Oct 25 2005
I did not know the role Mara played in NFL history until seeing the orbituaries in Washington Post and NYT.
I thought Revenue Sharing epitomized “capitalist vision”. Can’t imagine that in China. Absolutely no way.
According to the WP article, he was an incredibly kind person. History scholars seldom gave much thought to “agents” of history rather than “structures” (as in Structuralism). Without Mara, it seemed, Football wouldn’t be where it is today.
Oct 25 2005
Question:
1. Would things be different had Nike owned the factories?
— because Nike did not want to deal with Union and other local headache, maybe
2. Is this case about labor practice or corporate citizenship in general? Is there any apply-to-all “code of conduct” for corporations?
— the former easier to answer/judge. The latter much complicated. Racial/religious tolerance: suppose labor practise was not a problem but Nike had factories in Bosnia or Somalia. Freedom of Press/Speech: Yahoo! China case.
Other thoughts:
1. Nike enjoyed incredible growth in the 80s and 90s: 15,000,000% revenue according to the case
2. Phil Knight was ahead of his time: 60s, MBA. A brilliant business genius.
3. Nike epitomize the Globalization process: its poster boy and its piñata.
a. Poster boy: the phenomenal growth; others’ imitation; leader of the fashion and pop culture; seemingly transcendant of both streets (Wall and Main)
b. Pinata: Attacks on Nike were emotional/visceral, not necessarily rational. Attacks were coordinated, focused and lasting. NGOs were less interested in co-opting Nike than ridiculing it.
4. The impact of FDI to local economy and social life:
a. Overall beneficial. Backed up by Tuck study in 1997.
b. Empirical data implied in the case: the dev. path of “Asian Tigers”. Without initial exploitation, Taiwan and Korea may not be able to become who they are now.
5. The role of NGO
a. Passions of Crusaders (Jeff Ballinger living in basement and single-handedly brought the Nike abuse to light)
b. Different agendas within NGOs: Ballinger’s human rights concern, AAFLI/AFL-CIO’s goal.
c. As a result, NGO’s are good at bringing up abuse cases, not always good at constructing solutions. Some are suspected of disruptive tactics and promoting own agenda. e.g. Columbia University professor Jagdish Bhagwati’s general critique of NGO in his article.
d. Anarchical elements in anti-globalization movements: the Seattle protests. Reduced the effectiveness and moral credentials of good NGOs. May also explain why they couldn’t agree on FLA issues.
6. Nike’s Response to the Challenge
a. CEO lack of sensitivity to the issue. As a result, lacks conviction, vision and decisiveness. Unbecoming his role of a leader in globalization
b. Knights’ business model was absolutely cutting edge but view of labor and HR was hopelessly mercantile: I don’t have to know how the profits come, as long as they come.
c. Still lacks of sincerity: pre-notification of an inspection: what the heck was that?!
d. Improved a lot by proactively organizing and coercing smaller players into FLA. Gaining tractions, aiming small: a valid, business-like approach.
e. Damage done to Nike’s image/brand appeal/value: Long term, intangible, no question detrimental. Corporate arrogance, “swooshtika“, expose business to competition and during down turn.
d. Compare what Reebok’s pre-emptive, overwhelming response. Good example to follow.