s initial success was its endorsement of famous sports
icons; lasting success can be attributed to its endorsement of University Sports Programs.
Behind the scenes, Nike reduced costs by strongly encouraging suppliers to move to lower-cost
production areas. Supplier contracts in Japan expired in the mid 70s. Until 1982, supplier
contracts were almost exclusively in South Korea and Taiwan. Through the 90s, most factories
were in Indonesia and China. The mid 90s even had the opening of factories in Vietnam.
In 1991, daily wages varied from the extreme of $64 in the U.S. to $24 in South Korea and to $1
in Indonesia. Leaving South Korea for Indonesia was an easy business decision for Nike based
on its initial and ongoing strategy. Although there are strong economic arguments for this
entry/exit strategy, the perception of the strategy was created: Nike exploits workers.iv
In reality, Nike had always cautiously maintained a distance from its suppliers. This Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell ignorance would become their first line of defense, and would unintentionally open
the floodgates of criticism in multiple arenas.v
The storm began to roil as activists such as Jeff Ballinger targeted Nike. In 1988, as the director
of Labor association in Indonesia, Jeff interviewed hundreds of Indonesian workers and
compiled data against Nike and others: unrealistic production quotas, mistreatment of workers,
health regulation violations, bribery, etc. His debut as a Nike critic came in 1992 when he wrote
an exposé in Harper’s Monthly. He would be followed by Jim Keady in 1997, a devout Catholic
who decided to try and live in Indonesia on the $1.25/day going wage. Since, he has been one of
the most outspoken and zealous critics.
These critics began to affiliate with several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to fight
Nike. One, Global Exchange, has been a personal nemesis to Phil Knight, who was specifically
mentioned in a stockholder’s address in late 1997 as the one NGO with which Nike will never
openly dialogue. The foundation of this mutual dislike and ego struggle is based on the
fundamental accusations of the Global Exchange: Nike created this exploitation mess and forced
its competition to follow. Therefore, Nike would be the public target for the desired reform.vi
COMPLIANCE: “WE’LL DO JUST AS MUCH AS WE HAVE TO”
Amid the explosion of criticism, Nike began to see that they would have to take some action to
appease the storm. In 1992, Dusty Kidd, a new hire in the PR department, began to work on a
Corporate Code of Conduct. However, even this document came out of Nike’s competitive
determination to be the best, demonstrated by comments from the company that it was released
only months behind the Levi Strauss’ Code, the first of the apparel industry. In 1997, Vada
Stranger was hired as the Global Director of Issues Management with expertise in litigation
support, global manufacturing practices, and crisis communications. Formerly employed by
Levi Strauss, he has been entrenched in the details of the political climate of the issues.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
3
Determined to educate the public on Nike’s efforts, Vada promoted the image of Nike: “Nike
approaches this as it approaches everything, as competition. And we aim to win.” He has
adamantly defended the Nike stance in various media settings, including a Today Show segment
in which he defended Nike’s right to not allow Jonah Peretti to order a custom shoe with the
word “sweatshop.” His message has always been clear – Nike is the leader in all aspects of
business and activist groups constantly obscure or distort Nike’s commitment to human rights. vii
These efforts seem directed to do just enough to calm the storm somewhat. But even here you
can see that the driving force seemed to be a desire to beat others in PR effort rather than to solve
the problem. Nike’s continuing insistence that it was not their problem and they could not be
held responsible led them to be pilloried in the press (See Appendix A) rather than moving
immediately towards being a corporate citizen by making labor rights a big deal.
MANAGERIAL: “IT’S THE BUSINESS, STUPID”
Phil Knight, the ever-active sports enthusiast and die-hard competitor, was ready and willing to
lead his team into battle. Little did he know that he was steering his company into the heart of a
violent storm. “Knight was blindsided by the ferocity of the anti-Nike sentiment about its
overseas workers. The damage to the brand was real.” Market share was being lost to hiking
boots, sales were slowing, profits were lagging, and the stock value had plummeted. Falling
from its all-time high of $67.51 (February 13, 1997) with the release of the Jardine Fleming Nike
Index, Nike hit low points of $29.07 (September 2, 1998) and $25.09 (February 25, 2000).viii
p. 121, Business Week – February 21, 2000
Reactionary PR tactics were backfiring as activist momentum built following the release of the
Nike Index. Garry Trudeau, the “social satirist,” devoted a series of Doonesbury (May-June
1997) strips to heighten the “americana experience” of the Nike dilemma.
Nike took action by sponsoring several reports and audits on the situation. The Andrew Young
report was immediately criticized for its faulty methodologies, as was a “sufficient wage”
analysis completed by MBA students at Amos Tuck Dartmouth. Immediately in between the
press release announcements of these two reports, an internal audit from Earnst & Young was
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
4
leaked to the press, grabbing the front page of the New York Times: Nike Shoe Plant in Vietnam
Is Called Unsafe for Workers.ix
Despite the dismissal of these actions by critics, Nike had begun to realize that CSR would be a
permanent part of its business. Nike hired Maria Eitel, who made it clear to everyone that she
would not have joined Nike if she felt she would be unable to contribute to improving Nike’s
corporate citizenship. “In April 1998, Knight summoned the headquarters staff [and] apologized
for his taking his eye off the ball during Nike’s boom years and failing to prepare it for the rough
times that followed.” By May 12, 1998 at the National Press Club, Phil Knight announced
Nike’s commitments to change: New Labor Initiatives. The tone of the introductory comments
showed no sign of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for the criticisms received. Rather, it
demonstrated his personal frustrations with the media and its injustice – how dare they treat me
and Nike this way! His comments full of ego and arrogance segued into six announcements to
extend Nike’s Code of Conduct.x
The next day, however, Phil Knight made it clear that Nike is rethinking its overall strategy to
prepare for the new millennium. Indeed, he admitted the anti-Nike sentiment had some impact
(about 10%) on Nike’s decision to evaluate and improve its processes: “we really look at [the
responsibility to working conditions] as more than just a subcontracting relationship, that it's
really a partnership not in the legal sense but in the moral sense, with the Asian factories.”
Reconnecting to the value chain, to both suppliers and retail outlets, was essential to creating
sustainable change and turning the company around.
In mid 2000, Nike created the Corporate Responsibility Compliance Group and named Dusty
Kidd its VP. He understood the scope and degree of complexity of his tasks, and describes the
process as ongoing and continuous. He explained that there were varying opinions and
discussion internally on dealing with the situation, and in hindsight, admitted that Nike would
have been much better off embracing the NGO critics from the start. He also agreed with Jeff
Ballinger that the focus of helping the laborers had been forgotten in the frenzied debates.xi
In these debates, Phil Knight continued to defend his outsourcing strategies and the innocence of
Nike, even as his company made efforts to determine the next steps to ease the problems. The
public refusal of Nike’s CEO to accept responsibility for the situation, whether it was conscious
exploitation or merely “good” business as it was previously defined, only served to fuel the
critics’ fire and prevent Nike from being perceived as on the road to corporate citizenship.
STRATEGIC: “IT GIVES US A COMPETITIVE EDGE”
Nike has lost values in many ways, but now looks to CSR leadership to survive. Maria Eitel has
shown a determination to move forward as a CSR leader. Nike has contributed to the foundation
of various organizations committed to labor rights, including the Global Alliance, of which Eitel
is a member of the board, and the Nike Foundation, of which she is president.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
5
The loudest outcry from critics continues over the issue of a “living wage”. At the most basic
level, compensation, or wages, determines the ability of the employee to provide for themselves
and any others that they may support. But are our “needs” the same as others? How do we
define a “living wage” accurately and economically?
After years of debate between Nike and its critics, Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange's
Corporate Accountability Director, still insists that, "There have probably been some
improvements [in Nike labor standards], but we have yet to see any meaningful improvement in
the areas of living wages or the right to organize."xii And yet others defend Nike as a pioneer,
“Nike has ‘set the apparel-industry standard for reform of wages, hours and minimum working
ages in its contract factories.’”xiii To be sure, Nike has made labor issues the core of its CSR
strategy.
In the countries where Nike operates, there are fewer jobs, and a higher willingness to work for
lower wages. Even supposed “professional” occupations pay much lower in these countries than
they do in the United States. As one observer said,
"The fact that Nike's contractors can find people willing to work for the wages they offer
now is proof enough that the pay is in line with the going rate in the local market . . . if
Nike were to double its salary as suggested, those in the employment line at Nike will
include surgeons, teachers, engineers and key government officials. But does not
Vietnam need her surgeons, engineers and teachers?"xiv
Critics insist that, even where Nike’s wage is above the government-established minimum wage,
that minimum wage only covers about 70% of an individual’s needs, let alone their family’s.
In 1997, Nike told its Indonesian contractors to not ask for exceptions to the minimum wage and
in April 1999, after an increase in the minimum wage by the government, Nike raised wages
higher than the legally required minimum.xv In Thailand, pay was said to seem fair by 72% of
employees surveyed.xvi Turnover, less than 2% in most factories, also seems to indicate no
extreme displeasure with factory wages. Of course, critics would respond that these numbers are
manipulated by Nike or that “such loyalty suggests that workers do not have better prospects”.xvii
The chart in Appendix B outlines pay structures in the countries where Nike operates.xviii
For the countries where a legal minimum wage is listed, Nike lists a factory wage above the
minimum wage. However, in many of these countries either no national minimum wage exists
or it is determined by local government organizations. In many of these countries, Nike also
indicates that the factory wage varies by location. This shows that setting of wages is still made
by individual factory owners. Although Nike appears to have taken steps to pay a wage above
the national minimum where one is available, they have not done the same in less regulated
countries. Are they responsible for this? No matter the cause of the neglect, whether economic,
social, legal or political, Nike does have a responsibility to be involved in the welfare of these
workers.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
6
In what way, though, can Nike contribute to both present and future human dignity in the
countries where its factories reside? But will doubling wages be the best action for workers and
their families? Many, including the Pope, declare that
“The fact is that many people, perhaps the majority today, do not have the means which
would enable them to take their place in an effective and humanly dignified way within a
productive system in which work is truly central. They have no possibility of acquiring
the basic knowledge which would enable them to express their creativity and develop
their potential. They have no way of entering the network of knowledge and
intercommunication which would enable them to see their qualities appreciated and
utilized. Thus, if not actually exploited, they are to a great extent marginalized; economic
development takes place over their heads, so to speak, when it does not actually reduce
the already narrow scope of their old subsistence economies . . . Allured by the dazzle of
an opulence which is beyond their reach, and at the same time driven by necessity, these
people crowd the cities of the Third World . . . Many other people, while not completely
marginalized, live in situations in which the struggle for a bare minimum is uppermost . .
. for the poor, to the lack of material goods has been added a lack of knowledge and
training which prevents them from escaping their state of humiliating subjection.”xix
Nike’s strategy does indeed aim to address the deeper issue. They fund many programs and
seminars to improve the management and team skills of its employees, including: xx
 The Next Step (3 days): Build leadership capacity and high profile communication skills
among managers. Fundamental learning process is sharing career experiences of
executives with junior managers in an interactive forum.
 Line of Sight (5 days): We assemble people in teams and have them manage a sport
business using one of the most sophisticated computer business simulations in the world.
Our goals are fact-based decision making, teamwork and shareholder value.
 Competency-Based Selection (2 days): Build the competencies of our Line Managers to
assess and select the best person for each and every job at Nike. Building a winning team
is essential to be competitive and we take this challenge seriously.
 Diversity Workshop (3 days): The world is complex and diverse. We want to prepare our
leaders to have the skills and understanding to manage the complexities of being a global
U.S.-based company.
In recent years, however, Nike has also made efforts to facilitate the development of factory
workers. In 1998, Knight committed to a Code of Conduct that outlines an expanded education
program. The expanded program is described as follows:xxi
“The Jobs + Education program offers footwear factory workers educational
opportunities, such as middle school and high school equivalency courses. The classes
will be free and scheduled during non-work hours. Factory participation is voluntary, but
by 2002 Nike will order only from footwear factories that offer some form of after-hours
education”.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
7
The need described by the Pope exists. A study showed that 60% of Nike workers had very low
education levels. Comparatively, 48% of the women from other factories completed their
secondary education and 18% completed senior high school. “By contrast, only 33% and 7% of
Nike workers, respectively, had completed SMP and SMA. Therefore, 60% of the Nike women
surveyed had only 6 years education (SD), while 66% of all other women surveyed had between
9 and 12 years education (SMP or SMA)”.xxii
Nike’s after-hours program has become standard at almost all Nike plants. As of June 1999
there were 20 education programs in 37 Asian Nike factories. In establishing the program, Nike
works with the Ministry of Education in each country to ensure GED or other local standards
compliance where the employee desires it. The program covers expenses including books and a
meal allowance. Of these costs, Nike funds 50% of the cost to each supplier. As a result of
these programs, factory managers have promoted more line workers to supervisors. This alone
will stimulate both social and economic growth. To date, 10000+ workers have participated in
the program. One such program has 400 workers currently enrolled and an 85% completion rate.
xxiii
Educational development has become a critical part of Nike’s strategy, leading them to replace
expatriate managers with locals in these factories. Educating the workers makes possible this
promotion from within that reduces expatriation costs and costs from cultural and managerial
differences between Korean managers and Vietnamese or Indonesian workers.
CIVIL: “WE NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT”
The value of Nike reached an all-time high on December 17, 2004 ($91.70). 2004 will stand out
as Nike’s comeback year. Nike was awarded the Advertiser of the Year for its second time in
corporate history (the only company to ever win this honor twice in its fifty year history).
These honors come as Nike creates new programs to develop the communities where it resides.
One of the largest, and perhaps most effective, programs is called the Nike Jobs and Micro
Enterprise Program. This can be described as follows:xxiv





Micro enterprise loan program
3200 loans granted to date, with an average loan being at $65
Total Nike investment in the program = $3.5 billion
Includes potential borrowers within a 30 mile radius of Nike suppliers
Each applicant must submit a business plan and go through basic business training and
health seminars, mini-classes about good savings habits
 2300+ women have received funds through this program, and there have been no defaults
on loans in Vietnam
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
8
Nike contributes more to micro credit than most global corporations. 39% of Nike’s cash
contribution where to organizations outside of the United States. They have contributed $3
million to Mercy corps and $2 million to World Vision. Nike has funded micro loans and
provided technical assistance to nearly 15,000 female borrowers in China, Indonesia, Thailand
and Vietnam. Micro Enterprise is a proven strategy to help people in third world countries
become self-sufficient. It is effective in fighting poverty is because it addresses the lack of
financial capital that prevents many from starting businesses. Nike provides access to credit and
other related services such as savings and vocational training, mentoring, financial planning and
leadership development. These micro loans also empower women to support their families and
greatly impact the communities. Local economies can develop sustainability by not being totally
dependent on foreign investors.
Over time Nike has also realized that their definition of stakeholders was very shortsighted.
Nike now collaborates with a wide range of stakeholders, including over 100 non-profit
stakeholder groups.xxv Nike uses a framework developed at SustainAbility Ltd., to help set
priorities to efficiently manage time and money. SustainAbility Ltd. is the world’s leading
business consultant on corporate responsibility and sustainable development.
Nike has three principles that it hopes to promote with each individual stakeholder:xxvi
1. Engagement, even that which may begin in conflict should be mutually beneficial. Many
of the issues around corporate citizenship are extremely complex and there is much to be
learned by all the players.
2. We seek common ground and look for ways in which creative solutions can arise out of
conflict.
3. A relationship should lead to real value both for the business and the stakeholder.
Nike is involved with many stakeholder forums to openly discuss concerns. These organizations
provide Nike with feedback and advice to help them in their quest to be a corporation that is
socially responsible. Some examples are:
 The Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES) – Nike is
interested in being involved in discussions and has adopted 10 of CERES’s
environmental principles.xxvii
 The Global Compact- This organization is in the process of developing universally
recognized standards in the areas of human rights, labor rights and environmental
principles. Another goal is to have a system to monitor company performance.xxviii
 The Fair labor Association- Nike works with this organization to monitor contract
manufacturing facilities. This organization also tracks Nikes efforts to solve the
problems identified in these facilities. xxix
By establishing policies and precedents with NGOs, Nike is setting the bar for other apparel and
manufacturing companies that may prove to change foreign business policy.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
9
The level of autonomy for Nike’s board and executives is also currently changing. The
retirement of Phil Knight at the close of 2004 dramatically shifted the balance of power for Nike.
Knight was the founder of Nike and reigned as CEO since the company’s beginnings. During
that period, for good or evil, Mr. Knight was the head of the company. The course Nike sailed
through the “perfect storm” was set by Phil and no mention is made of his consulting the board
or disagreeing with them. From research it appears that the board of directors of Nike has
operated as a rubber stamp for the powerful and dynamic founder and CEO.
As a result there was little ethical oversight of Mr. Knight’s decisions. No entity within the
corporation could challenge the decisions of Knight and his team of yes-men executives.
Challenge did come from organizations outside the company, and their objections were heard
more loudly and clearly than any ethical oversight board could have possibly been within the
company. We believe that an executive corps, led by Maria Eitel in CSR, has now been freed to
make Nike the social leader it has tried to become.
CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE
We have seen Nike pass through a storm, redefining itself and the role of CSR both its own and
industry strategy. Leadership has been transformed to reflect the new belief that Nike can and
must influence communities and society for good. Maria Eitel demonstrates this new passion
and determination to not “just do it”, but to do it right. Nike must address and take action on
some key issues in coming years:
 “Living Wages”: The debate still rages in what constitutes a living wage in the countries
where Nike operates. Although Nike has shown that they meet minimum wage
requirements where they exist, they have no shown sufficient evidence of what is a living
wage. Nike must conscientiously study the economies of their countries of operations and
establish a true “living wage” in the context of each local economy, including that living
wage as part of their contract with suppliers, the Code of Conduct that they currently agree
upon.
 Education: Nike must ensure that the education programs it provides teach the skills that
are applicable and of real capital value in the local economy. They need to evaluate their
programs more to see what real effect they are having on local economic development and
to identify areas of improvement. Contributing to the intellectual capital, as the Pope
earlier explained, will do more than increasing wages to preserve and increase the dignity
of workers and their ability to provide.
 Micro Enterprise: Nike needs to link the Micro Enterprise program with their education
program, providing opportunities after teaching skills. They also need to track better the
results achieved and the factors most likely to lead to success to improve success rates.
By taking these steps Nike will not only continue to develop themselves as a corporate citizen
but may establish a standard by which global corporations can plant seeds and grow gardens of
economic strength.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
10
APPENDICES
A.
BAD APPLES
PILLORIED IN THE
PRESS
SILENT SAINTS
CORPORATE
CITIZEN
MAKE IT A BIG DEAL
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
11
EXTERNAL
INTERNAL
EXPOSURE
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
NOT A BIG DEAL
B.
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
12
ENDNOTES
i
Adapted from the synopsis of the novel The Perfect Storm.
http://perfectstorm.warnerbros.com/cmp/book_syn.html
NIKE “SWOOSH” in footer from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nikelogotype.png
ANTI-NIKE SMILE in footer from http://www.sweatthefilm.org/store.htm
Milton Friedman’s idea that “business is the business of business” summarizes the traditional view. The debate
continues, although most corporations have learned from Nike’s example to embrace the future.
http://www.rbc.com/newsroom/20031030coffey_1.html (New View)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_20-7-2004_pg3_6 (Traditional View)
ii
Schachter, Harvey. “Classic Stages on the Path to Corporate Responsibility”, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan 7,
2005.
iii
iv
Spar 2002, p 3 & p 6 (Footnote 21) & p 21 (Exhibit 9).
Government Policy regarding import quotas also are balanced into the production capacities of each
country—also determining Nike mobility.
David Taylor, VP of production: “We don’t pay anybody at the factories, and we don’t set policy within the
factories. It’s their business to run.”
Everatt 1999, p 4. Ivey Case: 9A99C034 “Nike Inc. : Developing An Effective Public Relations Strategy”
This reality exacerbated the labor issues: “Last year, for instance, it ordered 400,000 paris of one of its sports
sandals from its contract factories. But when the actual retail orders came in months later, they totaled more than a
million pairs, leaving Nike scrambling for demand.”
Lee 2002, p 126.
v
vi
Tim Connor and Medea Benjamin
http://www.evb.ch/cm_data/Panellrtconnor_0.pdf
Everatt 1999, p 4-6, 13.
Louise Lee, p 124. “Can Nike Still Do It?” Business Week February 21, 2000.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=619
http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike01-02-22.htm
http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2002/sportsf/s641464.asp (Radio “debate” with Eitel)
http://www.oxfam.org.au/campaigns/nike/
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/nike/
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/nike/NikeReport.pdf
http://www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/speakers/12.html
vii
Vada Manager
http://sasua.org/news/newsweek.html
http://www.issuemanagement.org/documents/bios/vada_manager.html
– Nike’s been unfairly targeted by a number of both other companies as well as by individuals
with regard to our practices. We’ve actually been quite a world leader in the past 25 years at
making investments in developing economies throughout Asia, throughout South--Latin
America and have actually provided economic opportunities for quite some time to workers
who seek better opportunities.
http://www.globalvision.org/program/globalization/roleof.html
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
13
Everatt 1999, p 13.
http://www.chicagopublicradio.com/audio_library/ram/wv/wv_020131c.ram
http://www.shey.net/niked.html
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/nike/nike_pages/2001_february_28_Peretti_Nike.htm
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/globalunions/ns03062001.cfm
viii
Lee 200, pp 121 & 124. Stock prices are adjusted for splits to create comparable measures over time. Data
compiled from http://finance.yahoo.com/
ix
Nike Index – see Note 4
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/Nike_DontDoIt_GX.html (General Criticism Response)
Doonesbury cartoons can be found in Exhibit A
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5232/comicmay97.htm
Exhibit B contains Phil Knight’s commentary.
Andrew Young
http://www.calbaptist.edu/dskubik/young.htm (Actual Report)
http://www.saigon.com/~nike/pr5.html (Thuyen Nguyen Response)
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/097.html (PR Spin Response)
Amos Tuck Dartmouth
http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/gc/mp/pdf/vietnameseandindonesian.pdf (Actual Report)
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/mgt/handout/boje/bnike/ (PR Spin Response)
http://abstract.cs.washington.edu/~renacer/Molden%20Ryan.htm (Challenge Premise)
http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/swatch/headlines/1998/nike_jan98.html
Earnst & Young Audit
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/nike/nike101-9.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/11/nike.html
http://www.saigon.com/~nike/pr9.htm
x
Entire Speech is contained in Exhibit B
http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/NIKphilspeech.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june98/nike_5-13.html (Phil Knight -- Next Day)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may98/nike.html (Phil Knight -- FAQ)
xi
Dusty Kidd
Everatt 1999, p 7.
Spar 2002, p 5.
http://www.umich.edu/~asiabus/abc04/panelists/Panelist_Kidd.pdf
http://www.ceres.org/conference/2001/notes/labor_practices.htm
http://www.mercycorps.org/items/172/
http://www.dailyemerald.com/archive/v100/3/990428/nike.html
– The strategic concept for Nike entering the new century is to be an archetype of the
responsible 21st century global company, in the sense that we are providing a sustainable
footprint everywhere, not only with environmental performance, but with people performance
as well. The triple bottom line of people, planet and profit is our goal.
– Nike made a real mistake. I think we reacted negatively to the criticism. We said wait a
minute, we’ve got the best corporate values in the world, so why aren’t you yelling at the
other folks? That was a stupid thing to do and didn’t get us anywhere. If anything it raised the
volume higher.
– I think we've learnt a lot in three years, the hard way maybe, but we've learned a lot and one
of the things I have is a great deal of respect now for the NGO community. There are
organizations out there who really do great work and really do care and are trying to make a
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
14
difficult bridge between the private sector and their issue and their constituencies despite the
great risks involved.
http://www.new-academy.ac.uk/publications/keypublications/documents/nikereport.pdf
Kristina Cañizares, “Nike's Social Responsibility Rhetoric Exposed as a Lie: Nike's Corporate Responsibility
Sham”, AlterNet, May 29, 2001.
xiii
Ibid.
xiv
IVEY case
xv
Nike Corporate Report.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
http://ur.rutgers.edu/news/ACLA/nikegood.htm
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Papal Encyclical, ????
xx
Corporate report, People Development section. See report for more details.
xxi
Nike Corporation: Jumping the Hurdles of Social Responsibility
xxii
http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike9-96.htm
xxiii
Nike article in book copied by Monte
xxiv
Article copied by Monte – from book
xxv
FY 2001 Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 54
xxvi
FY 2001 Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 54
xxvii
FY 2001 Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 54
xxviii
FY 2001 Corporate Responsibility Report, Page 54
xii
xxix
FY 2001 Corporate Responsibility Report
The Perfect Storm
February 15, 2005
15