NIKfaqworkconditions

NIKFAQ~4.txt from Nike Inc. web site; created Friday, June 19, 1998 5:38:15 PM ; Modified Saturday, February 14, 1998 3:21:26 PM; Saved by Boje s NIKfaqworkconditions (File Origins).

"Why doesn’t NIKE use independent monitors?"

We do. Since 1994, NIKE has retained the services of

independent world-respected financial auditors like

Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young.

Independent financial auditors are trusted to judge

company performance for shareholders, securities

brokers and financial regulators in governments all

over the world. Their most important asset is a

reputation for independent and accurate assessment of

corporate performance, which is precisely what NIKE

demands and receives in every audit done. The auditing

teams are comprised of local, host-country nationals

who speak and live in the culture of the worker.

In addition, NIKE contractors have worked on

independent monitoring with Thailand Business

Investment in Rural Development (TBIRD); NIKE in

Vietnam has ongoing independent monitoring assistance

from the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City;

and NIKE Labor Practices has initiated regular

meetings to discuss workplace issues and share work

place information with the Indonesia Sportshoes

Monitoring Network.

"Does NIKE use child labor?"

NIKE has zero tolerance for child labor. NIKE backs

that pledge with enforcement that includes independent

monitoring, the factory presence of NIKE employees,

and standard identification procedures to assure all

contractors are preventing the hiring of workers below

the minimum age.

In Pakistan NIKE has one contractor for soccer balls,

Saga Sports. To date, NIKE and Saga have collaborated

in the construction of five world-class stitching

centers, small factories in the villages surrounding

Sialkot, Pakistan, where working conditions and

workers' ages can be monitored. More centers --

Pakistan's first -- are on the way.

In addition, NIKE though a Soccer Industry Council of

America (SICA) initiative, has pledged only to use

soccer ball manufacturers whose work is monitored by

organizations such as UNICEF and Save the Children.

"What is your involvement in President Clinton’s "no

sweat" initiative?"

When President Clinton asked apparel companies, labor

unions and human rights groups to work together on

eliminating sweatshops, NIKE was the first company to

step forward. Our presence encouraged the

participation of Liz Claiborne, Warnaco, L.L. Bean and

Patagonia, among others. Reebok finally joined three

months later.

NIKE's Code of Conduct was used as a working document

as we discussed Codes and labor standards. NIKE has

been and continues to be a catalyst for the group's

ongoing efforts to define monitoring, and to define

how we should work to inform consumers about these

efforts. This is a good process, not without some

pain, and we are committed to continue to push ahead.

Indeed, in meetings with unions and human rights

groups in Europe this September, NIKE was active in

urging the many different code of conduct discussions

there into a common forum with businesses. We will

continue to work on these issues.

As the discussion continues, we do not resist talking

on any issue, be it monitoring by independent bodies

(NIKE was the first company to do so), real wage

discussions (like, do you know what your factories are

paying?) and anything else on the table.

"If working conditions in NIKE factories are as poor

as I have heard, why don’t factory workers go

elsewhere?"

It is very simple: they like their jobs. The NIKE

contractor factory is safer, pays better wages, offers

a wider and deeper range of benefits, and has people

from NIKE and in contract management who take work

conditions seriously.

Credible outside reporting has established without

question that NIKE factories offer the best working

conditions in the industry. For years critics have

described NIKE contract factories as "sweatshops," a

curious description for factories that are well-lit,

well-ventilated and provide free or subsidized food

and medical care. The reasons behind their strategy

are simple: go after the biggest, most visible, most

successful target, regardless of the reality on the

factory floor.

"Why did NIKE hire Andrew Young?"

NIKE sought an independent, respected and unbiased

assessment of how well its Code of Conduct was being

implemented around the world. He did precisely that.

"Why didn't he address wages?"

He did. In his report, Ambassador Young clearly

indicated that on the basis of his research, NIKE

contract employees appeared to be earning enough to by

discretionary items and to save, as well as to provide

for basic needs. He also said the criticism of

companies like NIKE that create jobs in the developing

world is misplaced. "The basic human right," he said,

"is to have a job." NIKE has created nearly 500,000

jobs around the world through contract manufacturing.

"Why did he not look deeper into the question of a

living wage?"

Ambassador Young was asked to evaluate NIKE's Code. It

states that contractors must pay at least the minimum

wage, or the prevailing industry wage, whichever is

higher. That standard was developed in consultation

with human rights and labor rights groups, as well as

unions and religious rights groups, who participate

with NIKE on the White House Apparel Industry

Partnership. Ambassador Young confirmed that

contractors are meeting this standard.

"Ambassador Young visited factories for, at most, 3 to

4 hours, and in only three countries for less than two

weeks. How can he claim to really know what is

happening?"

The factories he visited in total represented

one-quarter of the contract workforce employed by NIKE

contractors worldwide. That is at least a

representative sample. His factory time was intended

to provide him with an overview of work conditions,

which can be pretty easily ascertained in that amount

of time. He deepened his perspective through many

hours of conversations with workers, critics,

academics, government officials and others -- both

inside the factory and without. All of these

conversations, plus observation of a broad sampling of

factories, provided him with an excellent platform

from which to draw basic conclusions about work

practices and NIKE.

"NIKE provided interpreters for Ambassador Young, and

gave him guided tours of factories selected in advance

and prepared by NIKE. Doesn't this make it impossible

for him to render a balanced judgment?"

The aim was to get good information in whatever manner

would work. Ambassador Young selected the countries to

visit, and once arrived, selected factories as well.

He was shown old and new, footwear and apparel,

foreign-owned and operated, and locally owned and

operated factories. He also visited a factory run by

the government. The choice was his alone. For at least

some of the time that he visited, he talked to workers

without factory or NIKE production management present.

He also spoke with union leaders, factory clinic

staff, non-governmental organizations, critics and

government officials. Although in many cases a NIKE

labor practices manager acted as interpreter, he asked

for their assistance because they know the

complications of such work issues as identifying

processes and machinery; explaining the sometimes

confusing rules for overtime and holidays; and because

those managers have a bi-lingual/bi-cultural

background that is essential to understanding the

nuances of a worker's response. The NIKE labor

practices manager who in some cases interpreted for

Ambassador Young in Vietnam, for example, is a former

Vietnamese refugee who holds a PhD from M.I.T., has

worked in factories, has worked with non-governmental

organizations, and talks to workers day in and day

out.

"Ambassador Young did not talk to all the people he

claims to have engaged on this issue. Doesn't that

call into question the whole report?"

What matters is that his research effectively

identified ways NIKE can improve its performance. His

recommendations have been cited as helpful by outside

and interested parties such as Bob Dunn, president of

Business for Social Responsibility, and Kevin Sweeney,

communications director for NIKE competitor Patagonia.

It is true that one of the 40 people publicly

identified as having been consulted by the Young

report was in fact not contacted. That was an

unfortunate but not critical error. He also talked to

many people not listed in the appendix. The bottom

line: look at the recommendations. Was this a step

forward? NIKE thinks it is.

"How credible is a report from a paid consultant?"

NIKE, like other companies, unions, governments and

universities, uses paid consultants for a variety of

purposes. They are all expected to provide value for

money. Ambassador Young himself has said "I didn't do

this for the money," and indeed, characterized his

income from the project as "about equal to what I

would make for one speech." Critics are not reluctant

to ask for remuneration as well. One consulting

proposal from a critical non-governmental organization

group in Indonesia offered to undertake independent

monitoring of NIKE factories. The suggested price was

$750,000 per year. The largest line item in that

proposed budget was $152,000 for a resident,

expatriate director. NIKE declined.

"What is NIKE doing with the report?"

NIKE has pledged to carry out all of the Ambassador's

recommendations, and to go beyond. We have already

produced and distributed Code of Conduct cards for

every worker, in the language of their choice. NIKE

will periodically update interested parties on its

progress.