Assignment #3
Assignment #3
Assignment #3
Assignment #3
Summary:
The case addresses the issues that Nike is facing regarding corporate social responsibility
and sustainability. The origins of Corporate Social Responsibility dates back from the 1990s
where there were critics about the inhumane treatment and underpaid staffs in factory
production. This led to Nike’s shift in approach in committing to improving the working
conditions since 1998 under the leadership of Maria Eitel. Steps to phase out polyvinyl
chloride was also one of its few policies back then. The goal ever since was to therefore
reform and change of the standards of the entire industry. This includes concerning the
environment, labor practices, community affairs, employees and engagemen with NGOs,
and other stakeholders. In 2004, Jones, CR director for EU, the Middle East, and Africa took
on the role and under his leadership, he began to formulate a strategy around a few core
goals such as embracing transparency and pursuing innovation and creativity for a better
world. It addresses these targets by implementing policies in order to transform and better
the company as a whole. One such commitment that Nike had implemented was the “Road
to Zero” campaign in which fosters zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020 in its
supply chain together with its continued expansion of the per unit reductions of 10%-20% in
water use, CO2 emissions, and waste by 2015. However, it was revealed that achieving zero
discharge of hazardous chemicals would be considerably more challenging as it requires
innovations that would take time, money, talent as well as other resources. This case thus
summarizes the actions needed to take by Jones and Sprunk to addresses the issues
properly in order to come up with the possible solutions to achieve its corporate social
responsibility targets.
1. Should Nike revisit its commitment to Road Zero? Would you lower the water
targets or find the resources elsewhere? What would you recommend if you were
Jones’ position? In Sprunk’s position?
Nike should revisit the Road to Zero. This is because, the company will be able to continue
to make efforts to reduce and in time eliminate toxic discharge to the environment such as
rivers and other water sources. In my opinion, I would lower the water targets. Water
quantity and quality has been identified as the biggest threat facing the planet over the next
decade and there has thus been an increased risk of water availability globally. Due to the
fact that fresh water is critical to everyone on this planet I believe it is important to play a
part in reducing water usage. Therefore, I would lower the water targets to help combat the
scarcity of water during the process of production. I would not have done anything different
if I were to be in Jones and Sprunk’s position. Jones sustainability policy of embracing
transparency and to be responsible and accountable for the company’s actions and mistake
was a good step in fostering governance and sustainability in Nike. Getting in touch with
NGOs in order to combat issues such as the release of toxic chemical from factories was also
an important factor in monitoring and addressing the issue. Both of their efforts to improve
the working condition as well as the environmental quality is a great step in improving the
company as well as the society overall. Their efforts in trying to implement and combat
environmental and social issue is a step towards the right direction and therefore, I stand
with the both of them if I were to be in theoi position.
2. What is your view of Nike’s argument that “Playing offense” on sustainability can
drive innovation growth, and profitability? What is the evidence for your view?
Playing offence on sustainability can indeed drive innovation growth, and profitability.
Sustainability has been a great importance in the context of innovation by improving
efficiency to creating new, innovative products and services with the goal towards
improving the society. Companies have more recently begun to view sustainability as an
important aspect of their business strategy, indicating opportunities and risks as a way to
generate profit, margins and brand value. Sustainability can also foster innovation by
implementing new design restrictions that shape how resources such as energy, carbon,
water, materials and waste can be used in products and processes. Therefore, I believe
that “Playing offence” on sustainability can drive innovation growth and profitability.
3. What do you think about corporate social responsibility for sustainable development
in society? Please give some other examples of company’s socially responsible
activities such as Nike’s Road to Zero.
I strongly agree that corporate social responsibility is crucial for a sustainable development
in the society. We live in a world with finite resources and this is therefore crucial for
everyone to play a part in adopting corporate social responsibility in order to sustain the
earth environmentally and socially. Corporate social responsibility may be a complex and
costly issue to implement but I believe that the returns of investments, be it economically or
socially, is indeed worth it in the long run. Therefore, I believe that CSR is important for
sustainable development in society.
An example can be seen in Starbucks. Starbucks is a good example of having good Corporate
Social Responsibility. One of its initiatives as part of a CSR strategy is through their
commitment in reducing the impact on the planet. Providing more Fair-Trade Coffee was
one of its first main goal. This means that Starbucks aims to only buy 100 percent
responsibly grown and traded coffee. Responsibly grown and traded coffee helps the
environment in preserving energy and water at the respective farms. To add on, Starbucks
have taken steps to improve the environment directly through their stores by ‘going green’.
This includes replacing old equipment with more energy efficient ones and educating the
community by explaining their new green elements and how they work, that is conserving
energy, water, materials and used recycled and recyclable products.
4. What responsibility, if any, is there on the part of the business to address issues of
sustainability?
There is a huge responsibility for business to adopting Corporate Social Responsibility. CSR
in a company is ultimately the right thing to do. Not only is helping people the most evident
reason to incorporate CSR, but it may be the most important aspect to have the
responsibility for some of the social and environmental problems that the world faces
today. Many believe that the right thing for corporations to do is to give back. If you care
about the legacy of your company or business leaves in this world, CSR is vital way to ensure
you make a positive impact. Furthermore, it is unethical for individuals to own and earn so
much at the expense of other suffering members of the society. It is also unethical for
companies to engage in environmentally degrading practices that result in illnesses and loss
of life. For example, the issue of handling industrial waste by many corporations has always
been a priority of many environmental organizations because corporations are guilty of
irresponsibly disposing their waste. It is therefore clear that business should therefore take
responsibility to find ways to better handle their waste disposal.
Sources:
Sustainability 2.0. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-
review/issue-10/sustainability-2-0-innovation-and-growth-through-sustainability.html.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: