How can the purchase of a pair of sneakers be seen as an ethical act? Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. shoe and sportswear manufacturer Nike was widely criticized for subcontracting with factories in China and Southeast Asia that were little more than sweatshops with deplorable working conditions. After responding to the criticisms and demanding that its suppliers improve their workplaces, the company began to redeem itself in the eyes of many and has become a model of business ethics and sustainability. However, questions remain about the relationship between business and government. For instance, should a company advocate for labor rights, a minimum wage, and unionization in developing countries where it has operations? What responsibility does it have for the welfare of a contractor’s workers in a culture with differing customs? What right does any Western company have to insist that its foreign contractors observe in their factories the protocols required in the West? What, for example, is sacred about an eight-hour workday? When Nike demands that foreign manufacturers observe Western laws and customs about the workplace, arguably this is capitalist imperialism. Not only that, but Western firms will be charged more for concessions regarding factory conditions. Perhaps this is as it should be, but Western consumers must then be prepared to pay more for material goods than in the past. Some argue that demanding that companies accept these responsibilities imposes cultural standards on another culture through economic pressure. Others insist there should be universal standards of humane employee treatment, and that they must be met regardless of where they come from or who imposes them. But should the market dictate such standards, or should the government? The rise of artificial intelligence and robotics will complicate this challenge because, in time, they may make offshoring the manufacture and distribution of goods unnecessary. It may be cheaper and more efficient to bring these operations back to developed countries and use robotic systems instead. What would that mean for local cultures and their economies? In Nike’s case, automation is already a concern, particularly as competition from its German rival, Adidas, heats up again. What would be required for consumers to have the necessary knowledge about a product and how it was made so that they could make an informed and ethical decision? The media? Commercial watchdog groups? Social-issues campaigns? Something else?
How can the purchase of a pair of sneakers be seen as an ethical act? Throughout the 1990s, the U.S.
shoe and sportswear manufacturer Nike was widely criticized for subcontracting with factories in China
and Southeast Asia that were little more than sweatshops with deplorable working conditions. After
responding to the criticisms and demanding that its suppliers improve their workplaces, the company
began to redeem itself in the eyes of many and has become a model of
sustainability. However, questions remain about the relationship between business and government.
For instance, should a company advocate for labor rights, a minimum wage, and unionization in
developing countries where it has operations? What responsibility does it have for the welfare of a
contractor’s workers in a culture with differing customs? What right does any Western company have to
insist that its foreign contractors observe in their factories the protocols required in the West? What, for
example, is sacred about an eight-hour workday? When Nike demands that foreign manufacturers
observe Western laws and customs about the workplace, arguably this is capitalist imperialism. Not only
that, but Western firms will be charged more for concessions regarding factory conditions. Perhaps this
is as it should be, but Western consumers must then be prepared to pay more for material goods than in
the past.
Some argue that demanding that companies accept these responsibilities imposes cultural standards on
another culture through economic pressure. Others insist there should be universal standards of
humane employee treatment, and that they must be met regardless of where they come from or who
imposes them. But should the market dictate such standards, or should the government?
The rise of artificial intelligence and robotics will complicate this challenge because, in time, they may
make offshoring the manufacture and distribution of goods unnecessary. It may be cheaper and more
efficient to bring these operations back to developed countries and use robotic systems instead. What
would that mean for local cultures and their economies? In Nike’s case, automation is already a concern,
particularly as competition from its German rival, Adidas, heats up again.
What would be required for consumers to have the necessary knowledge about a product and how
it was made so that they could make an informed and ethical decision? The media? Commercial
watchdog groups? Social-issues campaigns? Something else?
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
