nike case study ethics

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How activism forced Nike to change its ethical game

With three weeks until the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games , activists are busy cranking out yet another round of anti-sweat shop campaigns and shock-horror exposes. But do these campaigns really make any difference?

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is yes.

In the new Olympic special edition of Ethical Consumer magazine the spotlight is on Nike and the impact that 20 years of campaigning has had in changing the corporate culture of one of the world's biggest sportswear brands.

It's worth remembering that in the 1990s the global boycott campaign of Nike was so successful that it has now become an object lesson in how giant corporations can be brought to account by ordinary consumers.

"Nike was targeted by campaigners because it was the world's best-selling brand and because initially it denied responsibility for any malpractice that may be taking place in its sub-contractor factories," explains Rob Harrison, editor of Ethical Consumer.

With the campaign scoring a direct hit on Nike's bottom line, the corporation today operates with an openness and transparency that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. For example on the Fair Labor Association website it's possible to read more than 150 reports of Nike factory inspections conducted by independent third parties.

Problems still exist in Nike's supply chain and the company still doesn't make publicly available all supplier factory information, meaning that Nike is unlikely to be recommended as an Ethical Consumer best buy company any time soon.

However, according to Harrison, Nike should be credited: "For a company which 20 years ago was denying that workers' rights at supplier factories were any of its concern, Nike has come a long way."

The same can also be said of other leading sportswear brands including Adidas , Puma , Reebok and Timberland .

Just how far the sportswear industry has come was neatly illustrated last summer when Greenpeace launched its Detox Challenge which targeted global brands including Nike and Adidas with the aim of stopping their suppliers from dumping toxic chemical waste into waterways around the world.

Within a matter of weeks Nike produced a plan to go toxics-free free by 2020 with similar plans announced in the same record-breaking time by Adidas and Puma with more companies falling in line later on.

Without even breathing the word "boycott" campaigners were able to steer companies to a place they were happy with.

"It was clear that the lessons of the 90s had been painfully learned," observes Harrison. "If there's a case to answer it's better to concede early rather than hoping it will go away."

So does this all mean that anti-sweatshop campaigners will soon be looking for other jobs? Sadly no, as groups such as War On Want and Playfair 2012 attest. They've been actively targeting Olympic sponsor Adidas for its alleged sweatshop abuses. Anna McMullen from Labour Behind the Label explains that the clothing industry is far from being sweat-shop free:

"Poverty levels of pay remain a problem right across the clothing industry. In the Philippines for example, recent Playfair 2012 research found 50% of workers making Adidas Olympic-branded gear have to rely on loan shark payouts, while in China many workers can only afford to live in cramped dorms far from their families."

Campaigners including McMullen are now focusing their efforts on the organisers of events such as the Olympics.

"The International Olympic Committee (IoC) has repeatedly refused to take responsibility for ensuring that workers producing goods for the Olympic brand have their rights respected," says McMullen. "If campaigners are not to return to square one every time the games come around then the IoC must show leadership on this issue."

• Ethical and green living
• Green living blog
• Ethical business
• Environmental activism
• Corporate social responsibility
• Olympic Games 2012
• Olympic Games

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

• You are here:  

Case Study: Just Do It? Nike, Social Justice, and the Ethics of Branding

Search archives.

• Browse Back Issues
• Search by Author or Keyword
• Staff Login
• Contribute Manuscripts
• Current Sponsors
• " onclick="window.open(this.href,'win2','status=no,toolbar=no,scrollbars=yes,titlebar=no,menubar=no,resizable=yes,width=640,height=480,directories=no,location=no'); return false;" rel="nofollow"> Print

BY HOLLAND J. SMITH & SCOTT R. STROUD

[ PDF Version ]

In September of 2018, Nike unveiled their 30 th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, featuring prominent athletes such as Serena Williams, LeBron James, Lacey Baker, and Odell Beckham Jr. Also featured in the series is former San Francisco 49ers quarterback turned activist Colin Kaepernick, who has been a controversial figure since early August of 2016 when he protested racial injustice in America by sitting and later kneeling during the national anthem at the start of football games. Kaepernick’s Nike advertisement, which he posted to social media sites on September 3, 2018, displays a close-up image of his face with the words “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” written across the image. Some have praised the advertisement as taking a stand in the nationwide debate over the state of minority rights while others have been concerned with Nike’s movement into the arena of political advocacy.

Gino Fisanotti, Nike’s vice president of brand marketing for North America, defended the company’s featuring of Kaepernick, who has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season when he refused a contract with the 49ers: “We believe Colin is one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation, who has leveraged the power of sport to help move the world forward.” Additionally, many high-profile athletes and celebrities have voiced their support for Nike and Kaepernick, including LeBron James and Serena Williams, both outspoken figures about social justice in their own right. “He’s done a lot for the African American community, and its cost him a lot. It’s sad,” Williams said of Kaepernick. “Having a huge company back him,” she continued, “could be a controversial reason for this company, but they’re not afraid. I feel like that was a really powerful statement to a lot of other companies.”

Other observers see Nike’s move from the commercial to the political as potentially concerning. Michael Serazio worries that this is just another sophisticated trick from a corporate powerhouse: “Getting us to think we’re making a statement by buying Nike is the long con advertising has played, and it has played it well.” Increasingly, brands are giving in to a recent demand for politicization, forcing consumers to question the political participation of various corporations. Some argue that Nike is using a popular movement to increase its own sales, and taking advantage of the prestige and celebrity status of its minority athletes while doing so. Another worry is that it distracts attention from how Nike products are made, often by workers in difficult working conditions in developing countries. As Serazio puts it, the new campaign risks diverting our focus from “the marginalized who make stuff rather than the posturing it affords those privileged enough to own it.”

The advertisement campaign is a risky move for Nike, who might garner heightened attention to its products and brand, but who also runs the risk of alienating part of its consumer base by becoming too politicized. Swaths of the football-watching public, and public at large, are divided by the anthem protests carried on by Kaepernick and others. By featuring the originator of this series of protests, many fans might view Nike as standing with black athletes and their concerns. Yet others may view the advertisement as an attempt to profit off of a protest that strikes at the heart of patriotic values that some hold dear. Some owners of Nike products even illustrated their disgust with the campaign by burning their shoes, and then subsequently posting the flaming images on social media. So far, however, Nike has not sacrificed anything due to the gamble that this advertising campaign represents: Nike stock is up 5% since the advertisement hit the public, representing $6 billion increase in Nike’s market value.

Nike’s campaign was meant to garner attention and make a statement on its 30 th anniversary. It succeeded at accomplishing these goals. But many are still wondering: was Nike primarily interested in taking a courageous stand on an important political issue of our time, or were they simply using Kaepernick as a clever ploy to sell more shoes?

Discussion Questions

• Should a company like Nike get involved in matters of political controversy and social justice?
• Is Nike misusing Kaepernick and the NFL protests in its recent campaign? If you judge this to be the case, what other ways could Nike do if they wanted to bring attention to these issues and protests?
• Do you think that these advertisements will hurt Nike’s brand or bottom line? Do you think this is an important ethical consideration for Nike?
• Should companies take stands on controversial debates orbiting around justice and the public good in their advertisement campaigns? Why or why not?Nike clearly has the ability—and right—to take a stand on this issue. What should the virtuous consumer do in reacting to Nike’s campaign? What about if they disagree with Nike’s stance?

Further Information

Anderson, Mae. “Good for business? Nike gets political with Kaepernick ad.” September 4, 2018. Available at: https://www.apnews.com/6aaced14b24d4622aefeb44d3b17c2d6

Belvedere, Matthew J. “Sorkin: Nike’s Kaepernick ad decision was based on ‘attracting big name athletes’ who side with his cause.” September 7, 2018. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/sorkin-nike-kaepernick-ad-based-on-attracting-big-name-athletes.html

Boren, Cindy. “As Trump tweets, Colin Kaepernick shares new Nike ad that reportedly will air during NFL opener.” Washington Post. September 5, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/09/05/trump-says-nike-is-getting-absolutely-killed-over-colin-kaepernick-ad-renews-attack-on-nfl-players/?utm_term=.59e131677236

Reints, Renae. “Colin Kaepernick Pushes Nike’s Market Value Up $6 Billion, to an All-Time High.” Fortune. September 23, 2018. Available at: http://fortune.com/2018/09/23/nike-market-value-colin-kaepernick-ad/

Rovell, Darren. “Colin Kaepernick part of Nike’s 30th anniversary of ‘Just Do It’ campaign.” ESPN . September 3, 2018. Available at: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24568359/colin-kaepernick-face-nike-just-do-30th-anniversary-campaign

Serazio, Michael. “Nike isn’t trying to be ‘woke.’ It’s trying to sell shoes.” Washington Post. September 5, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/05/nike-isnt-trying-be-woke-its-trying-sell-shoes/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.945885f31a0a

• Holland J. Smith is a research intern for the Media Ethics Initiative at the University of Texas at Austin. Scott R. Stroud is the Program Director for Media Ethics at the Center for Media Engagement, University of Texas at Austin. As the director of the Media Ethics Initiative, he supervises the creation of pedagogical materials and the sponsoring of events related to media ethics. Stroud is also the editor of Media Ethics.

More case studies and media ethics resources can be found at www.mediaethicsinitiative.org . Case studies produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form in classroom settings. For use in publications such as textbooks and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

The Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley

Endicott College School of Communications

Duquesne University, Communications and Rhetorical Studies  

The Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communication, The Pennsylvania State University

The Kegley Institute of Ethics, California State University, Bakersfield

The Moody College of Communication, University of Texas at Austin

The marketplace for case solutions.

Nike: Ethics Versus Reputation in the #MeToo Era – Case Solution

Mark Parker, Chief Executive Officer of Nike, Inc. (Nike), received a report regarding ethical issues in the company, specifically, workplace harassment. The report was the result of an internal survey by other female employees of the company after several senior women executives resigned in 2017. The survey asked women or female employees if they were victims of gender discrimination or sexual harassment. The findings of the survey were embodied in the report.

​Arpita Agnihotri and Saurabh Bhattacharya Harvard Business Review ( W18614-PDF-ENG ) September 27, 2018

Case questions answered:

• Did Parker respond to complaints made by female employees of Nike out of an ethical concern or as a reputation management strategy?
• Why did the HR department at Nike fail to respond to the harassment issues? Does Nike’s HR Department have an opportunity to improve?
• Why did gender discrimination take place more at the senior level at Nike? Why is this significant? Why is it important to resolve this issue? Explain in the context of Nike.
• What is severance pay? Why did senior executives like Edwards receive generously compensation packages, even when they resigned amid the controversy?
• What is workplace harassment? Was there a clear case for legal workplace harassment at Nike? If not, should Parker have let the executives go, resulting in a loss of talent?

Not the questions you were looking for? Submit your own questions & get answers .

Nike: Ethics Versus Reputation in the #MeToo Era Case Answers

Case study – nike: ethics versus reputation in the #metoo era.

Nike, Inc. (Nike) experienced the resignation of senior women executives in 2017 (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). The misconduct of some employees drove the resignation. These were brought to the attention of Mark Parker, the Chief Executive Officer of the company.

The departure of these executives resulted in an internal survey by other female employees of the company. It entailed asking women if they were victims of gender discrimination or sexual harassment.

The findings suggested that female employees had frustrating experiences working at Nike. The Human Resource (HR) department was claimed to ignore misconduct in the past. The reputation of the company at Glassdoor was poor since victims posted their negative experiences on this platform. Immediately after the findings were submitted to Parker, eleven senior executives of the company resigned or asked for early retirement.

The following is a case study of ethics and reputation at Nike. The company supported an unethical work environment and a poor organizational culture.

Background of the Case

Parker was in the dilemma of maintaining the reputation of the company, especially the executives and creating an ethical work environment. Among the executives who resigned was Trevor Edwards, the president of the Nike brand.

The CEO announced that Edward had resigned in response to the report but covered the misconduct of discriminating and sexually harassing female employees to the media. Besides, he was awarded a stock option valued at $9 million and a severance package worth $525,000 (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018).

This package was criticized in the media because Edward was associated with covering male employees who harassed their female colleagues. He was the proposed Parker’s successor, and the CEO was hailed for addressing the issue based on the report. However, employees were suspicious of Parker’s response that he was not aware of the problems.

The CEO attributed the claims to the #MeToo campaign. He introduced mandatory training on bias, which questioned if the HR department was to blame for the poor work culture.

In 2016, Parker addressed the issue of violence, race, and policing in the United States (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). It was in support of the controversial problems that African Americans faced when dealing with law enforcement officers. He declared the commitment of the company to supporting marginalized people and his commitment to fighting discrimination.

In a sustainability survey that was carried out in 2016, it was found that 52% of the workforce was non-white (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). However, it was established that whites held 77% of director positions in 2017. In another survey, Nike held the 10th position of the most preferred workplace for millennial women.

The survey focused on attributes like diversity, workplace culture, and initiatives that were related to women. However, it involved 197 respondents from the company, but the entire workforce during the time of the survey was 74,400 (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). This suggested loopholes and possible bias in the findings.

The HR department of Nike overlooked problems with gender discrimination and harassment. Although the company had anti-discriminatory policies, the department did little to address the complaints. Some employees considered themselves as marginalized after being harassed by their supervisors and denied promotion opportunities. During the staff meetings, they reported harassment, but the problem was ignored.

In some categories of production, like basketball, women were discriminated against by being excluded (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). The ones that raised gender discrimination issues were ignored.

Men who were less qualified than women were promoted, with some women reporting being insulted by their supervisors. Others had their employment contracts terminated after reporting discrimination to HR, although they had an impressive performance. The management of Nike had an insular group that was led by Edwards, which perpetuated gender discrimination and harassment, where the members protected each other.

The complaints were directed to Glassdoor by some employees who criticized the company for the inappropriate culture. The employees expressed their frustrations with the “boys” club that was protected by the management. Among the descriptions of this club that was raised include ageist, sexist, disrespectful, entitled, and pampered. Parker needed to respond to these issues.

In 2017, he terminated David Ayre, the chief of HR, for behaviors that were described as condescending (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018). The officer had confessed to his misconduct and admitted the need for counseling.

David had created a hostile working environment at Nike. However, his departure was also announced as a retirement by the company. The executive was praised for being strategic and for supporting the company in the implementation of its HR strategies. Parker demonstrated disappointment over the misconduct issues and apologized for allowing a hostile workplace culture.

The CEO reviewed the HR operations, especially compulsory management training, and the internal reporting processes. The company also expressed its commitment to promote diversity and inclusion, which encompassed the representation of people of color and women.

Although the findings of the internal survey initiated the change, the reported misconduct had already impacted the growth strategy of Nike. The company failed to meet its annual revenue target of $50 and extended the timeline by two years (Agnihotri & Bhattacharya, 2018).

The rate of growth for apparel and footwear reduced, although that of competitors increased. The company was under stiff competition from brands like Under Armour, Lululemon, and Adidas, which was threatening its leadership position in the market.

Possible Solutions

One of the possible solutions that Parker could have adopted is to…

Unlock Case Solution Now!

Get instant access to this case solution with a simple, one-time payment ($24.90).

After purchase:

• You'll be redirected to the full case solution.
• You will receive an access link to the solution via email.

Best decision to get my homework done faster! Michael MBA student, Boston

How do I get access?

Upon purchase, you are forwarded to the full solution and also receive access via email.

Is it safe to pay?

Yes! We use Paypal and Stripe as our secure payment providers of choice.

What is Casehero?

We are the marketplace for case solutions - created by students, for students.

Talkin' Baseball

Let's talk about baseball, the sports world, and the overall relationship with public relations.

Case Study: Nike & Colin Kaepernick “Just Do It” Campaign

Case Study: Nike’s 30th Anniversary “Just Do It Campaign” With Colin Kaepernick

Brian Urvater and Courtney Vandegrift 

Comm 473: PR Campaigns

Professor Renea Nichols

September 28, 2021

When Nike released the 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, Nike’s brand leadership team members were taking a calculated risk. They knew full well how Kaepernick’s high profile protest might rub some of its consumer base the wrong way, yet they moved forward with it anyway In 2018, Nike launched a new ad campaign that was based on a strong political conflict capable of tearing apart the United States. The nation was polarized as a result of increased racism, police brutality, and social injustice. In the midst of an era labeled as the Black Lives Matter movement, where african americans felt oppressed and helpless due to the violent attacks against black communities across the country, Nike drew a great deal of attention with their new campaign strategy that showed support for black communities, athletes, and civil liberties proponents. The ad featured professional football player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick, best known for taking a knee during an NFL game’s national anthem to protest social injustice and police brutality. The advertisement image began with a quote that stated “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” Since Nike is a sports gear and apparel company, their products fit well into this campaign strategy because it highlights a celebrity athlete that is known worldwide. Their main objectives were to bring headline attention to the campaign by highlighting athletes that were pushing boundaries in society in some way.

This case study’s purpose is to research the public relations methods used in the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” Nike social media campaign featuring prominent NFL figure Colin Kaepernick. With input from former NFL player and founder of Go Big Recruiting Ross Tucker, this paper reflects the communications strategies used by Nike’s PR department to send a specific message to their target audience and influence their perception and brand loyalty. By taking a stand for a controversial social figure during a time of political disarray, Nike took a risk to convey their brand as a platform that brings attention to important social and political matters. Since the launch of the campaign in 2018, Nike has continued to represent themselves as an organization that supports local communities and athletes. By bringing more thought to important social issues such as systemic racism and police brutality, their objective is to use sports as a platform to accelerate social movements and reflect their brand as an organization in favor of activism and reform. Their message to consumers is strong and impactful, showing consumers that it is more than just sports, but also about making the world a better place by giving athletes a platform to discuss social problems and encouraging young athletes to take a stand for their own values and beliefs.

Communication Plan

Situation Analysis:

Nike is a retail organization that provides high quality athletic products that are used by professional sports organizations and aspiring athletes around the world. The light weight material of their clothing and the superiority of their sports products have made Nike the most prominent sports brand in the world. The company has partnerships with several professional leagues including NCAA, NBA, MLB, and NFL. In terms of distributing products, Nike has over 1,000 factories and over a million employees, which makes for a fast, efficient distribution process that translates to major financial success. The company brands itself well with a globally recognizable swoosh logo and a short, confident slogan known as “Just Do It,” which represents their mission to inspire athletes to pursue their wildest hopes and dreams. Nike not only uses famous athletes to endorse their products and engage with their sports-devoted audience, but the organization also pays close attention to social trends and issues that are impacting the United States. By using social responsibility to advance their agenda, the organization increases their popularity and widespread attention, and ultimately influences brand loyalty among consumers. Additionally, the use of controversial social justice campaigns has proven to be beneficial to Nike’s reputation of goodwill because it can lead to national headlines and widespread media attention that helps guide public opinion in the area of social awareness.

The organization depends on the United States market for revenue more than any other country. 40% of Nike’s revenue comes from North America, which leaves the company exposed to factors that can negatively impact the business. It presents a high risk when a company focuses on a single market because public relations and marketing campaigns can backfire if that specific market does not agree with the ideas presented by the organization’s campaign. Accordingly, this specific case study reviews a high risk social media tactic during a time of social dispute in the United States. With Nike’s growing competition, it is important for them to discover new strategies of engaging the public and grabbing the attention of their audience in which they simultaneously represent the values and beliefs of their brand.

In 2016, world renown San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a stand against social injustice and police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem before a nationally televised game. This act led to public backlash from angry consumers over the idea that a high profile figure disrespected the U.S. flag in front of thousands of people. However, this performance of social activism came at a time of mass hysteria during BLM movements, where the nation was polarized due to increased rates of police cruelty and inequity among black communities. Young black athletes around the country were determined to fight for their civil rights and protect their liberties. In their pursuit to support athletes and black communities, Nike supported social justice activism by launching a social media campaign that focused on the controversial behavior of the NFL star. The organization’s goal was to convey the bigger picture of sports by incorporating the concept that athletics can be used as a platform to bring attention to important social and political issues. At the same time, Nike hoped to encourage consumers to follow their largest dreams and stand up for what they believe in. This multifaceted technique was a unique way of expressing the organization’s core standards and values. In a time of social dispute, Nike aimed to gain massive media attention through the campaign by developing a high risk social media strategy that would get people talking about sports and its relationship to real world issues.

Following his idea to kneel during the national anthem, an outbreak of disapproval for Colin Kaepernick surged throughout the nation. A poll during the 2016 season named Kaepernick the most disliked player in the league, with 37% of caucasians saying they “disliked him a lot,” and 42% of African Americans saying they “liked him a lot.” However, according to survey research conducted by YouGov to determine how Nike customers feel about Colin Kaepernick, 46% of responses revealed a positive outlook on the NFL star while 23% see him in a negative light. This reveals that a majority of Nike customers support social activism and the push for reform in the area of racial inequality and police cruelty. Therefore, by creating a social media campaign around Colin Kaepernick and social activism, Nike hoped to strategically reach their target audience and influence public opinion about their brand. However, other research states that 53% of Americans object to the idea of kneeling during the national anthem because they consider it to be disrespectful to the flag and the country as a whole. There was a high risk in launching a marketing campaign that was created from these statistics, but Nike is a company that thrives on taking risks with the public because they want their organization to be unique and stand out among others.

According to the Washington Post, the decision to use Colin Kaepernick as the main figure in their ad campaign was popular among young Americans. Cindy Boren from the Washington Post stated that “a Quinnipiac University poll showed voters approved of Nike’s decision to feature Kaepernick in its latest ad campaign, 49 percent to 37 percent.” The poll also determined that there was a large age gap among people who agreed and disagreed, “with those 18 to 34 approving of Nike’s decision by a 67-21 margin, while voters 65 and older disapproved of the decision, 46 to 39 percent.” Overall, the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” campaign was creative in the sense that it took a controversial social issue and turned it into something positive and innovative, in hopes that it would be beneficial to social movements, activist athletes, and eventually would influence product sales.

On the political side of the research that went into this campaign, there was a strong disconnect between opinions of whether kneeling during the national anthem was considered to be morally acceptable. According to a NY Post article, in a poll of 1,570 Americans, “Democrats strongly favored the right to protest, at 77%. Only 20% of Republicans, and 20% of self-described Trump voters, said yes. Along racial lines, 77% of blacks, 57% of Hispanics and 47% of whites answered positively.”

Nike also collected data about the overall reactions of consumers to brand’s voices about social issues and controversial topics. In a poll conducted by Sprout Social, 1,000 American consumers were asked if “people want brands to take stands on important issues.” 66% of consumers responded that “it is important for brands to take public stands on social and political issues.” This information was important to Nike’s decision to launch this campaign because it conveys what consumers are looking for in a brand. Many consumers, especially younger people, look for brands that they can personally connect with from an ethical standpoint. Furthermore, a 2017 survey from Edelman found that “the majority of millennials (60%) are belief-driven buyers” that trust a company based on the company’s brand identity and social/political beliefs. 53% of Millennials pay attention to how companies that they purchase goods and services from act with political and social matters. Moreover, 80% of teens, which is a huge target audience for Nike, support the Black Lives Matter movement. Looking at this research from an economic standpoint, younger generations are crucial for Nike to engage with through tactics such as these. According to a Forbes article by Jules Schroeder, “Millennials have $200 billion in buying power and Gen Z has $143 billion in direct buying power”, which is an area Nike wanted to take full advantage of with this campaign strategy. Nike’s decision to take a public stand on a social issue and promote Kaepernick in order to gather more attention and connect with their audience on a deeper level was a thoroughly researched public relations strategy. 

Nike aimed to create a strategic communications plan that highlighted social and political issues that were impacting athletes and communities around the country. More specifically, the campaign intended to support the revolution against social injustice in black communities due to implications of racism through police brutality and racial profiling. In order to accurately display their support for social movements occurring throughout the U.S., Nike centered their campaign strategy around Colin Kaepernick, whose decision to kneel during the national anthem to protest against racism and social injustice conveyed his will to sacrifice his career for the greater good. However, his actions on the field also sparked mass amounts of controversy throughout the country. 

One objective for this strategy was to raise awareness about an important issue. Nike describes themselves as an organization committed to addressing systematic racism and supporting local communities. They thrive on showing their support for social movements and using their platform to address underlying societal issues. By combining the sports world with the need to raise awareness about important topics, the campaign strategy targets a wide array of people. Not only did Nike desire to catch the eye of black communities, athletes, and sports fans by promoting a controversial social problem through a large, sport-based platform, but the organization also aimed to target millennials and Gen Z-ers in hopes of positive responses in a harsh political climate. Additionally, Nike planned to gain widespread media attention that would advertise the goodwill of the brand and appeal to younger, more prosocial generations. Additionally, the attention gathered from the campaign would boost brand loyalty and social media engagement. Although it involved high risk, the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” campaign was something that yielded extreme success.

Another objective included exemplifying the organization’s mission statement. As expressed by the founder of Kaye Media Partners Karen Mcfarlane, “Nike’s mission is to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. Colin Kaepernick, through his advocacy, conviction, and talent on and off the field, exemplifies those values in the strongest of terms.” By launching a strategy that uses a prominent athlete who is known for social activism in the campaign, it will raise awareness for the issue and positively impact the social credibility of Nike. Additionally, by utilizing a notable person who gained national attention for sparking a controversial issue, Nike aimed to earn massive media attention that would engage their audience in order to promote the ethics and goodwill of the brand. This strategy brings attention to social concerns and connects the activism for these issues to Nike’s brand. Furthermore, this campaign tactic gives athletes a platform to speak out about their views on social issues, thereby impacting a large target audience of sports fans, young athletes, social activists, and black communities. Through this campaign strategy, Nike conveys that their organization stands by its athletes through political chaos and controversy, which sends a clear message about the brand’s identity to the target audience about what kind of company Nike intends to be known as. This communications plan proves that the company is principled and loyal to its publics, and is willing to fight for social justice despite the risks involved.

Execution: 

To execute this plan, Nike made the decision to partner with notable NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. The campaign, launched in Fall 2018, includes a close up image of Kaepernick with the quote, “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything,” across the picture. The famous Nike swoosh logo and slogan is printed on the bottom. This poster was distributed through social media platforms and on billboards. The campaign was first announced through Kaepernick’s social media accounts, which increased the amount of initial views and shares. In addition to social media shares, the image was also printed on billboards in prominent locations such as Times Square.

The poster is paired with a full advertisement called “Nike Dream Crazy” that features young and experienced athletes and encourages viewers to follow their dreams despite any roadblocks that may hinder their success. The narrator of the commercial says, “because calling a dream crazy is not an insult, it’s a compliment.” Not only does the ad stimulate viewers to push for their biggest goals, but it also addresses the idea that it’s bigger than sports; it’s about making a difference in society and the world. The ad expresses this message by featuring pro athletes such as Lebron James and Colin Kaepernick. A video of all star NBA player Lebron James speaking out at a rally is accompanied by the narrator saying “don’t become the best basketball player on the planet, be bigger than basketball.” This message encourages the audience to take a stand against social issues just as Lebron James and Colin Kaepernick have. 

The audience is able to see Nike as a company that protects social equity and works for the benefit of communities. The commercial tries to spread the message that sports are not just for entertainment, but they are a platform for spreading valuable messages and ideas that can positively impact society. Another theme is also presented in the commercial that reinforces the idea that people should work for their dreams no matter what barriers they have to break through. This message is presented with the stories of athletes like Shaquem Griffin, who plays in the NFL with only one hand, and Serena Williams, who grew up in Compton and later became one of the most talented athletes in the world. Overall, the creative aspect of this campaign sends two messages to publics: It’s bigger than sports, and anything is possible if you put your mind to it. As per PR and customer service expert Anna Cachares and digital marketing specialist Beth Kramer, “Nike released the Nike Dream Crazy ad featuring Kaepernick on YouTube, which has over 2.6 million views. It is worth noting that Nike launched these ads on social media, not on traditional channels, which suggests that they are targeting younger generations (Millennials and Gen Z).”

In addition to the graphic and advertisement that Nike launched in the fall of 2018, Nike also began selling merchandise that symbolizes Kaepernick’s impact. For the four year anniversary of Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem, Nike created an all black jersey with the number 7. The number 7 is representative of Kaepernick’s jersey when he took a  knee playing for the San Francisco 49ers.  “Through his continuous commitment, the number 7 jersey has become an iconic symbol for progress and positive change” (Nike). This jersey sold out on the Nike website. “True to each other.
 True to the movement.
 True to 7,” (Nike). Selling merchandise that goes along with the social activism campaign also adds to the execution of the overall strategy because it further emphasizes the brand’s dedication to their cause. Nike is able to make extra profit off the campaign’s theme by selling custom jerseys that symbolize working towards progressive social movements and change.

Analysis and Evaluation:

This case study introduces the idea that Nike’s PR department is willing to abide by a “high risk, high reward” policy. The fact that research showed a split between public opinion of the Colin Kaepernick crisis in relation to the Black Lives Matter movement conveys that Nike is a brand focused on supporting high profile figures that are willing to push for social reform. In Nike’s “Black Community Commitment” page on their website, they reference that addressing systematic racism and encouraging action and reform is a top priority of the company. The brand identity Nike creates through supporting a controversial figure’s social advocacy is  a great method of engaging their younger audience. Nike uses sports as a way to bring people together in unifying fashion to bring attention to important social issues and 

spark change. Their use of innovative social media strategies not only increases their reputation of being a brand of goodwill and ethics, but it also grabs massive amounts of attention from media and consumers. By using Colin Kaepernick as a main figure to promote social activism in the area of racism and police brutality, the organization was able to make national headlines and promote their brand as an inspiring, community-driven company that is focused on using sports to make a change in the world. Former NFL player and entrepreneur Ross Tucker agrees that it is a lot more common in recent years for athletes to have a cause and stand up for issues that are important to them, and brands are beginning to take advantage of this factor because large audiences are likely to be “receptive and supportive to that.” A large company like Nike is able to take risks with controversial issues to gain media attention because they have a wide array of publics. However, In Tucker’s case, he tends to stay neutral with political statements because he does not want to “turn off” one side of his audience as a result of conflicting viewpoints. With their big 

following, Nike has developed a strategy of using risky PR tactics to promote the goodwill of their brand, which is something that other smaller companies are unable to do in today’s political climate.

The poster image was successful in generating attention and presence on social media, and the video ad was successful in spreading important messages and influencing public opinion. According to Scharninghausen in the business wire press release, the single best thing about the ad as per 48% of viewers was the theme and message. In the first 24 hours of the campaign’s launch, Nike brought in $43 million worth of earned media, and their brand mentions increased 135% with over 2 million mentions (Cachares & Kramer).  In addition, “Advertisin g analytics company Ace Metrix says that the Nike Kaepernick ad is “less polarizing than social media suggests.” Just 13% of consumers reported that they were less likely to buy from Nike after viewing the Dream Crazy Kaepernick ad. This dropped to 10% among Millennials and 6% to Gen Z.” 

Overall, the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” campaign was created because it took a controversial social issue and turned it into something positive and innovative, in hopes that it would be beneficial to social movements, activist athletes, and eventually would influence product sales. In this case study, Nike proved that by supporting communities and athletes affected by social issues in the United States through unique social media marketing campaigns, and by tactically using prominent figures, target audiences can be successfully reached, ultimately having a positive impact on a brand’s social and economic success.

Current Information: ( https://about.nike.com/ )

The number 7 jersey being sold on the Nike website symbolizes the progress Kaepernick has contributed to the Black and Brown communities. This all black jersey is created and sold for the anniversary of Kaepernick’s impact.  The corporate website offers insight into Nike’s mission and goals. “Our mission is what drives us to do everything possible to expand human potential. We do that by creating groundbreaking sport innovations, by making our products more sustainable, by building a creative and diverse global team and by making a positive impact in communities where we live and work.” This current information ties into the case study topic because it provides information about Nike’s determination to make a difference in society by positively impacting communities in times of social despair. On the corporate website, there are four subcategories that describe the values of Nike as an organization, which ultimately support the campaign strategy for the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” slogan. The first category is “innovation,” where the company states that “to make big leaps, we take big risks,” which is true to the Coin Kaepernick issue because Nike supported an individual who was extremely controversial at the time for his activism for social justice. Next, the website refers to the team at Nike, where they describe their team of workers as “empowered, diverse, and inclusive,” ultimately representing the brand as a team that is united by sports. This is a feature that was represented in the Colin Kaepernick advertisement and currently persists as a main theme of Nike to encourage diversity and harmony despite cultural or racial backgrounds. Additionally, the website offers a look into “social and community impact,” where the company describes their belief that the power of sports can help change the world for the better. This concept was expressed with emphasis in the Kaepernick campaign, and is still a main theme of the organization that they continue to work towards today. Finally, Nike references “sustainable business innovation” on the corporate website to highlight a “sustainable future” in sports where athletes are able to thrive on a healthy, fair playing field and simultaneously use the power of team sport to improve social issues and positively impact the world. 

Current Impact:

Nike’s legacy from the 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” campaign continues to live on and have an impact on society today. In a 2019 New York Times article titled “Colin Kaepernick ‘Dream Crazy’ Ad Wins Nike an Emmy,” Nike’s ad campaign conveys its creative nature as the advertisement was awarded an E mmy for being an outstanding and creative commercial. The idea of including a social aspect that relates to sports not only attracts young viewers and sports fans to the brand, but it also engages an audience of politically interested publics. People interested in politics and social activism now see Colin Kaepernick as the face of the NFL for his actions on the field, and they are more impacted by Nike for their brand values and support of a controversial athletic figure (Junge Welt, 2021).

The organization continues to support athletes that stand up for social movements and systematic racism, leading to a return of support from activist athletes. According to a 2021 Huffpost article, “longtime Collingwood sponsor Emirates condemned racism and said it was behind the club “proactively adopting changes as per the recommendations identified in their report.” In a statement.” As a result of media success with Colin Kaepernick and the will to work towards a better future for the world, Nike continues to use the same PR strategy to promote their brand and connect with their target audience that supports defending social movements. Nike expressed that the company st ood “against racism and discrimination in any form,” and that it believed “in the power of sport to create an equal playing field for all”. Current articles illustrate the idea that Nike’s media success in a harsh political climate during their 2018 campaign suggests that the same social media tactics can be effective in encouraging brand loyalty among consumers: “Since Nike is known for large-scale advocacy campaigns to drive social change through sport, most notably with US footballer Colin Kaepernick, one expert said the brand could see its partnership with Collingwood as an opportunity rather than a PR nightmare (Williams, 2021).” Their new campaign with Collingwood will accomplish the same goals because it has potential for controversy while also articulating the company’s focus on fixing social issues and resolving systematic racism around the world.

Nike also continues to push for the advancement of social movements by spending money on lobbying efforts. Years down the road, the company still pushes the idea of being viewed as a social activism organization by lobbying on topics such as physical education grants, taxes and climate change, as well as the “Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act.” Nike is an organization that has been heavily criticized in the past for their use of sweatshops and child labor in developing countries. “‘In the first three quarters of 2020, Nike spent $920,000 on in-house lobbying of Congress and other federal agencies,’” the New York Times reports” (Lowe 2020). In order to convey to the public that the company holds  good intentions and stands against unfair labor, they donate large sums of money to lobbying efforts. These issues have stemmed directly from the Kaepernick “Just Do It” campaign as Nike continues to adhere to the public by supporting social movements and the theme of making the world a better place.

Nike also continues to push their campaign with Kaepernick by c ommemorating anniversaries of his call to action with the kneeling protest. Four years after the social activism outbreak, Nike still pushes the campaign by selling special all black #7 Colin Kaepernick jerseys to increase profits and build off the highly su ccessful campaign. The company is able to continue their successful campaign by showing constant support for the activist athlete, commemorating him by holding special anniversaries that honor his stand against systemic racism and social issues related to the BLM movement. According to a recent article by Aaron Colen on Blaze Media, Kaepernick released a statement on social media about the bigger picture of sports and football, which is an idea that Nike forms around their brand through this campaign: “Four years ago, I took a knee to protest against systemic racism and social injustice,” Kaepernick wrote on social media. “It was that day that the number on my jersey would come to represent something greater than football, somethin g greater than me. Since then, the number 7 jersey has been a symbol for advancing the liberation and well-being of Black & Brown communities. Thank you for staying True.” People seem to resonate with the idea of buying Kaepernick apparel to support a social movement; “Nike released just two products related to Kaepernick, both of which were produced in seemingly low volumes and quickly sold out. They have been out of stock  for months, and consumers searching ‘Colin Kaepernick’ on Nike’s website are encouraged to sign up to be notified about ‘future Colin Kaepernick products,’” as per a NY Times article. Nike is able to profit off these continuous social media campaigns because the connection to Colin Kaepernick went viral online and had an emotional conne ction with many viewers. 

Despite all of the reactions from consumers, Nike did not put out any news releases for this campaign. The company communicated to their audiences and launched the cam paign primarily through social media and on billboards. On September 3, 2018 Colin Kaepernick posted a tweet of the Nike image he was featured i n. Nike retweeted this image and then launched the video advertisement a few days later. The only comment about the case came from Gino Fisanotti, North America’s vice president of brand for Nike. “We believe Colin is one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation, who has leveraged the power of sport to help move the world forward,” (Nike features NFL’s Kaepernick among athletes in ‘Just Do It’ campaign). Nike reported to ESPN about the partnership, and that business was the first one to spread the news.

Although Nike did not make many public statements, multiple media agencies and businesses made a comment about the campaign. The National Football League (NFL) issued a statement in support of the campaign just one day after the launch.‘“The National Football League believes in dialogue, understanding and unity,” NFL executive vice president of communications and public affairs Jocelyn Moore said Tuesday in a statement. “We embrace the role and responsibility of everyone involved with this game to promote meaningful, positive change in our communities . The social justice issues that Colin and other professional athletes have raised deserve our attention and action,” (NFL, 2018). This statement came to a surprise to some, since Kaepernick has been in a collusion case with the NFL since 2017.

Other media outlets covered the issue emphasizing the losses Nike was facing, and not on the issue Nike was taking a stance on. News outlets talked about how consumers were boycotting the brand. The Business Insider featured an article that talked about the hashtag, #Justburnit, which trended on social media with images of people destroying their Nike merchandise. This response toward the campaign showed a side of anger and opposed the collaboration.

This case study of Nike’s partnership with Colin Kaepernick provides a lot of insight in the field of public relations. Public relations professionals can learn from Nike’s strategies in this case to implement a strategic communications plan that engages their own audience in a meaningful way. Nike took a calculated risk when partnering with a public figure known for his polarizing beliefs. However, with Nike’s plan, they were able to create a campaign that drew in the attention of others. Their campaign provided the company an opportunity to use their platform to make a difference in society. Touching upon societal issues can be difficult, but when done appropriately they have a great impact. In addition to how Nike executed their plan, public relations professionals can take away how to use multiple platforms to get a message across to their audience. Nike utilized social media to spread their campaign as well as billboards in standout locations to grab the attention of others.

Another corporation who had a similar case to Nike was Pepsi. P epsi’s “Live for Now – Moments”  campaign. This campaign was a video designed to come across as an advertisement that promotes diversity, unification, and touch on the issue of police brutality, similar to Nike. They also featured a public figure, Kenall Jenner to grab their audience’s attention. However, the advertisement was poorly executed and outraged many viewers due to the insensitivity in the short film. The advertisement shows a diverse crowd of people coming together to protest. The crowd is then joined by celebrity Kendall Jenner, who leaves her photoshoot to join the protest and hand one of the police officers a pepsi. After he takes a sip, everyone who engaged in the protest celebrates. The execution of this advertisement made the issues of racial inequality and police brutality a simple fix. Pepsi released a statement apologizing for the advertisement and explaining that their intended message was not relayed appropriately. This advertisement was taken off air almost immediately.

Another campaign that was successful in getting their message across to viewers was Airbnb. Airbnb created a campaign in response to President’s Trump  closing the Ame rican borders to refugees in 2018. The advertisement aired during the Superbowl and was highly favored by the audience. The campaign was called “We Accept” and showed pictures of a bunch of different people of different nationalities. The quote on the advertisement read We believe no matter who you are, where you’re from, who you love or who you worship, we all belong. The world is more beautiful the more you accept.” Similar to Nike, Airbnb used their platform to address racial inequalities in society and bring attention to this issue. Although they did not use a celebrity, their timing of the advertisement got a huge amount of attention.

I believe that the tactics Nike used in this campaign were exclusive to their organization because it is difficult for a brand to side with a political viewpoint without losing a large chunk of their viewers. In a polarized political climate, organizations must be wary of the consequences of taki ng a side that part of their audience will not agree with. However, a company as big as Nike researched how people felt about Colin Kaepernick’s actions in order to determine the best strategies to implement into the campaign. Since they adhered to their young target audience and took a risk that conveys their brand identity and represents Nike as a brand of goodwill that supports social movements and activism, I think their PR department successfully accomplished their goals and objectives. I think their use of a prominent social activist figure in sports was a perfect way to display their brand identity and engage the most people possible. They were able to clearly get their message across to viewers that people should express their beliefs and fight for their values, even if it means losing everything you have worked for. After all, this idea of standing up for your own principles is the whole premise of the “Just Do It” slogan. Therefore, as a public relations professional, it is clear to me that their strategy of showing how people can “just do it” in a way that represents sports and social activism simultaneously was a remarkable way of gaining media attention and support from consumers.

References:

Balkam, J. (2021). Nike & Colin Kaepernick — A Case Study on Authentic Cause Marketing. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://medium.com/3-win-sponsorship/nike-colin-kaepernick-a-case-study-on-authentic-cause-marketing-1f8d2af02211

Carissimo, J. (2021). Colin Kaepernick joins Nike’s 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colin-kaepernick-nike-just-do-it-campaign-announcement-today-2018-09-03/

Case study: PepsiCo & Kendall JENNER’S controversial commercial . astute. (2020, February 21). Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://astute.co/pepsi-kendall-jenner-commercial/  

Draper, K., & Creswell, J. (2019). Colin Kaepernick ‘Dream Crazy’ Ad Wins Nike an Emmy. Retrieved 27 September 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/16/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-nike-emmy.htm

Gilliland, N. (2021, February 18). 10 brand campa igns that took a stand on social issues . Econsultancy. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://econsultancy.com/brand-campaigns-that-took-a-stand-on-social-issues/

Hunnicutt, T., Allen, J., & McGurty, F. (2018, September 3). Nike features Nfl’s kaepernick among athletes in ‘just do it’ campaign . Reuters. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nike-kaepernick/nike-features-nfls-kaepernick-among-athletes-in-just-do-it-campaign-idUSKCN1LJ21Y  

Jonathan Intravia, Alex R. Piquero, Nicole L eeper Piquero & Bryan Byers (2020) “Just Do It? An Examination of Race on Attitudes Associated with Nike’s Advertisement Featuring Colin Kaepernick”, Deviant Behavior, 41:10, 1221-1231, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2019.1604299

Joon Kyoung Kim, Holly Overton, Nandini Bhalla, Jo-Yu n Li, Nike, Colin Kaepernick, and the politicization of sports: Examining perceived organizational motives and public responses, Public Relations Review, Volume 46, Issue 2, 2020, 101856, ISSN 0363-8111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101856 .

Li, J.-Y., Kim, J. K., & Alhar bi, K. (2020). Exploring the role of issue involvement and brand attachment in shaping consumer response toward corporate social advocacy (CSA) initiatives: the case of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign. International Journal of Advertising , 1–25. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1080/02650487.2020.1857111

Merriam, L., & Quint, M. (2021). Nike Controversy: Colin Kaepernick Marketing Strategy Analysis. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.amanewyork.org/resources/nike-controversy/

Nfl. (2018, September 4). NFL: Issues raised by KAE PERNICK deserve attention . NFL.com. Retrieved September 28, 2021, from https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-issues-raised-by-kaepernick-deserve-attention-0ap3000000958222

Nike cashes in on Kaepernick and anthem kneeling with jersey celebrating the anniversary of the protests. (2021). Retrieved 27 September 2021, from https://www.theblaze.com/news/nike-commemorates-four-year-anniversary-of-national-anthem-kneeling-with-special-edition-colin-kaepernick-jersey

Nike’s Support For ‘Systemically Racist’ Collingwood A Critical Global Test For Both Brands. (2021). Retrieved 27 September 2021, from https://www.huffpost.com /archive/au/entry/nike-collingwood-lumumba-kaepernick_au_6025c91ec5b6591becd79cc1

Nike uses Kaepernick and BLM to distract you from their support of Islamophobic genocide. (2021). Retrieved 27 September 2021, from https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nike-uses-kaepernick-and-blm-to-distract-you-from-their-support-of-islamophobic-genocide/ar-BB1bt97T

Stillman, J. (2021). Here’s the Data That Proves Nike’s Colin Kaepernick Ad Is Seriously Smart Marketing. Retrieved 28 September 2021, from https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/heres-data-that-proves-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-is-seriously-smart-marketing.html

Brought to you by:

Nike: Ethics Versus Reputation in the #MeToo Era

By: Arpita Agnihotri, Saurabh Bhattacharya

In March 2018, a report on workplace harassment issues was brought to the chief executive officer of Nike, Inc. (Nike), Mark Parker. The report was a result of a covert survey conducted by the female…

• Length: 12 page(s)
• Publication Date: Sep 27, 2018
• Discipline: Organizational Behavior
• Product #: W18614-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

In March 2018, a report on workplace harassment issues was brought to the chief executive officer of Nike, Inc. (Nike), Mark Parker. The report was a result of a covert survey conducted by the female employees at Nike headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon, after the company's human resources (HR) department failed to respond to the women's repeated complaints. Soon, several senior executives left Nike. Although Parker took several steps to strengthen HR, some employees wondered whether the women's complaints had been handled appropriately. Nevertheless, according to experts, the behaviour the women described did not amount to harassment in legal terms. Was Parker's response to the survey a matter of reputation management or of genuine ethical concern? Why did the HR department not respond to the female employees' complaints earlier? If a case of harassment in legal terms could not be made against the executives, should they have been let go? If senior executives like Edwards committed or condoned harassment, should Parker allow those executives to receive severance packages?

Arpita Agnihotri is affiliated with Pennsylvania State University - Harrisburg. Saurabh Bhattacharya is affiliated with Newcastle University.

Learning Objectives

The case is intended for undergraduate- or graduate-level courses on human resource management or organizational behaviour. The case deals with an organization's top management and human resources (HR) department's role in dealing with workplace harassment. It also discusses gender discrimination, especially at the senior executive level, and examines whether an organization's response to this issue is based on a reputation management strategy or on ethical concerns. After completing the case, students will be able to do the following: Understand workplace culture and its impact on firm performance. Critically analyze the response of a firm to workplace harassment issues, either as a reputation management strategy or as an ethics management strategy. Discuss the role and effectiveness of human resources departments in workplace harassment issues. Understand the reasons for gender discrimination at the senior management level. Discuss the need for severance payments when executives resign and are not terminated. Analyze the impact of the exit of senior management on a firm's performance.

Sep 27, 2018

Discipline:

Organizational Behavior

Geographies:

United States

Industries:

Human resource services

Ivey Publishing

W18614-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Ask a question from expert

Business Ethics Of Nike : Case Study

Added on   2021-01-02

About This Document

This report is based on a "case study of Nike company". The main aim of this report is in regards to Nike which is being a clothing industry and face issue related to the creative advertisement. This report discusses the ethical dilemma “should marketing unit engage in making such advertisement which encourages youngsters to indulge in criminal activities?”. We will discuss here, corporate social responsibilities of Nike . The main aim of an organization to inculcate CSR activities is to manage practices of business in order to create an impact on overall society in a positive manner. We will also discuss here the organizational structure of Nike .

   Added on  2021-01-02

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Corporate Social Responsibility Assignment - NIKE lg ...

Ethical thinking and practice : case study lg ..., a marketing case study on nike lg ..., marketing of balaclava in nike assignment lg ..., ethics and responsible management assignment lg ..., business ethics and social responsibility pdf lg ....

Nike’s Example of Business Ethics

Nike’s case study, the ethical and csr issues arising out of nikes case, conclusion and recommendation.

Business ethics is the business way of doing things within its environs and when interacting with the world as a whole, or with a single customer. Good and admirable business ethics should be observed in every business, some businesses have been fined for not following their intended business ethics (Brennan & Mullerat, 2005, p. 230). Corporate social responsibility entails how the company controls the overall processes of the business to give a positive impact on society. In this report, we shall be looking at the business ethics and the corporate social responsibility implications in the Nikes industry.

The case is about the undesirable treatment of the Nikes employees and the bad conditions of sweatshops in its Asian factories. The research done shows that in most Asian countries Nike did not adhere to the intended local laws of labor (Brennan & Mullerat, 2005, p. 235) The Vietnam labor organization reported that, workers were not paid their minimum wages as expected, the working conditions were disastrous, and the health and the safety measures were not taken into account within the normal operations in those factories. Moreover, in the Nikes industry, there were some cases of child labor reported and sexual harassment.

Due to all those mistreatments, some interviews were aired by the CBS news program with the team leaders to inquire more on the reasons behind those conditions. For CBS to anchor its claims they based it on a copy of the labor contract (Brennan & Mullerat, 2005, p. 240). These reports initiated an act of the Vietnamese Americans to consult labor groups and some journalists in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Vietnam labor watch was appointed to make deep investigations of the working conditions of the employees, and the labor practices within the factories. VLW made an appointment with the workers, the executive board, representatives of the labor union, and the legal experts within the factories.

Some form of differences were observed between what Nike told the American consumers about the labor practices in his factories and what was happening in the real practice (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008, p. 550). The analysts made a conclusion and reported that, Nike industries had a very good image in the US but very different in Vietnam and other Asian countries. The surveys which were conducted proofed that the laws of labor were violated by the Nikes contractors. Nike defended itself that; it was trying to monitor its ethical codes.

However, Nike industry did not have an effective managerial system for monitoring the ethics. This was as a result of few Nike supervisors in Vietnam to ensure that the code of conduct was adhere to (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008, p. 560). After the intervention of the labor bodies the industry put some efforts to improve the situations. Their efforts did not succeed in neither improving those bad working conditions nor ending the ill treatments of its employees due to the fact that Nike was defending itself overall those accuses.

Several studies have proofed that, it’s much crucial for the disclosure of the information regarding the relationship between the corporation and the society (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008, p. 565). The company’s stake holders are always in dire need of this information so as to benefit the company and the public. The following report will be focusing on the most effective ways in which the company can use to disclose corporate social responsibility contents to the public. Using Nike Company’s case as our reference, the business ethics and the corporate social responsibility reporting consequences are discussed. While advertising the corporate social responsibility to the public, the Nikes Company was faced with some consequences (Hartsman, et al 2003, p. 120). The theoretical viewpoints regarding those complications are discussed. The report finally gives some possible solutions which the companies can adopt while trying to improve the quality of the corporate social responsibility reporting.

There are employees’ ethical behaviors in every company. In Nikes Company there are measures which the management could have adopted to enforce the ethical behaviors (Hartsman, et al 2003, p. 130). Some of the ways used which can be used by the management are the reward systems, coaching, training sessions, and the applications of ethic codes. The corporate social responsibility in the Nikes industry which involves quality of management, the work place, its market place, the environment and the community. Therefore, its implications to the government, shareholders, financial analysts, customers, local communities, employees, and to NGOs will be deeply focused.

There are twelve common business ethics and seven corporate social responsibilities which are applied to the business to improve the relationship within the business and with the outside world (Hartsman, et al 2003, p. 95). Through a health relationship the company is capable of utilizing its resources well, have an excellent networking with the external world especially the customers, and finally enjoy an increased profit. The Nike industries started moving along an ethically challenging path, when they started using the traditional advertising methods as a way of responding to the activist criticism. According to the corporate social responsibilities, ethics of traditional way of advertising is insufficient as it does not match with the higher ethical standards of the citizens.

There are companies which act on behalf of a social interest known as corporate citizens and they rarely affect the company’s revenue (LEtang & Pieczka, 2006, p. 418). These actions are meant to bring some social benefits of raising the ethical standards instead of the usual company purpose of making profits. The level of ethical expectations by the corporate citizens in the companies with social interests is high especially the way they communicate about their practices. It’s always difficult for any company to match the expectations of the shareholders and the activist with their ethics of corporate social responsibility.

For any company to remain competitive in the market place it must then be very careful when making advertisements and other reports (LEtang & Pieczka, 2006, p. 425). Like what happened to Nikes industries, it is had and challenging to maintain its integrity when advertising to respond to the criticism. The management of the Nike Company had a great role to play so as to ensure that the information was disclosed ethically, legally, and effectively while still maintaining a positive image to the public.

A recent research concerning ethical issues concerned with the corporate social responsibility shows that, companies are ethically obliged to its stakeholders of interacting and getting engaged in deep dialogue about the corporate social responsibility. It’s considered as a socially responsible behavior in any company to have a widened corporate social responsibility disclosure (LEtang & Pieczka, 2006, p. 437). This gives the public more information about the company and as well the company is in a position to meet their intended responsibilities to its stakeholders.

Company’s mere expression of its set goals and objectives is considered insufficient because anything confessed by the company concerning its corporate social responsibility it’s therefore obliged to perform as stated. Incase its actions are seen to contradict with the stated behavior its whole functioning becomes questionable to the persons in charge (LEtang & Pieczka, 2006, p. 477). When Nike decided to make an advertisement concerning its good corporate conduct as a way of responding to the negative public perception about its code of conduct, a lot of ethical concerns were raised. It’s argued that, marketing of the company products is not as crucial as first of all marketing the ethics of a good corporate conduct.

The product advertising of any company should occur after the marketing of the favorable corporate conduct (LEtang & Pieczka, 2006, p. 490). Products advertisements are just meant to appeal to the emotions of the public without creating a deep impression like the corporate social responsibility advertising would create. For any company to make decision on the moral actions to be followed, a very careful decision making is needed, and accessibility of all the facts to be based on.

Nikes industry promoted the good conducted purposely for profits which is very unacceptable in the business world (Hartsman, et al 2003, p. 75). This action exploits the good conduct something of much higher value and on the other hand promote money something of lower value compared to the right conducts. When it advertised its good conduct through he traditional ways the condition became worse as this was considered as pretending to deceive the consumers. It was trying to repair the already damaged reputation by its bad ethical codes.

The management of the Nikes industry failed to put into consideration the alternative methods of social disclosure (Werther, & Chandler, 2006, p. 260). Most companies make use of responsibility reports and codes of ethical conducts to make reports regarding their practices. The company’s reporting of good corporate conduct goes hand in hand with the openness to the external body in charge of auditing. This external body enhances a complete report of the company deeds as it act as a witness. Moreover, a study was done concerning the morality and the impacts of the corporate code of ethics which are ways through which the company can express social responsibility intentions.

Nikes ethical codes were made available to some factories and were abandoned to others. Codes are considered to be ethical when they are made to meet some set criteria. They are supposed to be available to all employees, have some persons to enforce them, and be monitored on regular basis (Werther, & Chandler, 2006, p. 268). Nike industry used its ethical codes mostly for image and publicity rather than to be incorporated in the working place, to this view they become unacceptable. If code of conducts in any organization are made aware to the employees, and seriously enforced, it can be seen as an ethical standard to a company.

When Nike decided to use a public relation campaign to rebuild its image, this could not be ethically acceptable (Werther, & Chandler, 2006, p. 314). This was seen like just a desire for revenue, willingness to meet the expectations of the stakeholders, and to promote the transparency. In all the companies especially the current world, all kinds of the stakeholders such as the partners, customers, employees, and the government among others are always in need of being acknowledged about sustainability issues. It’s their duty and responsibility to monitor how the company is working and making decisions.

Through this, the stakeholders get into a position to improve the performance of the business as well as the social effect of the business to the society (Werther, & Chandler, 2006, p. 306). They also ensure that they reduce environmental consequences through maximizing their operations and concerns in the business. In the Nikes company there is a big gap observed between the companies’s set sustainability goals and whatever the company is seen doing to achieve their objectives. The failure of their performance in achieving these objectives is as a result of some underlying factors according to several studies done (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008, p. 830). Nike Company and other like it which have been faced by this challenge are observed to lack competent individuals to collect and analyze the information which is required and hence why they can not be in a position to implement real changes therefore reduced efficiency. Only few companies are observed collecting enough and the needed data from their global suppliers, out of these they are missing great opportunities which could have been used to increase the efficiency.

Some companies are seen to misunderstand the needs and the concerns of their key stakeholders especially the customers (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2008, p. 840). Companies are obliged to getting actively engaged with their customers so that they can be in a good position to determine their needs. Nike Company is recorded among the companies which miss the knowledge of the employees which could have helped it to improve their efficiencies and lead to new opportunities.

The companies which are willing to acquire a high level standard of sustainability are active in seeking information from the relevant groups such as; from the customers, NGOs, and the industrial groups (awpagesociety.com). Through this they are capable to acquire more knowledge and attain a competitive position against their competitors. Through interactions with their suppliers, partners, and the competitors they try and come up with a common standard for sustainability. Set standards are very essential with regard to the effectiveness of a long term corporate social responsibility.

Business ethics policies are created in the companies which are willing to instill ethics in their workplaces to ensure justice is practiced among all the employees. These are the companies which specialize in training the employees on those business ethics and the corporate social responsibility (awpagesociety.com). In Nikes Company, the subcontractors in Asian countries violated the ethical issue by making use of the child labor who were the ages of teenagers and below. After the spread of this bad reputation, Nikes management team had to organize a global public relations campaign to rebuild back their reputation against that controversy.

Although this was taken to be against the corporate social responsibility due to the use of traditional ways, on the other hand it was also considered to have some strong business ethics (Brennan & Mullerat, 2005, p.528). To cover up the negative media attitude towards the Nike Company, it was the initiative of a proper management team in the Nike Company which was in charge of leading and planning which fought against the child labor issue. Through this, they demonstrated their business ethic philosophy.

The productivity and the success of the company are determined by both the external and the internal factors (awpagesociety.com). In addition, these factors have consequences in the way in which things are organized, and the way the company resources are utilized. Through this the management is able to measure the accomplishment of the company’s set goals and objectives. The management plays a great role to assess these factors as part of their planning function.

The Nike case has shown the made decision by the company to rebuild its spoiled image (Brennan & Mullerat, 2005, p.520). The company responded by the use of tradition public relations tactics which was considered to be against the morals of corporate social responsibilities. This report has made no judgment concerning the contents of the Nikes statement but provides the possible solutions which can be used in communicating the company’s practices to the public. As the number of the companies which are entering the international business is increasing in the developing countries, the public develops the need to know the corporate social responsibility sufficiently. Though the law governing this is not yet established the Nikes case have led to the national attention need for better standards.

There is need for the corporate America to be involved in the idea of social responsibility practices complete disclosure (awpagesociety.com). This can ensure that all the responsible companies, consumers and investors have made the social responsibility the first priority while producing, making decisions of purchasing, as well as when using finances. Some researches done have proofed that the functioning of the company within moral practices is profitable as this builds the reputation of the company hence widening its consumers coverage.

The case of Nike Company as it uses the public relations as away of responding to the negative information about its company, gives a clear dilemmas of what the company goes through when disclosing its practices to the public (awpagesociety.com). Nike has brought these legal issues to light as a good example of deciding on how to communicate to the public. The management should always ensure that the standard ethical behaviors are made aware to every employee and are enforced. Through this the company will be able to achieve its set goals.

Brennan, D, & Mullerat, R, 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility: The Corporate Governance of the 21st Century, Kluwer Law International.

Carroll, B, A, & Buchholtz, A, K, 2008, Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 7 th ed, Cengage Learning.

Hartsman, L, P, et al 2003, Rising above Sweatshops: Innovative Approaches To GlobalLabor Challenges, Greenwood Publishing Group.

LEtang, J, & Pieczka, M, 2006, Public Relations: Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, Routledge.

Werther, B, & Chandler, D, 2006, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment, SAGE.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, November 12). Nike’s Example of Business Ethics. https://studycorgi.com/nikes-example-of-business-ethics/

"Nike’s Example of Business Ethics." StudyCorgi , 12 Nov. 2021, studycorgi.com/nikes-example-of-business-ethics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Nike’s Example of Business Ethics'. 12 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "Nike’s Example of Business Ethics." November 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/nikes-example-of-business-ethics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Nike’s Example of Business Ethics." November 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/nikes-example-of-business-ethics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Nike’s Example of Business Ethics." November 12, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/nikes-example-of-business-ethics/.

This paper, “Nike’s Example of Business Ethics”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 12, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• NIKE CASE STUDY

Related Post:

4 comments:.

I think this looks like an ethic and legal study of Nike rather than a "thorough" case study of Nike.

Hi could I please have a list of REFERENCES? Great article by the way.

great analysis, thank you so much

how can I cite this article ?

Post a Comment

Blog archive.

• ►  August (13)
• ►  July (14)
• ►  January (39)
• ►  March (39)
• ►  February (78)
• ►  January (68)
• ►  December (64)
• ►  November (15)
• ►  October (13)
• ►  March (7)
• ►  February (5)
• ►  January (6)
• ►  December (18)
• ►  September (25)
• ►  June (1)
• ►  May (11)
• ►  April (6)
• ►  January (1)
• ►  December (8)