The discussion between Michael Moore and Phil Knight gives a preamble to what Nike
stood for in 1997. Moore asked Knight if it bothered him that 14-year-old kids were
working in Indonesian factories. Knight replied “no”. Mr. Ballinger had a very convincing
argument about Nike. Nike had turned the blind eye about the labor conditions in its
contractor’s factories. Nike insisted that labor conditions in its contractors’ factories were
not-could not-be Nike’s concern or its responsibility (Spar, 2002). Other Nike’s
competitors were similar problems like Reebok, but they took an active participation to
look into this problem. Reebok promised to audit contractors to ensure compliance
CITATION
Spa02 \l 1033 (Spar, 2002).
One may wonder why would a company so widely popular and financially successful not
take a stance at protecting human rights. Nike did not only fail to provide a convincing
argument, Nike also failed to protect its stakeholders. In this case, customers, factory
workers and employees. Our book, Managing Business Ethics, teaches us how a company
has to promote social responsibility to create the greatest societal good. Nike sought to
defuse the wage issue simply by ignoring it, or by reiterating the argument that this piece
of the labor situation was too far beyond their control (Spar, 2002). Nike’s lack of
