Props for Trying?

Hey Party People -

As many of you know, our whole philosophy at the Bite is that we give props for trying, instead of shaking our fingers for not being perfect.

Enter the Ideal Bite class room.  Let's take Nike as a case study.

Back in the mid-90's they got slapped down for labor practices. They tried to do a little green washing, and got slapped harder. A decade or so later they have definitely built sustainability into the core who they are, and how they operate, and what they produce. Essentially, Nike did a 180.  Was it all reactionary and/or just for profit? Whose to ever know.  But personally I don't care if they were carrot' or stick'ed into it. I am just glad they are doing it, and keep doing more of it as the profit margins and shareholders allow.

But some of you I know will be all, "Nike is a big ugly business that treated its offshore workers like crap! How can you even start to defend them!!?"  Well, weirdly enough amoungst the darker green audience, Nike is the underdog, and I always side with the underdog. Plus, I pretend to think like an economist since that was my major in undergrad, and so I get turned on by the economies of scale that Nike can bring to the supply chain.

So bring it on. Let's go to the mat. Or you can really make my day and just agree that big companies are not perfect, and may just be after marketshare, but if they are taking incremental steps towards being leaders in the world of sustainable business, they should get props.

Off to go running.. yes, in my Nikes - Jen

Bookmark and Share
I wonder if the 14-year-old girls who made your shoes get "turned on by the economies of scale that Nike can bring to the supply chain."
I'm a little confused, though. Does Nike's increased attention to sustainability mean that they ahve changed their labour practices, or that they're using recycled materials in their shoe boxes--for examples. Sustainability, being green, etc, means different things to different peple. Take clothing, for example...some people insist that they must have clothing made from 100% natural fibres. They're not as worried about resuing (shopping at thrift shops, etc) or about who made their clothing, as they are about keeping toxins in out of their wardrobes. For other people, labour practices are extremely essential to consider. For still others, thirft store shopping is the way to go. So people don't have to stroke Nike's ego if they don't want to. Having said that, it's hard to avoid large conglomorates in a capitalist society which has grown in population as much as ours has. A lot of people were upset when Tom's of Maine was sold. I was sad, because it sees the end of yet another privately owned business. But...(and leaving hte huge amount of money which Tom's was probably paid)...the demand for Tom's products may well have gotten beyond their means.
Maybe Nike changed their ways, but New Balance has not. See this report from the National Labor Committee: http://www.nlcnet.org/live/reports.php?id=105 I am very disappointed that you recommended New Balance in today's tip. Their China factory is a disgrace. Stewardship of the earth MUST begin with stewardship of its human population, don't you think?
Confusing bite today. Is this just about running shoes? Because there are clearly other options than wearing Asics. No mention of Camper? At minimum, their Wabi line should get a mention - 3 components, all recyclable. Or Simple?
Zachary- We've got a separate Bite on sneakers in the works. Stay tuned. Stasi- We definitely want the whole story to be heard, so thanks for the link. Although it's one of the last big shoe companies to still manufacture a large portion of its line within the US, the labor problems in China should be taken into account and I hope that bloggers reading this will consider contacting NB to ask that they address the concerns: New Balance 20 Guest St. Brighton Landing Boston, MA 02135-2088 USA Phone: 617-783-4000 http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=270
“As many of you know, our whole philosophy at the Bite is that we give props for trying, instead of shaking our fingers for not being perfect.” Indeed, and that is good, but I think at the same time you have to be aware of what to improve in order to implement change towards the best. So take tips on improvement with open arms and be mindful, and all is good.
i'm with you on green meaning inclusive, and keeping the conversation always open. sustainability, in any aspect or dimension, will fail, miserably, if the community always criticizes, or demands that we all go back to yurts. that said, there's a world of difference between the typical underdog and Nike!! being the underdog is about facing a power or social structure firmly fixed against you...mixed with some sense that you're in a virtuous struggle! don't tell me you believe the drive towards ever-growing quarterly profits makes a multinational monster an underdog!
The reference to Nike being an underdog or having undergone a corporate 180 is discouraging to say the least. They remain one of the most environmentally destructive and socially exploitive companies to have ever existed. I strongly encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to acquaint themselves with the maquila solidarity network, Greenpeace or any other environmental or labour watch dog that monitors and documents Nike's exploits closely. Bottom line is, if you wear their product, you bear the blame equally. Apathy kills too and it's our responsibility as consumers to vote with our dollars and spending choices. In the case of running shoes, that means buying a product like Veja or Yellow Port. (www.yellowport.ca) Just my two cents.
Nice article

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <font> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img>

More information about formatting options