Nike's Questionable Social Responsibility

Nike, Social Responsibility, and the Hidden Abode of Production by Carol Stabile examines Nike’s public relations, and how it develops these images. Philip Knight, the CEO, discusses how Nike strives to create healthy work environments and points out that he has created a company that “began in my basement and today creates wealth where none existed before” (196). Stabile challenges the “rhetoric of social responsibility” throughout the piece. Nike was faced with a problem when the company became associated with inner city violence, which began with “sneaker wars” between Nike and Reebok over market share. This proved to be too intense, as publicity in 1989 implied that kids were killing each other over athletic shoes. Sports illustrated even claimed that inner-city youths were committing murder for Air Jordans. Looting, killing, and robbery occurred. Stabile questions how much Nike’s advertising techniques are to blame for this. Nike launched a crisis management champagne to prove how Nike was part of the solution rather than the problem, and suggested that the main issue in inner-city schools is that the poor kids do not have access to formal athletics, undermining the economic and educational programs. Nonetheless, Nike’s success in advertising is contributed to the corporations ability to reach their target audience, middle class consumers, through appeals to their belief systems and values, demonstrated through their television advertisements in the 1970s, advertisements that focus on the rhetoric of revolution, and their current slogan, “Just Do It.” Nike gained much publicity through basketball and the use of African American celebrities such as Michael Jordan, as the company acknowledged the importance of the “urban market.” This provides positive role models and the instills the idea that the American Dream is available to African Americans, despite the fact that images that criminalize African Americans flood the media. Stabile suggests that Nike is not as responsible as it first appears. For example, while Nike endorses women empowerment, the Vietnamese women making the shoes work 12-hour days and earn only about $2.25 a day. This exposes a contradiction that is not publicized, and labor activists and journalists hope to rise awareness. Stabile ends by saying that consumers ought to “concentrate on making visible those practices and realties that are routinely kept out of sight” (202).

For my video, I found a clip of News from Sky TV interviewing former soccer pro Jim Keady. Jim lived in Indonesia for a month on the wage that the Nike employees get paid there (2 Australian dollars), and discussed his findings on the news. Overall, he said one could just survive on such wages but that they were completely inadequate. Jim couldn’t meet his basic needs and had his human integrity undermined, as he was constantly hungry and exhausted. Everyday was a struggle, even more so for the locals who have other expenses. Workers must work overtime. Nike is trying to “wash their hands” of this, and improve conditions, which Keady actively challenges. This video corresponds to page 201 of the reading, which discusses Nike’s contradiction between Nike’s apparent social responsibility by liberating women and using African American spokespeople and their confined business practices abroad, such as making workers work long hours with insufficient pay. I found this part of the reading particularly interesting, because I have been briefed on this concept previously, and wonder if the company has, or still is, actually making any positive changes.