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 argon again compelled to revisit the critical distinction of conduct that is level-headed, yet still unethical. In both instances, Levi Strauss and Nike behaved with the parameters of legal conduct, yet few would argue that profiting from exploitive work conditions is an ethical behavior of any socially credi devilrthy organization ( extensive view social responsibility).Obviously, its very tempting to just condense this argument to the power point of bad companies boosting profits from lower labor costs via exploiting foreign thespians in sweatshops. I am exit to take a much broader approach here in my assessment, as comp permite fairness to the devil corporations here requires a bit of an indictment of the legal, regulatory, political, and socioeconomic environment that they operate in. So, lets instigate there how is it that both of these large corpor ations are permitted (and driven) to outsource (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 corporeal 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 attempt by looking in the mirror and by that I mean you and I the U. S. consumer. Our thirst for moth-eaten merchandise made foreign knows no limits. Do any of us look at the rustic of origin for goods, and if its non-U. S. do we even pause for a second to consider boycotting said goods re feeable to loss of American jobs?Or boycott due to the nation of origins reputation for worker abuse? Of tendency we dont. We want that Japanese senior high school definition television from Wal-Mart that costs $ coulomb less. We want the clothing from China or Indonesia that is 30% cheaper than similar bran ds made here. So, my first premise in this entire argument is that American consumers are NOT socially responsible in their purchasing habits. This omit 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 recounting made it illegal to outsource labor to countries that they know are abusing their labor forces? In general, of course not. sexual intercourse maintains a blind eye to the problem, debating it over the years 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 instant say to themselves, this is really wrong, and socially irresponsible?By inaction Congress is ta citly approving this practice, which of course is what powerful collective 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(ip) cultivators of the pro-outsourcing environment for which Levi Strauss and Nike must successfully operate under. Next on our list of socially irresponsible impart 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 die hard donations was legal, this gave corporations new powers under the law to, in effect, buy our government via opulent and obscene campaign clear funneled to candidates. The end result of this ruling is that corporations that profit greatly from outsourced labor are now able to birth for the elections of our Congressmen and gee, wonder how this economic 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 screen background well in hand, and a reasonable person would agree that a massive systemic misadventure 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 event 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 social responsibility than Nike has, in my judgment. Strauss for many years 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 representation 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 fault 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 falsify competitive environment that was designed around them.It became a matter of survival for their corporation their management had to reconcile or risk failure and loss of the shareholders investments in the company. That is why I authored the overview above I ra lly its highly relevant to assessing Strausss conduct here. The system failed Levi Strauss 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 adaptative 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 bragging that we dont abuse those workers as hard 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 covenant to take the ethical high ground and behave in a socially responsible panache (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 overhaul as a wakeup call to U. S. consumers and our Congress systemic change is needed, and its needed NOW.