NIKE CASE STUDY MGMT34001 - A GRG POST 4
Journalists and Investigators Reports
Many journalists and investigative reporters continue to raise serious concerns about Nike’s labor practices, even after the company has made some improvements. One of the most detailed investigations comes from ProPublica, which examined Nike’s supplier factories in countries such as Indonesia and Cambodia. The report found that while Nike claims workers earn higher wages, many workers reported earning close to minimum wage and struggling to meet daily basic needs (ProPublica, 2026). In another investigation, ProPublica reported that factory workers in Cambodia fainted due to extreme heat and long working hours, raising concerns about unsafe working conditions (Davis, 2025). These findings suggest that despite Nike’s policies, public commitments and statements, real working conditions in some factories remain problematic. From this perspective, journalists argue that Nike’s improvements may not fully reflect reality on the ground. These reports provide strong evidence that there is still a gap between Nike’s official statements, commitments and the lived experiences of its factory’s workers.
Activists and Advocacy Groups
Activists and labor rights organizations have been some of the strongest critics of Nike. According to Inequality Org, global companies like Nike continue to benefit from low wage labor in developing countries while workers struggle with poor conditions and limited rights (Sivalogananthan, 2025). These groups argue that companies should take full responsibility for their supply chain and ensure fair wages and safe working conditions. Activists believe that relying on suppliers should not reduce a company’s ethical obligations. At the same time, some commentators provide a more balanced view. For example, Baker (2016) argues that Nike has made significant progress over time and has improved its approach to corporate responsibility. This suggests that while problems still exist, Nike is not the same company it was in the past.
Media Coverage and Public Awareness:
Media coverage has played a major role in shaping public opinion and raising awareness about Nike’s labor practices. Various news reports and documentaries have helped with greater attention to working conditions in overseas factories and have increased pressure on Nike to respond (BBC News, 2023; ProPublica, 2025). This type of media content and coverage help viewers understand the human impact behind global supply chains and highlights the ethical challenges faced by workers.
My evaluation of these perspectives
In my opinion, the different perspectives from journalists, investors, and activists provide a more complete understanding of the issue. Nike presents its efforts as progress but external sources show that significant problems still exist (ProPublica, 2026; Bloomberg Law, 2024). I agree more with the investigative and activist perspectives because they are based on real world evidence and workers’ experiences (Sivalogananthan, 2025). Reports of low wages, unsafe working conditions, and worker health issues suggest that the problem has not been fully resolved yet (ProPublica, 2025). However, I also acknowledge that Nike has made some improvements over time, as also noted by some commentators (Baker, 2016). This shows that change is possible, but it requires continuous effort, monitoring and stronger accountability across the company and the global supply chain. Overall, these perspectives show that Nike’s situation is complex. While the company has made progress, the continued voice and criticism from multiple sources suggests that more meaningful and consistent action is needed imminently.
Kalra, A. (2024). Nike investors question treatment of Garment Workers Overseas. Retrieved from https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/nike-investors-question-treatment-of-garment-workers-overseas
Kim, C. (2023). Canada probes Nike, Dynasty Gold over alleged use of Uyghur forced labour.
Kish, M. (2026a). Nike factory workers in Indonesia illustrate misleading portrayal of wages. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/nike-wages-clothing-shoe-factory-indonesia
Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66171702
Baker, M. (2016). Nike and child labour – how it went from laggard to leader. Retrieved from https://mallenbaker.net/article/clear-reflection/nike-and-child-labour-how-it-went-from-laggard-to-leader/
(N.d.-a). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYK9nRYH_0k
You did a great job pulling together multiple outside perspectives. I like how you showed the contrast between Nike’s public claims and what journalists and investigators continue to uncover about wages, heat exhaustion, and unsafe conditions. It makes the issue feel very real and grounded in evidence. Your section on investors was especially interesting. It shows that labor issues aren’t just ethical concerns; they’re also business risks that can affect Nike’s reputation and long‑term success. That connection adds a lot of depth to your analysis. I appreciate how you included both the activist criticisms and the more balanced viewpoint from Baker. It shows that you’re not just presenting one side but acknowledging that Nike has made progress while still facing serious ongoing problems.
ReplyDelete1. Thank you for your comment. I’m glad you found the different perspectives helpful. I tried to provide both the perspectives of the company and the actual conditions faced by the workers so that the problem looks balanced and realistic.
DeleteAfter looking at all these outside perspectives, which group do you think has the strongest influence on Nike — journalists, investors, or activists? Why?
ReplyDeleteI think the investors have the most influence on the company, as they are directly related to the success or failure of the business. If the investors are concerned about the working conditions, it would put a lot of pressure on the company to take the necessary steps.
DeleteDo you think Nike’s improvements would have happened without public pressure and media coverage, or are these external voices the main drivers of change?
ReplyDeleteI think the changes in the company would not have taken place without the pressure from the public and the media. I think the media has a major influence in highlighting the problems faced by the workers. Without that pressure, I don’t think the companies would take the necessary steps.
DeleteBased on the evidence from investigators and workers, what do you think is the biggest issue Nike still needs to address first — wages, safety conditions, or supply‑chain accountability?
ReplyDeleteI think the most important issue that needs to be addressed by the company at the moment is the working conditions of the employees. I think the conditions, such as extreme heat, would put the employees in danger, and that should be the most important issue addressed by the company
DeleteDo you believe there is enough media coverage to bring about significant change?
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that there is a good amount of media coverage, and that has definitely helped to bring more attention to this problem; yet it is still not enough by itself to fully create change. While media coverage is bringing more and more pressure on Nike, change is often created by combining this with investor pressure and consumer response.
DeleteGREAT POST, Your post explains journalist, investor, and activist views, making the issue more complete and real. I like how you highlighted that Nike claims improvement while several sources reflect difficulties. The video shows real labor circumstances, making the issue more real and impactful. Nike's decisions touch various groups, supporting stakeholder theory. Reasoning implies the problem is not solved when complaints and video evidence show the same fears.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. I am glad that you found the different perspectives helpful. I also agree that this video and these reports are making this problem more real by showing how it affects workers. Your comment about stakeholder theory is also important because it shows how this is affecting workers and consumers and investors. As you pointed out, the fact that there are still many complaints and evidence about the issues, which shows that the issue are not full resolved yet.
DeleteGreat opinion analysis post! The ESG angle was a smart addition (unfortunately, investor pressure probably moves faster than moral arguments ever could).
ReplyDeleteI appreciated that you included Baker's more balanced take too, it kept the post from feeling one-sided. But it does raise a real question, if Nike has been "improving" since the 90s, why are reporters still finding the same problems in 2025 and 2026?
Thank you for your comment. I think you are right that investor pressure can often be more effective than moral arguments and that this is particularly true for a large company like Nike.
DeleteI think that the reason that journalists are still reporting the same issues is that Nike’s supply chain is a very big and complex operation. While Nike has made improvements since the 1990s, this is not necessarily true throughout all of their supply chain. In addition, some of these suppliers may still be more interested in efficiency and cost than in workers’ conditions.
The implication is that improvements are being made at a policy level, but that real conditions on the ground do not always improve at the same pace. It shows that while Nike has improved, the issue is still ongoing and requires stronger and more consistent action.
This post compiles the information very well and in an organized way. Do you know if Nike currently plans to take a more forward action on the issue, or have they not responded at all?
ReplyDeleteNike has reacted to this problem and taken some steps to address it, like strengthening its monitoring to better detect labor risk in its supply chain. However, problems persist in some of these factories across the globe.
Deletehttps://media.about.nike.com/files/d35297c7-89cf-4240-bd50-803af806ce4d/Nike---FY25-Statement-On-Forced-Labor-Child-Labor-Human-Trafficking-and-Modern-Slavery.pdf?