The article in the url link below demonstrates that, no matter how hard it tries, a firm cannot please all of the people all of the time (Issues: Cultural Conflict, p160; Special Cases of CSR: Nike, p286):
“''If this isn't an example of corporate manipulation of race, I don't know what is,'' wrote one of about 200 readers commenting online about an article that appeared in The Rapid City Journal in South Dakota.”
Given the effort and good intentions that went into designing the shoe, as well as the fact that Nike will donate all of the profits the shoe generates, you would think this is something that the firm will be showered with plaudits for by stakeholders:
“''What makes this a ridiculously bad move is decorating it 'Native American style,''' … ''They probably brought in a Native consultant and heard what they wanted to hear, which is that Native Americans like sunrises and rainbows and feel real connected to the earth and the night sky and stuff.''”
What is not clear from the article, however, is how much of this process the various critics knew about. The question then becomes: How much should Nike advertise its good work/intentions? It seems that it is damned if it does (CSR is only a PR exercise) and damned if it doesn’t (Nike is patronizing ethnic minorities):
“''When I heard it, the first thing I did is I laughed until I cried, because I just though it was hilarious,'' said Sherman Alexie, a Spokane/Coeur d'Alene Indian and a novelist … ''The day it was announced, I thought: 'Are they going to have dream catchers on them? Are they going to be beaded? Will they have native bumper stickers on them that say, 'Custer had it coming'?''”
Take care
Dave
Bill Werther & David Chandler
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility
© Sage Publications, 2006
http://www.sagepub.com/Werther
To the Nike Swoosh, Add Indian Artifacts
By ANDREW ADAM NEWMAN
746 words
3 October 2007
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
3
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/business/03nike.html
