📚 Nike Sweatshop Crisis

Core Lesson: Supply chain ethics, reputational risk


📋 Overview

AttributeDetail
SubjectEthics ESG
Core LessonSupply chain ethics, reputational risk
SourceHBS / Top MBA Case

🕰️ Background

In the 1990s, Nike became the poster child for ‘sweatshop labor’ after reports of child labor, unsafe working conditions, and sub-minimum wages in its supplier factories in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Vietnam. Protests at US universities and a famous LIFE magazine photo of a 12-year-old boy sewing Nike soccer balls led to a massive brand crisis and stock collapse.


❓ The Central Problem

Is a company responsible for the actions of its ‘outsourced’ suppliers? In the 90s, Nike’s position was: ‘We don’t own the factories, we just buy from them.’ The public revolt proved that this legal distinction is ethically and commercially irrelevant.


📊 Analysis

Transformation: CEO Phil Knight realized the brand was in ‘unprecedented’ danger. Nike responded by: (1) Creating the Fair Labor Association (FLA), (2) Mandating 100% transparency of its factory list (the first to do so), (3) Setting minimum age and environmental standards. Nike went from ‘worst to first’ in ESG reporting, turning a liability into a competitive advantage in sustainability.


🔑 Key Lessons

  1. Reputational risk in the supply chain is ‘Direct Risk’ for the brand, regardless of ownership
  2. Transparency is the only cure for supply chain mistrust—list your factories
  3. Industry-wide collaboration (FLA) is more effective than individual auditing
  4. ESG can be a competitive advantage if integrated into the core business model after a crisis

🎓 Discussion Questions

  1. Why did Nike’s initial ‘we don’t own the factories’ defense fail so badly?
  2. How can a company ensure compliance at Tier 2 or Tier 3 suppliers?
  3. Is Nike’s current ESG leadership ‘authentic’ or just ‘reputation management’?

🔗 Connected Concepts


⚖️ Ethics & ESG MOC | 📚 Case Studies MOC