Running head: Should Nike extend its response to ethical criticism in Europe?

McEthics in Europe and Asia: Should Nike extend its response to ethical criticism in Europe?

Name:

Institution:

Nike is a leading chain of hamburger and fast food restaurants. It has a huge customer base and

servers about 70 million customers each day in more than 120 countries over the world. Nike was

started in 1940 as a barbeque café by the Nike brothers. It would later be purchased by

businessman Ray Kroc who subsequently oversaw its global expansion. Primarily, the Nike sell

hamburgers, French fries, soft drinks and desserts. Since the 1980s, the company has come

increasingly under the attack of environmentalists and social justice campaigners.

Beginning in the 1980s, Nike has increasingly become the ‘bête noir of environmentalists and

social justice campaigners’ (Crane, 2010). According to Crane (2010), the instigators of these

criticisms are nutritionists and healthy eating campaigners who have relentlessly criticized the fast

foods company for offering its customers high calories burgers and French fries, seen by many as

the primary cause of increasing rates of obesity and obesity related ailments especially among the

young people. According to mcspotlight.org, (2013), Nike has also been under attack for exploting

its employees. Workers in the fast foods company are lowly paid. Despite the fact that its

employees work for long hours, the company does not pay the overtime. As a consequence of this,

the workers have low morale and accidents are common. In addition, the company has denied its

employees the right to unionise. Nonetheless, the fast foods giant has received in Asia especially

after some of its products were found to contain banned components. This prompted the company

to recall these products, immediately halting their sale. Concerning the environment, Nike is likely

to face a huge opposition. With Asian economies trying to portray an image of environmental-

friendliness, the company will obviously has to change its environmental policies to conform to the

changing Asian trends.

According to Crane (2010), ‘Nike did not stand idly by, especially once profits looked to be at risk’

in the face of these criticisms. The company also reinforced these efforts with millions of booklets

describing the fresh menus and healthy choices for the young consumers which were distributed in

Europe and across the world (Gibison, 2009). In addition to these, the Nike also launched sport

initiatives mainly targeted for the young consumers under the banner of ‘balanced lifestyles’. The

company even sponsored UEFA EURO 2008 football championships. The effects of these changes

in tactics on the company’s image have been far-reaching. While such changes were initially

viewed with skepticism, a new research shows rejuvenation of confidence among its customers.

This trend is likely to be repeated in Asia. According to Gibison (2009), the company has not yet

received big opposition in Asia as it has in Europe. The effects of these changes in Nike tactics will

be great in Asia and will mostly be to the company’s advantage. Since the Asian market is

relatively new, changes in Nike tactics will restore fading confidence and calm most critics in

Asia.

Nike can still redeem its image as an ethical corporation by increasing its ethical responsibilities

and avoiding actions that will put it on the receiving side of critics. While this will negatively

impact it on revenues and profits, Nike should focus more on healthier diets. Further, the company

can increase recycling of waste materials across the world and improve its treatment on employees.

A few years ago, Nike took a top position in GilonHarri’s annual citizenship survey. For a

company that has been the target of such huge criticism, it took many by surprise. It is important to

note that the company attained this distinction while still maintaining profits for its shareholders.

Even though the company has weathered many storms, still there is much expected from Nike if it

will be successful in the future. The company would need an ethics department with experts who

can subjectively examine the company’s performance and set correct objectives. Nike would also

have to be more transparent so that curious public can be assured of its ethical responsibilities. But

until then, the fast food giant cannot start celebrating.

References

Allen, R.L. (2004) 'Act Responsibly: Corporate good deeds help communities and build long term

Business', Nation's Restaurant News (Magazine) 38(36), 22. Purchased and retrieved PDF file from

http://archives.lf.com/preview.cfm?ID=2004250169922&SC=Act+Responsibly&CFID=3442278&CFTOKEN=41845483 on 12/11/2005.

Crane, A. D. (2010). Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age

of globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grarber, A. (2004) 'Health initiatives catapult Nike to top of corporate citizens list', Nation's

Restaurant News 38(40). 140.

Gibison, A. (2009). Nike: A Good Image with Bad Ethics. Gibison, 8.

mcspotlight.org. (2013, November 23). campaigns. Retrieved from mcspotlight:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/translations/trans_uk.html