These are the questions Katilyn (THANK YOU!) transcribed plus the ones we generated from Apple, plus a few in my head. Feel free to use them as you like for paper 1 development. These are on moodle too.
Is it stakeholder management to wait for problems?
Was Apple more responsive?
Do consumers have more ethical choices?
Do market leaders get more (or undeserved) attention over social or ethical concerns?
Is media the agent in the Nike or Apple case? Are they an active agent creating the problems for each firm? Or, are they more of a tool or amplifier or pawn for other actors and struggles?
Do owners always want to maximize profits (as Milton assumes)?
Over what time frame?
Do ethics matter at the individual or company/org level?
Were Nike’s competitors doing the same thing (suing globalized supply chains)?
Was Nike (or Apple) reactive or proactive?
Two of my own-
1) If firms outsource and pursue lowest cost options do the create a “race to the bottom” among developing countries to see which one will most exploit their own population? What are the features of a globalized economy that enable or encourage the race to the bottom? How did that global political economy come into being and what continues to protect and promote it?
2) Sal’s question- Did consumers actually purchase less Nike (or Apple) product? How do we know? If not, and both firms still modified their practices, why did they?
3) Even if a firm pays the legal minimum wage or even more in a given country, is that ethically sound? What are the ethical criteria for determining so?
4) Why isn’t there a global minimum (and living) wage pegged to differences in cost of living and then inflation? Do we have global economy without global governance?
5) How do celebrity, branding, and media become both asset and liability for Nike (or Apple)?