发布时间：2020-11-07 热度：
高端论文代写平台——实力强劲，硕博写手，200+专业写手，已服务10000多留学生，主营业务：论文代写，网课代修，考试代考。
1.0 Introduction介绍
没有公认的企业社会责任（CSR）标准定义。它通常是指一家公司的经营方法符合或超过公司要求的道德、法律和公共标准（Duthler和Dhanesh，2018年）。企业开展业务活动时，还考虑了公司对各利益相关者的影响（周、基，2018）。利益相关者是指能够影响或受公司决策和行动影响的所有个人或团体，包括但不限于：员工、客户、供应商、社区团体、母公司或附属公司、合伙人、投资者、股东等（Kud_ak、Sz_cs、Krumay anD Martinuzzi，2018年）。从企业社会责任的定义来看，它与企业责任有很大的区别。传统的企业责任是指企业如何获得最大的利润。企业社会责任要求企业对消费者、社区和环境等利益相关者负责，同时为股东和员工创造利润并承担法律责任（Sakunasingha、Jiraporn和Uyar，2018年）。随着社会、文明和经济的进步，企业社会责任的重要性得到了广泛的认识。例如，企业社会责任可以促进创新和可持续发展。但是，一些企业甚至知名企业的管理实践仍然违背了企业社会责任。本文首先回顾了企业社会责任的相关定义和研究。然后以耐克为例，通过深入分析这些行为对耐克利益相关者的负面影响，介绍耐克违反企业社会责任的一些行为，以企业社会责任理论为基础，总结和评价这些行为的危害。
There is not a recognized standard definition for corporate social responsibility (CSR). It generally refers to a company’s operating methods that meet or exceed ethical, legal, and public standards for corporate requirements (Duthler and Dhanesh, 2018). When enterprises conduct business activities, they also consider the impact of the companies on various stakeholders’ (Zhou and Ki, 2018). Stakeholders are all individuals or groups that can influence or be affected by a company's decisions and actions, including but not limited to: employees, customers, suppliers, community groups, parent companies or affiliates, partners, investors, shareholders and so on (Kudłak, Szőcs, Krumay and Martinuzzi, 2018). Judging from the definition of CSR, it differs greatly from corporate responsibility. Traditional corporate responsibility refers to how an enterprise obtains maximum profit. CSR requires companies to take responsibility for stakeholders such as consumers, communities, and the environment while creating profits and taking legal responsibility for shareholders and employees (Sakunasingha, Jiraporn and Uyar, 2018). Although with the advancement of society, civilization and economy, the importance of CSR has been widely recognized. For example, CSR can contribute to innovation and sustainable development. However, the management practices of some enterprises and even well-known enterprises are still in violation of CSR. In this study, it first reviewed the relevant definitions and researches of CSR. Then, it took NIKE as an example to introduce some of its behaviors that violate CSR, by in-depth analysis on the negative impact of these behaviors on Nike’s stakeholders to summarize and evaluate the harm of these behaviors based on CSR theory.
2.0 Main body主体
2.1 Definition of CSR企业社会责任的定义
Stephen P. Robbins thought, CSR refers to the responsibility that an enterprise undertakes for long-term goals that are beneficial to a society and are in excess of legal and economic requirements (Liu, Wang and Chen, 2018). Stephen P.Robbins认为，企业社会责任是指企业为有利于社会的、超出法律和经济要求的长期目标而承担的责任（刘、王、陈，2018）。
Chen, Hung and Wang (2018) believed that CSR refers to the obligation that companies should undertake to safeguard and promote social progress while pursuing the maximization of benefits. That is, when making decisions, companies should abide by laws and regulations, pay attention to moral values, respect citizens, benefit communities, and protect the environment. Enterprises must assume social responsibility for different stakeholders, including production safety, occupational health, protection of employees’ legal rights, provision of safe products and services, compliance with business ethics, protection of the environment, support for the development of disadvantaged groups, and so on.陈、洪、王（2018）认为，企业社会责任是指企业在追求利益最大化的同时，应承担的维护和促进社会进步的义务。也就是说，企业在决策时应遵守法律法规，重视道德价值，尊重公民，造福社会，保护环境。企业必须对不同的利益相关者承担社会责任，包括安全生产、职业健康、保护员工的合法权益、提供安全的产品和服务、遵守商业道德、保护环境、支持企业的发展和发展。f弱势群体等。
Shim, Chung and Kim (2017) figured that CSR is a broader responsibility than being solely responsible for the profitability of shareholders. It does not aim at the short-term economic benefits of a company, but is a rational and long-term comprehensive responsibility that is committed to social development and progress.
Judging from the above definitions of CSR, CSR has four characteristics (Kudłak, Szőcs, Krumay and Martinuzzi, 2018; Chen, Hung and Wang, 2018; Zhou and Ki, 2018). First, it requires the initiative of an enterprise to bear it. It exceeds legal and economic requirements. Second, CSR is a long-term rather than a short-term management behavior of an enterprise. Third, CSR requires that companies should not only focus on profits but also focus on the needs of stakeholders. Finally, corporate commitment to CSR is a rational act and it does not require companies to assume responsibility for stakeholders beyond their capabilities.
2.2 Nike sweatshop
Nike, the world’s largest manufacturer of sporting goods, issued a report in April 2005 acknowledging the existence of forcing workers to work overtime in its Southeast Asian factories and preventing workers from drinking water during working hours, thereby certifying the outside world’s accusations against Nike’s overseas factories as a "sweatshop" (Lagerie, 2013). Since then, Nike has tried to restore its image through various means. This includes strengthening the supervision of factories and cooperating with human rights organizations to rectify the supply chain. However, in recent years Nike's sweatshop scandals have been exploded. For example, a Nike OEM in Vietnam has a management system of deducting employees' wages, imposing mandatory overtime, limiting workers' use of toilets, and having direct access to toxic solvents. The workers unconsciously fainted in front of the sewing machine under extremely hot and extremely heavy work loads. In a Nike OEM in Cambodia, 500 workers in the factory were sent to the hospital because of high work load and poor working conditions - 6 days a week, 10 hours a day, 37 degrees inside the factory, which made them collapsed (Paharia, Vohs and Deshpandé, 2013). The Nike OEM in Honduras suffered from wage deductions, excessive work intensity, excessive restrictions on the personal freedom of laborers, poor working conditions, and other factors, leading employees to hold a rally against Nike (Adams, 2002).
2.3 Stakeholder analysis
From an employee's point of view, the Nike sweatshop incident seriously damaged the employees’ physical and mental health, and damaged their right to legal remuneration. Some of Nike’s actions were not merely violations of labor laws, and some are even involved violations of basic ethical and moral issues. From the perspective of shareholders, the sweatshop incident triggered a condemnation of Nike within the scope of the world, which had a negative impact on Nike’s corporate and product image, resulting in a decline in Nike’s share price over a period of time and damaging shareholders’ rights. From a consumer's point of view, consumers like Nike’s products, which is not only because of its high technology content, fashion, good quality and other reasons, but also because Nike represents a fashionable, young, athletic lifestyle, and the sweatshop incidents subverted the perception of Nike's image and has reduced consumers' psychological consumption experience for the products. In order to reduce costs, there are many loopholes in environmental protection in the sweatshops. The employees were directly exposed to toxic solvents, some toxic substances were directly discharged into the natural environment, which not only damaged the local environment but also affected the health of local people.
2.4 CSR analysis
Nike sweatshop incidents often occurred in areas with relatively low levels of economic development, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and Honduras. Labor laws in these areas are relatively imperfect and there is a defect in the protection of employees’ rights. Therefore, Nike’s sweatshops cannot be effectively controlled. Therefore, to solve the problem of sweatshops, Nike needs to take active measures. So, does Nike have enough reason and motivation to solve the sweatshop problem? The author thinks that the answer is yes. The reasons are in the following two aspects. First, though sweatshops will reduce the companies’ cost and increase the shareholders' income in a short period of time, considering from an overall perspective, if the sweatshops are disclosed, its reputation will be affected, its image will be destroyed, consumers will refuse to purchase the products, business sales revenue will decline, and the share prices will fall. Taking all these into consideration, the benefits that the sweatshops bring to Nike are not enough to make up for the losses caused by sweatshops. Second, the Nike sweatshop incidents reflected that some of its corporate management thinking also positioned the company's development in a cost-driven model. The cost-driven model placed emphasis on controlling costs, and by participating in market competition through price advantage. This model is not conducive to the development of the enterprise in the long run, it will allow the company to lack of innovation and lose technical advantages, making it fall into the price war. The long-term development strategy of a company like Nike should be driven by technological innovation to drive the development of the company. Therefore, in the long run, the sweatshop model is not consistent with Nike's long-term development strategy. All in all, Nike has enough motivation to stop sweatshop incidents, but it does not mean that Nike needs to increase the welfare and income of the sweatshop workers’ at all costs. Reasonable social responsibility is a choice for Nike, for example, to protect Vietnamese employees’ welfare and economic income, to improve the working environment. However, there is no need to increase the income and salary of Vietnamese employees’ to the level of those that employees in the same position in the United States acquire.
