NIKFAQ~2.txt was copied from Nike Inc.'s web site; Created Friday, June 19, 1998 5:38:14 PM; last modified Saturday, February 14, 1998 3:23:20 PM; Saved by - D. Boje (File Origin).

A.

Critics push the concept that attacking NIKE, the

leader, will force others to follow. Not true. In

1992, NIKE’s Code of Conduct was written. To date,

only Reebok has followed in footwear. Adidas, the

world’s second largest sports company, has not even

written a Code. Neither have Fila, Mizuno or Asics,

never mind posted those Codes in native languages in

all factories, and inspected monthly to assure

compliance.

In 1996, NIKE was the first company to join the White

House Partnership to eliminate sweatshops. Reebok

joined after deliberations had been underway for three

months. Only seven companies have agreed to abide by

the Code of Conduct that body produced. No other

companies have agreed to join, despite repeated pleas

from NIKE, Claiborne and other members. Followers

don’t lead, they follow.

Q.

"How does NIKE compare to other shoe brands?"

A.

NIKE is leading the change in the industry in all

aspects of labor practices, from wallet-size Code of

Conduct cards in native languages to help instruct

workers in their rights, to health and safety

inspections on a monthly basis.

Q.

"Where do you get your information?"

A.

Anyone who chooses to have an opinion on NIKE and

labor practices needs to think about how information

is gathered, and how it is used in context. For the

value of wages in Vietnam, for example, consult the

World Bank study on living conditions. It is the best

source on Vietnam and income and spending, and our

critics ignore it. Why? Because it illustrates clearly

that the wages currently paid in factories are

appropriate to the level of the job, and provide a

good income for an unskilled and entry-level worker.

If NIKE were to rely on methodology used by our

critics -- most recently, Global Exchange and its

release of a report on factories in China -- we would

be rightly crucified by the public for shoddy research

and an inappropriate sampling technique. Setting up a

card table outside a factory gate, asking leading

questions, and then issuing a "report" on NIKE

factories -- without any conversation with NIKE or its

factory management, never mind requesting a factory

visit -- is not research. It is campaigning under the

guise of research. The China report is the best

example extant of how not to do independent

monitoring, and a perfect illustration of why NIKE

chooses a responsible third party (in China, that

party is Price Waterhouse) to look at factories in

depth and with some precision.

Q.

"Who is conducting this campaign?"

A.

There are two answers that need attention.

One, this is indeed a campaign - it is an organized,

well-funded and coordinated attack on one company,

NIKE, not because our practices are bad, but because

we make a visible target.

Secondly, although there are many organizations listed

as part of the "working group" on NIKE, several are at

best tangent to the campaign. United Methodists

General Board of Pensions is working with NIKE, not

against us. Vidette Bullock Mixon, general counsel, at

the annual shareholders meeting publicly commended

NIKE for the steps we are taking. The groups allied

with her organization that agreed to support that

position include Informed Investors, Progressive Asset

Management, and the Interfaith Center on Corporate

Responsibility. Amnesty International is not part of

the campaign, and in fact in recent weeks has asked

NIKE to assist in a campaign to get more companies to

adopt a Code of Conduct such as we have had in force

for five years.