Having started thinking about Nike and social reporting I decided to investigate a little further.
What is the role and purpose of CSR? (Corporate Social Responsibility) One can see how malpractice either sustained or even short term will ultimately mean that individuals that will then form some form of resistance etc., will face up to the company responsible.
Richard Welford , professor of corporate environmental governance at the University of Hong Kong has this to say
CSR is about reciprocal obligations. Businesses are given a lot of power in society, and they have this obligation to give things back. They should invest in the community; implement good employment practices, provide a good working environment.Is there a risk that commitment to the community can compromise a company's profits? Is there a chance of sacrificing the bottom line?
There is zero conflict between CSR and the bottom line, I just don't buy the argument that CSR subtracts money from the bottom line. That doesn't mean it doesn't cost money. It does. But it also brings benefits, such as enhanced reputation, brand image and trust, which is a big issue.
And we do know that credibility and trust are key issues for any business alive today. A good reputation will create will wealth.
This is what reporter Paul Kenyon in a BBC Panorama programme had to say
If Nike and the Gap were doing what they said, interviewing workers, monitoring factories properly, enforcing their anti-sweatshop rules, why hadn't they found what we had? This isn't the only factory we've investigated, we've looked at several others in Cambodia that produce for both the Gap and for Nike and they seem to have one thing in common which is persistent and serious breaches of their own code of conduct, it's almost as if that ethical trading policy which these big labels trumpet in Europe and America just doesn't exist in any real way here. In fact we found five other factories in Cambodia manufacturing for either Nike or the Gap. We interviewed dozens of workers, codes of conduct were regularly being broken but no one we spoke to had ever been interviewed by a monitor.
It is a long transcript - and the fact it exists demonstrates why organisations like No Sweat exist.
Kenyon sums up at the end of his report
Since we filmed in Cambodia, June Textiles also told us that child labour is not acceptable to them. The Gap says they're holding an inquiry. Nike has told us it found child labour in the same factory and it may pull out from December. We've made daily checks on the children. They're safe but they're still working. Sun Thyda continues to lie about her age to keep her job. Nike says it will pay for any children it finds to go to school. The Gap, as you heard, simply wants to let them go. With the benefits of globalisation come the responsibilities. But consumers can never be sure what's been ethically produced and what's not. For that we have to rely on the companies. But whose checking on them?
As Nike are finding the road back to a good reputation is going to be a hard one
Even Gap have found themselves on the wrong side of the fence as regards to their ehtical practices.
Related links
Ethical Consumer
Ethical Property
Consumer Activism Project
Survey on Privavcy Activism
Consumer Activism in the UK - Mori
related links to activism
Comments