Nike Sweatshop

1. Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but where sub-contractors make products for Nike?

Overall, I think Nike should be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own, but of course you have to weigh how much influence a company like Nike can have regarding working conditions. Establishing an independent monitoring association like the “Fair Labor Association” (FLA) is a good way to improve bad labor standards. Outsourcing its manufacturing divisions into foreign countries doesn’t release Nike from the responsibility of having bad working conditions. During a developing process manufacturing is one of the most important intermediate steps and because of that it belongs to Nike’s responsibilities, no matter if they own the manufacturer or not. Everybody knows that it is hard to keep the overview about every developing stage but if you decide to put this step into a foreign country, you have to find a way of taking the control.

2. What labor standards regarding safety, working conditions, overtime, and the like, should Nike hold foreign factories to: those prevailing in that country, or those prevailing in the United States?

I believe the obvious reason why Nike seeks contractors in foreign countries is so they don’t have to follow the same regulations and/or standards to those in the United States. Nike has suffered attacks from a number of agencies and organizations throughout the world that claim that the workers who manufacture Nike shoes and accessories are denied the basic essentials of a fair wage and decent benefits. Rather than playing defense and taking blows from their critics they could seek ways to improve the conditions of workers.

3. An income of $2.28 a day, the base pay of Nike factory workers in Indonesia, is double the daily income of about half the working population. Half of all adults in Indonesia are farmers, who receive less than $1...