Nike vs. University of Oregon

NIKE VS. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

When we speak of Corporate Social responsibility- a phrase widely being used these days- do we realize that it is not limited to acts of philanthropy alone. Most firms would pride themselves on their various philanthropic ventures but this alone is definitely not CSR. CSR includes to a large extent everything action that firm takes in relation to those who work for the firm, who are impacted by firm's decisions and actions and the community at large. In this regard then, it is obviously safe to conclude that CSR also include a firm's labor practices and employment clauses. If a firm fails to treat its employees with dignity and fails to respect their basic human rights, it indicates a serious lack of CSR.

Nike Inc. is one firm that has been repeatedly accused of showing serious disregard for implementation of ethical labor practices. It was in early 1990s that Nike came under fire for its sub-human labor practices in third world factories. The fact that Nike had turned a blind eye to the conditions prevailing in these factories spoke volumes about firm's disregard for human or employee rights. Not only were the working conditions deplorable, the wages paid to the workers were too low to be considered real wages. It was then that several magazines printed reports on Nike's imperialistic policies and lack of concern for its workers. This worked as a so-called wake up when Nike decided to take some action for damage control. It employed Ernst and Young to audit the working conditions in factories while it also joined Fair Labor Association to show its sincerity for implementation of a code of conduct.

University of Oregon- a beneficiary of Nike Inc.- on the other hand joined Worker Rights Consortium, an organization that severed ties with FLA accusing of not being serious enough. WRC was a rival association and since Nike had been supporting FLA for sometimes, Nike saw University of Oregon's decision as a kind of betrayal, which led to immediate withdrawal of support. University of Oregon stood by its decision, which sets an example of right conduct.

It is important to understand that multinational firms have a duty towards the community and if they fail to comply, we, the consumers should use our purchasing power as a pressure tactic. Payment of appropriate wages is a responsibility of the firm and so is maintenance of good working conditions. Therefore when a firm as large as Nike fails to take into account its responsibilities, it is important that consumers pressurize them into seeing this. The only tool that we have is our purchasing power. If we decide not to purchase products made under certain sub-human conditions, it will automatically put the firm under pressure to revise its labor practices.