Nike Inc. and its policy

Abstract

The topic of this paper is several problems that Nike Inc. has. Nike shoes and t-shirts included toxic chemicals. It argues that Nike Inc. should be admired. There are three reasons for this argument. First, Nike tries to save the environment. Next, the firm has an obligation to offer good-quality goods to people. Last, Nike is not afraid of risks.


Outline

Thesis: Nike Inc. should examine their products. Nike should offer safe products.

Ⅰ. Introduction
A. Holmes (2006), argues Nike shoes include greenhouse gas.
B. Their products include a strong greenhouse gas.

Ⅱ.Background
A. Why is it serious?

Ⅲ. Main Argument
A. Nike is a huge and rich company.
B. Nike should not used toxic chemicals.
C. Nike needs to do checks to stop these accidents.

Ⅳ. Conclusion
A. Thesis restatement
B. Four reasons
C. Nike should examine a few times before selling its goods.



Nike is one of the successful companies. The competitor of the firm is Adidas, but Nike actually exceeds Adidas. Many people like Nike’s products and sports players prefer Nike products because they have high functions. On the other hand, Nike Inc. faced several problems in the 20th century. One of the problems was toxic chemicals that Nike’s products contained. A German magazine pointed out that Nike’s products had a strong greenhouse gas, SF6 (Holmes, 2006). According to Holmes (2006, para. 4), “Because SF6 breaks up slowly in the atmosphere, it has an outsize impact when the shoes are finally destroyed and the gas is released from millions of little air pockets”. The chemical, SF6, does not influence people’s body, but our earth would get warmer. Nike makes a lot of products, so it is a problem. Besides, little toxics were found from Nike’s soccer t-shirts which were made in the U.K. in a few stores in 2000 (BBC Sport, 2000). Nike admitted the fact, but the firm did not know why toxics were on the shirts. However, Nike overcame these troubles.

Nike is a great and ecological company. Nike may not be recognized to be a green company now, but Nike should be admired by people for three reasons; its ecological efforts, obligations and taking risks.

The first reason is that Nike is an ecological company. In 2000, a German environmental magazine insisted that Nike products, Air Max, contained hazardous chemical substances that have greenhouse effects. Many companies or even government do not admit malignant facts. However, Nike did. In spite of the fact that Air Max was really popular among young people, the company stopped producing Air Max, which had the greenhouse gas. In the second incident, the firm withdrew the shirts that had a toxic chemical from some stores even if the amount of toxics were quite little and it did not affect people’s health. Holmes (2006, para. 3) said “’We wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for the athlete,’ says Hartge, 50, now Nike’s creative director for advanced research.” If Nike kept selling Air Max and the t-shirts, the firm could probably have big profits, but the company tries to save the environment.

Next, the company has obligation to its products. Nike has researchers and they improved their products in safe ways. To have researchers is an advantage because the firm can research anytime when researchers are needed, can know whether its products contain toxic chemicals or not and can improve its products to safe and ecological ones if there are any problems. When they faced the first problem, Nike’s researchers had researched for 14 years to offer make them safe products to customers. The researchers used nitrogen as a substitute, but it was easy to be broken. However, developing new air pockets were many tests, researchers finally completed the shoes with new air pockets. According to Holmes (2006, para. 9), “After much experimentation, the team was able to hold in nitrogen by sandwiching together 65 water-thin layers of plastic film (illustration).” Nike has responsibility to produce good products for people.

Last, the firm is a risk taker. In the first incident, Nike did not know whether the company could finish making new air pockets or not, but they spent money to research for 14 years. To succeed in a business, there are a few things that companies have to have. One of them is the taking risks that the business may be failed. This is kind of difficult, especially for big companies because big companies produce a large number of a product. If a product is about to fail, many companies would give up and produce new products. Nevertheless, Nike did not give up for 14 years. Nike will keep succeeding in the future, because the company can keep going for a long time without being afraid of failures.

In conclusion, Nike Inc. had several big problems before. Air Max, one of Nike’s hit shoes, had a greenhouse effect gas, SF6. Besides, a small amount of a toxic chemical was obtained on soccer shorts. The company did not know the cause, but they prevailed over the problems because Nike is ecological, has responsibility to offer safe products to people, and is a risk taker. Nike can do many things. The company should be regarded as a green, reliable and dynamic company.



References

BBC SPORT. (2000, January 07). Nike urges calm over ‘toxic’ shirts. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/593721.stm

BBC SPORT. (2000, January 08). ‘No danger’ from toxic shirt traces. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/595722.stm

BBC SPORT. (2001, February 22). Nike admits abuse at Indonesian plants. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia -pacific/1184103.stm

BBC SPORT. (2005, February 10). Nike hits back at Neville claim. BBC News.
Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4252871.stm

Holmes, S. (2006, September 21). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.

Makower, J. (2005, March 06). Nike Things Considered. WORLD CHANGING.
Retrieved April 08, 2008, from http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002282.html