The paper "Nike: Sweatshop Debate" is a wonderful example of a management assignment. Nike should not in anyway be held accountable for the working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own because of the following reasons. First, Nike has initiated a commitment to improve working conditions in these factories, which demonstrates its concern for the welfare of employees in such factories. Second, Nike pays better remuneration to its employees in Asian countries compared to local employers and employees are undoubtedly happy about this. Should the company be held accountable and quit doing business in such countries, employees in these foreign facilities would be rendered jobless and plunge deep into penury. No, Nike should not be in any way criticized for low pay in Indonesia.
Presenting the facts, approximately half the Indonesian population earns less than $1 per day. On the other hand, Nike pays its Indonesian employees a minimum of $2.28. Simple arithmetic projects that Nike pays more than double what most Indonesians earn per day from other sources. Why then would the company be criticized for low pay? Clearly, Nike should not be blamed for low pay for its Indonesian subcontractors. Nike does not need to change its policies.
The company’ s main focus is to maximize shareholders’ value and ensure its continuity in a competitive marketplace. As such, adopting policies that focus on the welfare of workers at the expense of the financial health of the company would do Nike no good. Sweatshops are not global problems. Despite the fact that they tend to establish in low-cost economies, sweatshops provide employment opportunities in those areas and help to improve living standards by paying better incomes.
Therefore, sweatshops do more good than harm around the globe.