Source one: https://purpose.nike.

com/nike-statement-on-forced-labor

MLA:

Berner, William E, and Ann M Miller. “NIKE, Inc. Statement on Forced Labor.” Nike Purpose,

Nike, 2020, purpose.nike.com/nike-statement-on-forced-labor.

This source, released in late 2020, provided an official statement from the company on

the various negative accusations towards their labor structure. In this statement, Nike tries to

clear up its ethical and moral practices by providing a code of conduct, a code leadership

standards, and many other promises. This source has good credibility as it is directly from the

company itself. Although these allegations have been previously denied by the company, after

proof in reports arose, they were required to release this document to attempt to uphold their

image. At the end of this statement, they released a set of remedies and what they hope to

achieve in the future. This source serves as a counter argument as Nike provides statements

defending their use of overseas labor and other things.

Source two:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/your-favorite-nikes-might-be-made-force

d-labor-heres-why/

MLA citation:

Leibold, James, and Vicky Xiuzhong Xu. “Opinion | Your Favorite Nikes Might Be Made from

Forced Labor. Here's Why.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Mar. 2020,

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/17/your-favorite-nikes-might-be-made-forced-labor

-heres-why/.
 This article by authors at the Washington Post, released during the onset of the pandemic

in March, 2020, provides accurate reports of some who may be laborers for Nike. Although this

article was posted under the ‘global opinions’ page, it offers credibility in the proof provided to

back up the various reports. These reports were conducted by a large team of researchers based

in Australia, as they have been tracking this Muslim group’s movement across China. Another

report comes directly from the Washington Post reporter, Anna Fifield. The source states, “The

Post’s Anna Fifield visited a shoe factory in Qingdao producing sneakers for Nike and found that

it resembled a prison, with barbed wire, watchtowers, surveillance cameras and a dedicated

police station. Uighur workers at the factory, she was told, did not come on their own accord, nor

could they return home for the holidays”(Xiuzhong and Leibold). In conclusion, the author(s)

uses credible sources such as government documents, state media reports, and even the

Washington Post’s very own reports.

Source 3:

https://economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Development/harrison-0

40322.pdf

MLA citation:

Harrison, Ann, and Jason Scorse. “The Nike Effect: Anti-Sweatshop Activists and Labor Market

Outcomes in Indonesia .” Economics.yale.edu, Yale University, Mar. 2004,

economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Development/harrison-040322.

pdf.
 This document, from Yale University, published in 2004 touches upon the Nike overseas

labor practices in Indonesia throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. This document is extremely

credible because it comes directly from researchers at Cal Berkeley, Yale, and a few other

prestigious universities. In this document, they mainly discuss the overseas market in Indonesia,

and its progression over the 1990s. The document portrays Nike as one of the first companies to

start using these low-paying, poor conditioned overseas markets in Indonesia. At the very end of

the document, many charts are given to provide analytical data of the Indonesian labor market.

The chart titled, “Appendix Table A1: Mean Minimum Wage and Select Wages for Indonesia

1990-1999”, shows minimum wages decreasing late into the decade. This is odd, as minimum

wages should always increase with inflation throughout the years, and cutting their pay does not

seem justifiable. The document states that many companies, Nike included, started to cut their

pay in the years 1998 and 1999. This initial pay cut started a whole world of problems to come

for Indonesian laborers in the twenty-first century. In conclusion, this document argues that the

Nike sweatshop effect has created low paying labor markets in Indonesia.

Source four: https://documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/nike.html

MLA:

Beder, Sharon. “Putting the Boot In.” Nike and Reputation Management, Apr. 2002,

documents.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/nike.html.

This source comes directly from professor Sharon Beder at the University of Wollongong

in Australia. This document, although not arguing one way or another, provides facts on the labor

market overseas, and what this means for Nike. This excerpt from her work, The Ecologist, starts

off by focusing on where Nike spends their money. She came to the conclusion that Nike spends
very little money on the manufacturing of their products, but rather their marketing and

advertising. This work states, “Chinese workers receive about $1.50 per pair of shoes that sell for

$80-$120.50 The rewards for those who manufacture the products (an average of $786 per year in

Indonesia)" are minute compared with the remuneration for those who endorse them.51 'In one

year, Nike paid Michael Jordan [pictured above] as much (about $25m) to pitch the shoes as its

subcontractors paid 35,000 Vietnamese to make them” (Beder 27) This quote alone provides a

lot of insight on places where Nike manufactures their products (China, Indonesia, Vietnam), and

how much they get paid. On the other side of this argument, it is presented that Nike released a

new code of conduct that was reportedly backed by the United Nations. In addition to this, they

are said to have signed a global compact, forcing them to improve overseas labor markets.

Finally, this source is extremely credible as the works produced by this professor are highly

regarded.

Source 5: https://www.who.com.au/nike-sweatshops-does-nike-use-sweatshops

MLA citation:

McKay, Rhys. “Nike Sweatshops: Does Nike Use Sweatshops?” Who, 21 Aug. 2019,

www.who.com.au/nike-sweatshops-does-nike-use-sweatshops.

This source, written by Rhys McKay on the domain, who.com, does not appear to be the

most credible at first glance. However, after reading this article written by someone who cannot

be deemed as credible, I found the source to be reliable and true. This is because of the author’s

use of credible outside sources. Three separate times in this source, the author provides

information from either Business Insider, The Guardian, or NBC News. This allowed me to use
pieces of this source as the outside sources are linked, and often quoted. As you dive into this

source, it is fairly easy to detect an argument. The author is arguing against the company Nike,

and their labor practices as he provides insight on some of the horrible practices being carried out

by Nike. The source states, “In 2017, The Guardian reported that in Cambodia, “more than 500

workers in four factories supplying to Nike, Puma, Asics and VF Corporation were hospitalised”,

and over 350 workers collapsed in a span of three days” (Mckay). This article brings up many

cases of abuse in Nike factories, and states that according to NBC News, there have been cases

of verbal or physical abuse in 569 factories. In conclusion, this source is yet another to provide

information degrading the corporation’s image.