Running Head: Advertising or Free Speech: THE CASE OF NIKE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Advertising or Free Speech: The Case of Nike and Human Rights
Advertising or Free Speech: The Case of Nike and Human Rights
1. According to the Life magazine, 1996, based on the article on the labor conditions of the Nike in foreign subcontractors, titled “On the playgrounds of America, Every Kid’s Goal is to score: In Pakistan, Where children stitch soccer balls for Six Cents an hour, their goal is to survive.” The job in which the children were involved in was done for a whole day while consequently for their labour they were only paid US$.60. The public and the families did not notice this form of misuse of human labour in these countries.
Such elements of misuse of labour could grossly lead the Nike Company into the unethical use of labour, and consequently misconduct allegations in their operations (Luthans, F. & Jonathan, N., 2009). According to the corporate social responsibility, an enterprise or an organization should perform actions that are aimed at benefiting the society above the requirements of the law and the interest of the organization or enterprise. It is hence clear that the Nike Company is violating this clause and proved liable to allegations of gross misconduct.
It has become since that time that Nike has grown to be known for the unethical use of offshore laborers in the less developed countries. Many organizations are becoming prone to this form of unethical practice. Many human rights interest groups and labour rights organizations have risen against this form of practice globally.
Nike added the numbers of its laborers from 3 to 86, it was also found to be involved in false statements of issuing abusive labour conditions. Though it denied it, its remarks were based marketing and public relations. This went against the Hofstede’s cultural dimensions where there is unequal power distribution categorized as high power distance where the laborers were to obey orders strictly.
2. The use of third party contractor by MNC to promote its operations would certainly protect it from the attacks it is receiving. MNC was using its human labour for the benefit of itself, and further to this misuse of human labour by MNC, it was using false statements to market itself to customers. Though MNC was defending itself on the basis of free speech under the first amendment, according to the court statements, a commercial organization that issues public statements so as to promote its products and services are doing so for advertising. The suit against Nike could be taken on the basis of issuing false and misleading statements. As the corporation was a commercial one and was doing so for the solicitation its sales. The messages were passed by a commercial organization to a commercial audience and further to this; there was representations of the facts of the speaker’s business, in this case Nike. It hence concludes that an organization should follow state laws by hindering wrong messages to its commercial clients. By the use of third organization that is not a commercial organization, Nike would not be sued for issuing false and misleading statements, as it would be done by an organization that is not commercial.
The conclusion reached by the court was that a business organization is ought to provide its advertising practice based on factual matters and further to this it was its duty to speak the truth on these matters. A third body, that is not a commercial organization, would help to prevent this organization, MNC in this case, from being attacked on the basis of issuing false statements. It is hence consequential that this form application would be a good protection against the charges that MNC was facing of the abuse of their employees.
3. MNC is a commercial organization and hence it would do everything to present a good image to the client. Hence the statement made by MNC that are attempted at presenting a good moral and social picture about how their workers are treated play a vital part of the image that this company is presenting to the customers and it is consequently an advertising message. Any part of the organization that goes to the public or its customers that would tend to affect the image of the organization is handled with care as it is an advertising mechanism however small it may be.
Consumers certainly do judge companies and use this form of information to guide their purchase decisions in relation to the perceptions of the behaviour and values.
Considering Nike’s public statements that were meant to present a good picture to the public and hence lead consequently to the purchase of its products, this was a method to motivate the buying perception of the buyer. It though was later termed to be false and misleading statements; this would certainly lead to the drop in the sales of the MNC, hence the reason why the company is fighting back in order to save its image from being tarnished.
The “Made in” question is presumably the upcoming question when compared to the “made up”. Considering the “Made in” question, in this case for the Nike case, it becomes necessary that the place the product was made is known as most of these enterprises outsource their business practices to poor and undeveloped countries for the purpose of cheap labour. This represents a form of exploitation and abuse of labour. Moreover, MNC is renown to using false messages and misleading to acquire marketing benefits. Such are normally accomplished by an exploitation of labour, in Nike’s case it added it labour from 3 to 86 and utilized this labour to market itself using misleading messages.
4. Considering the case of Nike being considered to be utilizing its labour for the purpose of attaining market strength, which even went further to misusing its labour, Nike should be in a position to support its decisions in every way possible. Letting such an accusation go free would lead to create a negative image to the customers who are the main bosses. Thus even the company went ahead to appeal a case hence proving its determination of what it did and even supporting using legal quotations.
On the issue of exploiting cheap labour in the less developed countries, Nike as it did performed a wide range of assistance to these less developed countries. The picture that was relayed to the customers about the company’s exploitation of the poor was a bad image that needed fast amend. The company offered support to these countries and upheld its claims by stating that it was not in any way favoring cheap labour in that it was following regulations. This would go a long way to creating a good image to the customers about the company. Such actions would promote a good picture of the human rights actions of the company to the clients.
I would propose that a company be aligned to constructing a corporate code of ethics. It is hence that through this code of ethics that the employees and the management staff would be guided by these regulations. Steps made to go against these regulations should be met by stiff penalties; these would then hinder any form of violations of the code of ethics. In reference to the claims that were being made of the MNC of utilizing cheap labor for the marketing benefit, Nike supported itself that it was not according to their regulations that the company goes for cheap labour. The employees that are working in the company are paid satisfactorily according to the local regulations that stipulate proper payment of the laborers.
5. Nike’s financial success in the event it was experiencing a law suit portrays a positive reaction from the customers. The company has even gone further to grow its sales and profits. The customer’s reaction to negative publicity is quite interesting; they have continued to lay their trust in the operations and products of the company. The customers clearly show that the image presented by the organization is well intact and that it is the product quality and image of the company that is upheld high. Nike defended its actions in every way and even went ahead to do positive actions to these less developed countries hence proving the critics wrong. The salary accorded to the employees was well documented in the company’s local regulation.
The American media and NGOs have grossly exaggerated the implication of the organization’s labor actions as well as their social responsibilities based on their sales. The actions performed by the MNC and what is being claimed are two contrasting things. Even after the case was dismissed in court it was appealed, the customers have however stood by the company and revealed that the claims were exaggerated.
Managers are meant of the MNC are meant to act with the utmost diligence and trust that is expected of them. The organization is meant to continue its actions even in the event of such claims. As it became apparently clear, the customers will always stand by them as noted by the growth in the sales and profit of the organization. The organization should additionally, do more to clear its image in the areas of concern like providing same level of payment to all the employees whether within the country or from outside the country. The local regulations that uphold the code of ethics and morality are to be set up and strictly followed. This would be the basis for which the organization is guided.
MNC should do more to present a clear image to the customers. This no more better done by the provision of better salary to its employees, according to the employment and business practices. Moreover, the organization should pay keen attention to the ethics and social responsibilities when handling the people it is associated with. Negative images, the poor children getting paid poorly, derail the organization’s human rights policy ought to be focused.
Bibliography
Luthans, F. & Jonathan, N., (2009). International Management: Culture, Strategy, and Behavior, 7th edition.
