Nike: A Case Study - Alex

Nike, a billion dollar multi-national corporation, is bound to have an impact to GDP. From the map, it appears that countries or areas where Nike and its main subsidiaries are located, have a higher GDP. This is because large businesses tend to have more financial resources and generate more work. countries such as China, India, U.S.A, and some other European countries like Germany, France and the U.K. Italy and Brazil have a slightly less GDP, but are relatively high. The map shows Africa with the lowest GDP, because Africa does not have many large business in the area, leading to a low work rate and low financial resources. The GDP of a country varies, depending on the amount of large corporations.

In the past, Nike have not been the most environmentally friendly, but all the fire they have come under recently, Nike have been forced to improve their global footprint. Nike’s new distribution center in Belgium claims to be powered by 100% renewable energy. Nike have pledged to transform all their production center to 100% renewable energy by 2025. They plan to receive their energy using wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and biomass sources. Nike, being a billion-dollar multi-national corporation, own subsidiaries, their largest being Converse and Hurley. Nike also own other smaller companies, totally accounting to 54 subsidiaries.  

Historically, Nike has been constantly in the firing line for ethical production issues, as Nike utilizing child labor, low pay rates, unfair working hours and terrible working conditions has been brought to light. Nike have previously denied claims, yet in 2002, Nike instigated inspections of their factories for ethical production.  

The map above, shows the relationships between the locations of Nike workers and their under-appreciated well-being, particularly in undeveloped Countries. This pattern can be found mostly found in South America and especially in China, Vietnam and the Indonesian regions. The red highlights represents use of child labour, and green shows pay rates. As the green highlight's opacity gets lower, so does the pay rate. Large powerful businesses like Nike actively seek to find cheapest work and the most profit possible, even if it leads to large ethical and moral issues. From the map it appears that in South East Asia, where most Nike workers are located, receive incredibly low pay, and with child labour existing there too. It is clear to see the terrible impact Nike has on the well-being of workers in under developed countries. This relationship does not continue in countries like Australia, U.S.A, and developed countries in Europe, since laws are in place, restricting large corporations like Nike from taking advantage and finding incredibly cheap work, further proving the impact of Nike.

Modern day consumption patterns relating to fashion are rapid and always changing, in that there is a constant demand for new, cheap fashion and ideas. Fast fashion is the constant rise of new trends, which quickly enter stores, to catch consumers' attention and money. Our consumption patterns boost and help fast fashion as our demand for new products is the current culture surrounding clothing wear. This modern day culture helps big businesses like Nike as they have the money, resources and abilities to enter this tier of business and more or less control it. Nike are always bringing out new wear and products, attracting the average consumer, provoking him or her to ultimately purchase the product. In turn, Nike's success inspire them to keep bringing out these products, affecting workers in underdeveloped countries Nike employ. Our culture about clothing hinders the well-being of Nike employees and their livelihood. The current consumption patterns and culture revolving around fashion are constantly boosting the actions of Nike and fast fashion, unfortunately allowing it to thrive.

As a consumer, it is vital to be aware of these issues and the true way products are made. Recently, there has been an increasing demand for ethically produced products, with more and more businesses succumbing to consumers demand. The simplest way a buyer can protest these negative impacts is by purchasing less, especially if the item is unethical. Lisa Williams, Patagonia's Chief Product Officer said, "The most environmentally sustainable jacket is the one that's already in your closet...". The pointlessness of repeatedly buying new products clearly is not obvious to buyers yet. Buying from sustainable brands like Levi's, Kathmandu, Etiko and many others, helps mitigate impacts of fast fashion. Consumers buying from these sustainable brands promotes the customs of creating ethical products. Recently, being an ethical productive company not only avoids legal and moral issues, but also attracts consumers as the current culture promotes buying these items. This proves the actions consumers are taking today against unethical production works and impacts powerful businesses like Nike.

Although Nike has addressed their flaws for ethical production, they are still yet to take a massive change, transforming their ideals and morals. In 2017, Nike reportedly turned their back on their commitment to Worker Rights Consortium, which restricts independent experts investigating Nike's factories. This strongly suggests Nike continue to undermine the well-being of workers, and not change their morals. They also received a 36 of 100 score in Fashion Revolution's transparency index, which essentially indicates they do not make their environmental and social sustainability public enough. in spite of that, Nike uses environmentally friendly materials like organic and recycled polyester and cotton. They have also pledged to cut down carbon emissions by 50% by 2025. Despite this, Nike appear to not have made any progress to cut down on hazardous emissions and chemicals. On top of the poor environmental aspects, Nike have shown no progress in improving well-being of workers, their wages or health conditions, rendering their progress on social sustainability very poor. Overall, Nike have made minimal advancement, and it is clear to see Nike are not taking responsibility for their terrible sustainability.

Western consumers affect the well-being of workers in less developed countries by supporting the production of items, causing the mistreatment of workers. How products are made are not addressed well enough by companies, allowing consumers to buy products that support child labour and mistreatment of workers blindingly. The current culture for fashion involves purchasing cheap products, mostly made in sweatshops. Consumers consistently buy these products encouraging business to continue bringing out new products, further pursuing the mistreatment of workers.