Votre Forum

Identifiez-vous avec le pseudo d'administration pour configurer et personaliser votre forum.

Vous n'êtes pas identifié.

#1 04-04-2018 07:26:13

justi231
Membre
Date d'inscription: 23-11-2017
Messages: 43

cheap nike air huarache

The parties subsequently cheap air jordan basketball shoessettled out of court before any finding on the accuracy of Nike's statements, for $1. 5 million. Discovery in the Kasky case had the potential to open the Nike files to public scrutiny, to document the mistreatment of workers throughout the world, and the flow of money from Nike to public interest groups. However Kasky and his lawyers settled this potential historic case for a $1. 5 million donation to a group controlled by the shoe and apparel industry. There hasn't been a word about it since. In 2004 Nike announced that it would be developing a balanced scorecard to integrate corporate responsibility into its business. The sports goods manufacturer said it would introduce corporate responsibility as an integral part of its contract manufacturing business. Sourcing decisions were to be based not just on price, quality and delivery but also a contractor's pledge towards labour management and environmental, health and safety programmes.

In 2005, seven years from the nike air max 90 womens saletime when the controversy was first made public, an independent research conducted showed that although 60% of factories monitored achieved an A or B rating in terms of compliance with agreed standards, a quarter of factories were found to present more serious problems. These ranged from a lack of basic terms of employment and excessive hours of work to unauthorised sub-contracting, confirmed physical or sexual abuse and the existence of conditions which could lead to death or serious injury. The Guardian also reported some of the conditions that existed in the Chinese factories in 2005

The question of course is, would cheap nike air jordan shoesanything still be done. There is a good chance it may never be. Nike sees business ethics as "no good at all", and believes acting ethically would not be in the best of interests of the business. Not till the time, the sales of the business go down alarmingly, would there be any hope for any drastic improvements in these conditions. Nike has always had its share of controversies, and the firm seems to be thriving on it. The firm manages to use the controversies as a publicity tool. Thus far, Nike has treated allegations as an issue of public relations rather than human rights. Every allegation is followed by the release of public statements across various magazines and newspapers stating the efforts made by the firm to make the difference, but seven years down the road, the differences are yet to be seen. Meanwhile the efforts of Nike to manipulate and win even more customers go on. The corporate website of the firm talks heavily about their shifting approach to labour compliance.

Unlike Nike air max 95, Unilever has not quite been indulging itself in illegal activities, but does that make it any less harmful, or does that make Unilever any bit more ethical than Nike? According to this writer, the answer to both the questions is NO. In fact what makes Unilever's practices even scarier than those of Nike is the fact that they cause as much harm, but still there seems to be little concern over it. The firm has been in operation since 1978, and even 28 years after there seems to be little or no concern. There is little media coverage over the menace, possibly because of the advertising revenues being paid, or just the ignorant nature of the present day media, which seems to be more interested in scandals rather than some social concerns in a third world country.

http://www.airtrainershops.co.uk/image/catalog/airtrainer/best-nike-roshe-white-with-custom-black-candy-drip-swoosh-paint-on-sale.jpg

Hors ligne

 

Pied de page des forums