Presentation on theme: "NIKE CASE STUDY Natalja Kjaernested. 7 RELEVANT FACTS Nike is the world's leading supplier of athletic shoes and apparel and a major manufacturer of sports."— Presentation transcript:
7 RELEVANT FACTS Nike is the world's leading supplier of athletic shoes and apparel and a major manufacturer of sports equipment, with revenue in excess of US$19.014 billion in its fiscal year 2010, based in the United States. In 2010, it employed more than 34,000 people worldwide.
Nike’s solution Nowadays, Nike is helping to stop global warming, one shoe at a time. By replacing SF6, the gas originally used to fill the air cushions in the soles of Nike shoes, with nitrogen, the company has avoided the release of millions of tons of CO2 equivalent.
It may seem like a little thing: the pocket of air in the bottom of an Air Max sneaker. But these pockets used to have a big impact on climate change. SF6, a greenhouse gas 22,200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Nike used the gas because it was dense and inert, initially without an awareness of how dangerous it was to the Earth’s climate.
ETHICAL ISSUES Was it ethical to use SF6 for footwear production? Should footwear production have been cancelled as soon as the company became aware of the impact SF6 has on the Earth’s climate? Is it proved that SF6 is dangerous to the Earth’s climate?
LEGAL ISSUES Use of SF6 Legal and ethical (because before 2006 SF6 wasn’t prohibited and the company did not know about the dangerous impact SF6 might have on the Eart’s climate) Illegal and unethical (in 2006 it was discovered that SF6 is dangerous and it was prohibited for most applications, like in sport shoes, car tires, tennis balls and for double glazing )
TELEOLOGICAL/UTILITARIAN APROACH If Nike removes SF6 or finds alternative
DEONTOLGY (Kant’s moral theory) The will is good when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination. Nike’s will was to find a substitute as soon as they found out that there is a danger in using SF6. They acted out of duty and from respect for the moral law - not to do any harm to the society. And in total spent almost 14 years to fully resolve the problem that has occured in 1992.
DEFENSIBLE CHOISE From egoistic point of view: If danger of SF6 not known to Nike - ethical If dangers known to Nike - unethical From utilitarianism point of view: Removing or replacing SF6, would be ethical