Levi Strauss Essay Example for Free

Levi Strauss EssayAs one attempts to assess the business ethics of Levi Strauss and Nike in this writing assignment, we are again compelled to revisit the critical distinction of bear that is legal, yet still unethical. In both instances, Levi Strauss and Nike fared with the parameters of legal pre practice, yet few would argue that profiting from exploitive work conditions is an ethical behavior of any socially liable organization (broad view social responsibility).Obviously, its very tempting to just condense this argument to the point of bad companies boosting profits from lower labor be via exploiting foreign role players in sweatshops. I am going to take a much broader approach here in my assessment, as complete fairness to the cardinal corporations here requires a bit of an indictment of the legal, regulatory, political, and socioeconomic environment that they operate in. So, lets start there how is it that both of these thumping corporations are permitted (and dr iven) to source (with relative impunity) labor to countries with poor labor laws?In order to fairly assess their conduct, one must first examine the system under which they operate. How has somatic America gone down this path? Why do so many large U. S. corporations outsource labor en masse, which costs the U. S. economy so many jobs domestically? Lets start by looking in the mirror and by that I mean you and I the U. S. consumer. Our thirst for shabby merchandise made overseas knows no limits. Do any of us look at the country of origin for goods, and if its non-U. S. do we even smash for a second to consider boycotting said goods due to loss of American jobs?Or boycott due to the nation of origins reputation for worker abuse? Of course we dont. We want that Japanese racy definition television from Wal-Mart that costs $100 less. We want the clo social function from China or Indonesia that is 30% cheaper than similar brands made here. So, my first premise in this entire argume nt is that American consumers are NOT socially responsible in their purchasing habits. This wishing of social responsibility on the demand side is a catalyst for Levi Strauss and Nike to seek cheaper labor overseas for if they do not, their competitors assuredly will and they will be at a competitive disadvantage.Now, lets assess the legal and regulatory environment under which both entities operate in the United States. Has relative made it illegal to outsource labor to countries that they know are abusing their labor forces? In general, of course not. Congress maintains a blind eye to the problem, debating it over the days here and there in a politically motivated, half-hearted effort to occasionally placate certain voting segments (labor unions displaced workers). Do they tougher their stance? Do they for one bit say to themselves, this is really wrong, and socially irresponsible?By inaction Congress is tacitly approving this practice, which of course is what powerful integ rated lobbyists want. The profit motive has large U. S. corporations addicted to cheap labor now Pandoras Box has been opened and no one has the political will to attempt to close it. So lets recap so far weve indicted the U. S. consumer and our lawmakers in the legislative branch of the U. S. government (Congress) as major cultivators of the pro-outsourcing environment for which Levi Strauss and Nike must successfully operate under. bordering on our list of socially irresponsible contributing parties the judicial branch of the U.S. government.When the U. S. Supreme Court found in 2010 that the formation of so called Super PACs for move donations was legal, this gave corporations new powers under the law to, in effect, buy our government via opulent and obscene campaign spend funneled to candidates. The end result of this ruling is that corporations that profit greatly from outsourced labor are now able to pay for the elections of our Congressmen and gee, wonder how this economi c favor will be repaid when attempts to rein in outsourcing come up in Congress?Lets move on to our two protagonists in this debate Levi Strauss and Nike. Now that weve got the backdrop well in hand, and a reasonable somebody would agree that a massive systemic failure in the U. S. has allowed and promoted unchecked outsourcing of jobs, its time to discuss these two corporate giants and their respective behaviors here. Do these two corporations have a responsibility to monitor the conduct of the companies they do business within particular, their contractors and suppliers?As a personal believer in the broader view of corporate socialresponsibility, I believe that they do. Notwithstanding the fact that all of this outsourcing is legal, and despite the mitigating factors that Ive argued above that do alleviate these two companies of all of the blame I still believe that they need to take the higher moral ground. Levi Strauss overall has conducted itself with far greater corporate so cial responsibility than Nike has, in my judgment. Strauss for many geezerhood withdrew from China due to their notoriety as a non-democratic country with abusive labor conditions.Regrettably, it had to re-enter China eventually to keep pace with competitors. Also, witness the counselling that Strauss treated its displaced U. S. workers as it (with some remorse) eventually had to close all its U. S. plants due to competition from outsourcers. Strauss gave generous severance and retraining dollars to the affected workers. In my estimation, Strauss has had to compromise its socially responsible corporate culture due to pressures from the warped competitive environment that was designed around them.It became a matter of survival for their corporation their management had to correct or risk failure and loss of the shareholders investments in the company. That is why I authored the overview above I think its highly relevant to assessing Strausss conduct here. The system failed Levi S trauss they wanted to behave under the broad definition of corporate social responsibility, but the demand for cheaper outsourced goods by consumers and the legality of outsourcing jobs (Congressional oversight failure) forced an adjustive change against their moral grain.Nike, however, is no apologist when it comes to their outsourcing. In fact, they are proud of it even boasting that they pay outsourced workers higher than average wages for their region. To me, this is tantamount to overstate that we dont abuse those workers as badly as others do. Frankly, that attitude offends my sensibilities and my personal set of ethical standards. I also deem it to be in direct conflict with the broader definition of corporate social responsibility. Lastly, I think that corporations have the obligation to take the ethical high ground and behave in a socially responsible manner (broad definition).That said, however, I do not believe that its a fair expectation to demand that high standard if adhering to same places the companys very existence at risk due to systemic failures beyond their control. Levi Strauss attempted to do the right thing, but poor rules and oversight make competing in a broad ethical manner quite dangerous to its ultimate survival. Strausss example should serve as a wakeup call to U. S. consumers and our Congress systemic change is needed, and its needed NOW.