NIKE CASE STUDY Natalja Kjaernested

NIKE CASE STUDY

Natalja Kjaernested

7RELEVANT FACTS Nike is the world's leading suppl ier of athlet ic shoes and apparel and a major manufacturer of sports equipment , with revenue in excess of US$19.014 bi l l ion in i ts fiscal year 2010, based in the United States. In 2010, i t employed more than 34,000 people worldwide.

Nike makes shoes, jerseys, shorts etc. for a wide range of sports, including track and field, baseball, ice hockey, tennis, football (soccer), basketball, and cricket.

Nike’s problemAccording to Holmes, - “Nike tries to be green, but the company has some problems”. An environmental magazine complained about Nike Inc. because Nike’s plastic air pockets are used a strong greenhouse gas, SF6 - SULFUR HEXAFLOURIDE.

When thousands of air pockets are broken, SF6 is emitted in the air.

Nike’s solutionNowadays, Nike is helping to stop global warming, one shoe at a t ime. By replacing SF6 , the gas original ly used to fil l the air cushions in the soles of Nike shoes, with nitrogen, the company has avoided the release of mil l ions of tons of CO2 equivalent.

I t may seem l ike a l i t t le thing: the pocket of air in the bottom of an Air Max sneaker. But these pockets used to have a big impact on climate change . SF6, a greenhouse gas 22,200 t imes more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Nike used the gas because i t was dense and inert, initially without an awareness of how dangerous it was to the Earth’s climate.

STAKE HOLDERS

NIKE CUSTOMERS COMPETITORS EMPLOYEES MEDIA ENTERPRISES INVOLVED IN SULFUR

HEXAFLUORIDE (SF6) PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

ETHICAL ISSUESWas i t eth ica l to use SF6 for footwear product ion?

Should footwear product ion have been cancel led as soon as the company became aware of the impact SF6 has on the Earth’s c l imate?

Is i t proved that SF6 is dangerousto the Earth ’s c l imate?

LEGAL ISSUES

Use of SF6Legal and ethica l (because be fo re 2006 SF6 wasn ’ t p roh ib i ted and the company d id no t know about the dangerous impac t SF6 might have on the Ear t ’ s c l imate )

I l lega l and unethica l ( i n 2006 i t was d i scovered tha t SF6   i s dangerous and i t was  prohib i ted   f o r most app l i ca t i ons , l i ke in spor t shoes , ca r t i res , tenn i s ba l l s and fo r doub le g laz ing )

TELEOLOGICAL/UTILITARIAN APROACHIf Nike removes SF6 or finds alternativeWHO GAINS:WHO LOOSES:

Nike SF6 producers(in a long perspective because the company keeps it’s good name&wins commercially (slide nr10) )Environment (no pollution continues)Consumers (will get good quality products, no harm to their health)

The new technology that Nike researchers developed, which uses nitrogen instead of SF6, has even paid off commercially. How? It allowed Nike to create the Air Max 360, the first sneaker to cushion the entire sole with a bed of air. Launched January 2006, the $160 shoe has become a hit. "We wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for the athlete, but we wondered if the two could ever be harmonious," says Hartge, Nike's creative director for advanced research.

SOLUTION:

SF6 can be replaced with nitrogen(“the thermoforming produced an even tighter seal than blow-molding -- one that could hold up across a shoe's entire sole. The result: the Air Max 360, which offers runners more comfort with less weight. "Thermoforming allows us to shape and cradle the air sole to the contour of the foot," Hartge says. "We're ecstatic about the sales" so far.)

DEONTOLGY (Kant’s moral theory)

The will is good when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.

Nike’s will was to find a substitute as soon as they found out that there is a danger in using SF6. They acted out of duty and from respect for the moral law - not to do any harm to the society.And in total spent almost 14 years to fully resolve the problem that has occured in 1992.

Silver Rule by Kant (Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you)Are Nike managers ready to buy products which safety is questionable?

Rights and DutiesCustomer’s right - to know threats;Nike’s duty - to inform customers about possible danger;Government’s duty - to protect people;

DEFENSIBLE CHOISEFrom egoistic point of view: If danger of SF6 not known to Nike - ethicalIf dangers known to Nike - unethical

From utilitarianism point of view:Removing or replacing SF6, would be ethical

SOURCES1)http://www.americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-registry/projects/nike-sf6-substitution-project

2)http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_39/b4002108.htm ‘

3)http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sf6nonelec/sf6-draft-concept-paper.pdf

4)http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_ethical_behaviour

5)http://nikeandchildlabourtt.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html