Nike and the child labour allegations
Corporate irresponsibility and discourses in the media
4 articles
The interpretation of the Nike case depends on the ideological basis of the magazine/editor
The debate of CSR is not only on what the positions are
but also who states them…
BBC (1)
Screening of a Panorama documentary on child labour practices (15/10/2000)
Severe accusations against sweatshops
BBC revisited the plants and found some changes for the better (2105/2001)
BBC (2)
Conception that pressure must come from outside (consumers, civil society)
CommonDreams.org (1)
Considers Nike’s CSR policies to be nothing more than PR strategy
Policy of showing off, Nike is not genuinely concerned with fair labour conditions
CommonDreams.org (2)
The main initiative must come from the corporate world. External actors point to inconsistencies, firms must then change the rules.
Novethic.fr (1)
Nike published list of suppliers
This is seen as a sensere move, as it will facilitates auditing and puts competitive pressure on suppliers
This «change of strategy » comes after the Kasky affair (individual sued Nike in 2002)
Novethic.fr (2)
Reliance on the judicial system
Conception that Nike may not be directly responsible for what its suppliers are doing (difficult to control)
Rules-based system and competition are ways out
The New York Times (1)
Nike’s practices may be flawed,but
The corporation must have the right to defend itself
The debate deserves a proper discussion
The New York Times (2)
Freedom of speech is inviolable
Conclusion
Very different points of emphasis, but CSR definitely is on the agenda
It is a social issue and the various media actors are indirectly pushing their view on it
…one’s personal position also depends on one’s social background, not only on academic arguments