Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Advertising or Free Speech? The Case of Nike and Human Rights
This week’s discussion is about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), focusing on the brief case study about Nike (p.101 in the textbook).
Nike pioneered offshore manufacturing by hiring third-party contractors in developing nations to work in its company-owned plants. Among other workers, the contractors hired minors at low pay in” sweatshops.” When the news became public in 1996, Nike faced negative public opinion, and then it established a Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Committee to ensure that labor practices were ethical across its supply chain.
After that, Nike was sued for allegedly knowingly making false and misleading statements in denying its direct participation in the abusive labor conditions abroad in manufacturing its products. The case was dismissed for procedural issues by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thereafter, Nike has worked on building its CSR profile through relief efforts and advocating fair wages and employment practices in its outsourced operations.
Thinking about Nike’s corporate practices, if you were to start a company that outsourced labor in order to reduce manufacturing costs,
1- what decisions would you make to combine commercial objectives with social goals to improve the impact of corporate social responsibility efforts?
2- How might the two conflict?
Require:
Embed course material concepts, principles, and theories, which require supporting citations along with four scholarly peer-reviewed references supporting your answer.
Required:
Review Chapters 2 & 3 in International Management: Culture, Strategy, and Behavior
Chapter 3 PowerPoint slides Chapter 3 PowerPoint slides – Alternative Formats in International Management: Culture, Strategy, and Behavior
“Brief Integrative Case 1.1: Advertising or Free Speech? The Case of Nike and Human Rights” (p. 101), in International Management: Culture, Strategy, and Behavior.
Beumer, C., Figge, L., & Elliott, J. (2018). The sustainability of globalisation: Including the ‘social robustness criterion’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 704-715.
Christ, K., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). Multinational enterprise strategies for addressing sustainability: The need for consolidation. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-22.
Richter, U., & Arndt, F. (2018). Cognitive processes in the CSR decision-making process: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(3), 587-602.
Recommended:
Al-Malkawi, H. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance in Saudi Arabia. Managerial Finance, 44(6), 648-664.
Alnajdi, O., Calautit, J., & Wu, Y. (2019). Development of a multi-criteria decision making approach for sustainable seawater desalination technologies of medium and large-scale plants: a case study for Saudi Arabia’s vision 2030. Energy Procedia, 158, 4274-4279.
Das, M., Rangarajan, K., and Dutta, G. (2020). Corporate Sustainability in SME’s: Asian Culture. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 14 (1), 109-138.
Murphy, M., Macdonald, J., Antoine, G., & Smolarski, J. (2019). Exploring Muslim attitudes towards corporate social responsibility: Are Saudi business students different? Journal of Business Ethics, 154(4), 1103-1118.
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow