BUSM3199 Ethics and Governance - Research Essay

Introduction

Organizations hold many moral and ethical obligations towards society and their actions largely affect the society and community in which they operate. The compliance with ethical code of conduct and integration with socially responsible conduct is highly appreciated by stakeholders of the organization, including customers among others. The underlying essay has addressed as recent issue which created burning debate on ethicality and morality of the organization. This issue is based on recent advertising campaign of Nike which has featured Colin Kaepernick, player of National Football League, to support a cause where Colin has protested against brutality with people colour by refusing to show pride to National flag. The essay has taken the stance that Nike has although supported social movement against injustice, yet it has ignored ethical aspects associated with the support and has led to questionable moral and ethical behavior. 

Body

Businesses have been using controversies in their favor for decades, as controversial issues mainly lead in more internet exposure of advertisement of specific brand and is expected to offer benefits in terms of enhanced sales and stock value. Nike has also linked itself with a controversial political issue in its recent advertisement, where Nike has featured National Football Leagues’ player, Colin Kaepernick, on 30th anniversary of “Just Do it” logo. Colin Kaepernick has protested against ‘take a knee’ during the National anthem before matches and has also denied to stand silently with arms locked, as respect and patriotic gesture (Chadwick and Zipp, 2018). The protest of Colin Kaepernick was based on brutality and racist behavior of US police against black men, as maintained by Colin, there is no point of showing pride for flag of the nation, which do not offer equal treatment to people of color (Abad-Snatos, 2018). This protest of Colin was highly popularized and many have joined him in the protest. On the other hand, plenty of people have criticized the protest and Donal Trump have even asked to fire the players who are engaged in disrespectful actions against the national anthem. These evidences are clearly showing that issue has taken stance of political nature and if it has many in its favor, then many are against it as well. 

Followed by ad of Nike, company has been largely critiqued by the people who were considering protest of Colin Kaepernick as disrespectful to flag and country. The question of ethicality has raised and it is important to mention that being a great influencers, brands should not be taking sides. It has been addressed by Briscoe, Chin and Hambrick (2014) that alignment with a political issue not only affects the organization, but it has huge influence on consumers as well. For instance, it is notable that number of belief buyers is increasing substantially as one study on millennial has indicated that around 50% people purchase products of brand, which they think is congruent with their values and beliefs. The association of Nike with #TakeAKnee protest has caused discomfort to people who belief that NFL’s player protest is against the flag and US nation. The patriotic are offended by this protest and thus advertisement of Nike has further brought them into rage, which is witnessed by the act of destroying the apparels of Nike (Ihazza, 2018). Although, the proponents of NFL protest might take a stance that being socially responsible, it is important for organization to support individuals who fight against racism and support diversity, inclusion and equality of all. Yet, it is considerable that there are always two sides of a coin and if many consumers of Nike have supported this recent advertisement campaign, then many have been offended (Winther Nielsen, 2017). Being a socially responsible brand, it is obligation of an organization to consider the feelings and values of all its consumers, prior to affiliating with any political issue. 

Moreover, the issue can also be explored by the lens of corporate political activity (CPA) perspective.  This concept focuses on increasing involvement of corporations in political activities and states that it can question the morality and ethical aspect of corporate’s actions (Briscoe, Chin and Hambrick, 2014). Corporations are required to be the responsible member of society and their inclination towards one group or one specific motive might question their integrity (Chin, Hambrick and Treviño, 2013). The same is reflected from the case of Nike, where company has shown affiliation with one cause and has ignored the effects which can be brought through this affiliation. Such behavior has been referred as sociopathic behavior of firm in literature, which is considered to have characteristics of insensitivity towards the feelings and thinking of other people (Graham, 2018). Nike’s customers are comprised of diverse groups, having diverse set of thinking, values and beliefs. While remaining insensitive to feelings of all diverse groups of consumers, Nike has provide evidence of sociopathic behavior, which is considered as one significant aspect of unethicality in corporate political activity (Gassam 2018). However, the views of proponents cannot be ignored, which associated corporate political activities with economic aspects and bottom line of business, rather than ethicality and morality of business. This claim can be addressed by the fact that if political activity brings economic benefits at the expense of ethicality and morality of organization, then that is unjustifiable and thus questions the integrity and ethical code of conduct of that organization. 

Furthermore, the issue can also be explored based on views of Stakeholder Theory (Matten and Moon, 2008). According to stakeholder theory, the organization is responsible to address the interest of all of its stakeholders while carrying out its activities. This theory is based on ethical standards and moral contents, which posit that customers and community are among the primary stakeholder of an organization (Scherer, Palazzo and Matten, 2014). Further moving to the normative perspective of stakeholder’s theory, it is notable that core of an organization is its morals and values, which should make the basis of means through which end goals of an organization are achieved (Lawton, McGuire and Rajwani, 2013). Normative perspective of stakeholder’s theory is highly relevant with the advertisement controversy of Nike. If the Nike’s end goal was to support the cause of diversity and inclusion, then it could have used different path of achieving that goal. For instance, Nike could have started its own campaign of supporting the equal treatment initiative with people of colour and black people (Ihazza, 2018). The advertisement of Nike has instead supported the cause of Colin Kaepernick, which is controversial in nature. This cause on one hand has perspective of diversity and inclusion, but on the other hand, it features the disrespectful attitude of people towards flag and anthem of US (Graham, 2018). Furthermore, based on linkage with normative perspective, Nike has ignored the interests of its stakeholders. The customers make up the primary stakeholders of Nike and non-compliance with their interest is indication of the fact that Nike has not aligned its advertisement with normative perspective of stakeholders and stakeholder’s theory as a whole (Gassam 2018).  Therefore, Nike has ignored its morals and values and it is no longer perceived as organization which makes use of moral and philosophical guidelines for fulfilment of its operations. 

Additionally, the investigation of reports and secondary sources has highlighted that Nike has played politics, as it has hijacked a social protest and social movement for the purpose of promoting its brand. For instance, it has been mentioned that statement and images used in this campaign are not complied with the theme of sports (Montez de Oca and Suh, 2019). Likewise, the underlying promotional tag line of the advert, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything” is considered to comply with political perspectives and it calls political actions. Nike has successfully targeted the social injustice for commercialization purposes and one might say that it is a good way to support a noble cause like equality (Winther Nielsen, 2017). However, it is addressable here that what is the connection between social injustice and training shoes which are being marketed by Nike. Moreover, similar argument has been given by Perry 2019) that in the era of capitalism, it is hard as well as important for organization to maintain stance of activism. It is although good for organization to use the social movement and social causes in their adverts with an aim of creating awareness and for fostering social justice within society (Ahmed, M.A., Lodhi and Ahmad, 2017). Yet, there should be compliance between the social movements and the product offerings of the company. Likewise, any activism should not harm the sentiments of people, as it did in case of Nike’s advert for support of #TakeAKnee protest (Montez de Oca and Suh, 2019). Based on these views, it can be maintained that Nike has picked a social issue which was not equating with its product and which has not incorporated interests of all consumers, yet focused on promotion of products to the key consumer segment which is expected to support the advert (Nauright, 2004). 

Finally, it can be mentioned that Nike’s move of featuring Colin Kaepernick in its recent advertisement is considered as ethical dilemma by some researchers. It is based on the fact that there are literally two sides of the pictures which tell a different story of its own. For instance, one side is showing that Nike has made a hard decision to get engage in activism and has featured a controversial figure in its campaign, by risking all of its profits, just to support the cause of social awareness (Mindock, 2018). This stance is supporting the recent advertising campaign of Nike which has made Nike a socially responsible player and has considered Nike as brand which can risk its own success for the sake of supporting issue of diversity and social inclusion (Perry, 2019). On the other hand, another side of story indicates that Nike has get indulged in corporate political activity and it has used a social movement for its purpose of making profits. As noted by Rathbone (2018) Nike’s advertisement has might led to burning issue among some groups who burns apparels of Nike, yet the campaign is expected to generate benefits for company in medium as well as in long run. Nike has ignored the concerns of its stakeholders, and it has gone against the perspective of normative theory. Additionally, Nike has negatively poked the emotions and feelings of people who have high patriotic spirit and who consider this act as disrespectful to their flag and country (Nauright, J., 2004). In conclusion of this debate, it is reasonable to mention that Nike has although tried to support the social movement, yet it has ignored the ethical cost of this act. It has ignored that it is also disgracing its country and it is affecting sentiments of people, who are its primary stakeholders and have right to be valued by the company. 

Conclusion

The essay has maintained the view that Nike is indulged in unethical behavior by featuring Colin Kaepernick and supporting the #TakeAKnee protest. The justification of this stance has been substantially provided in the essay, such that Nike should not have taken sides and involvement of organization in political agendas raise the questions of ethicality of brands. The corporate political activity view has been provided, which has addressed that engagement of organization in political movements is mainly driven the personal benefits of the organizations and it demands clarification on ethical compliance of the organization. Additionally, based on the views of stakeholder’s theory, it has been highlighted that Nike has ignored the concerns and feelings of its customers, which are considered as prime stakeholders of the organization. This ignorance has indicated that company does not follow moral aspects of normative perspective and thus through lens of stakeholder’s theory it cannot be considered as ethical. Likewise, insight of numerous sources is considered and it has been derived from investigation that Nike’s this move has raised concerns about ethical standing of company.