Case Study: Ethical Decision Making in the Global Environment-Nike

Nike, one of the largest sports equipment companies in the world, has been brought to the forefront of significant ethical concerns in the global market. During the 1990s, the company faced immense criticism as it was reported to have poor labor practices in its foreign factories (Wilsey & Lichtig, n.d.). These factories were predominantly found in third-world countries and were accused of using child labor, offering pathetic working conditions, and paying low wages. These issues led to poor publicity and highlighted the harsh reality of multinational corporations in other cultural, economic, and legal environments.

The ethical predicament of Nike began with the globalization of the supply chain. Attempting to cut costs and make as much profit as possible, Nike had delegated most of its production to those countries where labor is cheaper. Though this was the most economical approach, it was socially and ethically hazardous. Nike management was tasked with ensuring that the profit objectives and corporate social responsibility balance are in place, which they initially found difficult to strike (Union Andina, 2024). The absence of intense supervision of suppliers, as well as cultural differences in terms of labor standards, permitted the unethical practices to be tolerated.

In the human relations perspective, the problems of Nike are seen as the influence of culture on behavior in the workplace. Nike had a role in handling the relationships of expatriates, the host-country nationals, and the third-country nationals who had specific expectations and behavioral norms they demanded (Union Andina, 2024). For example, the expatriate managers could have worked according to the U.S. labor law and the ethics code of conduct. In contrast, host-country employees were used to other labor standards, which would lead to misunderstandings and an inability to manage them properly. Enhanced cross-cultural training and communication would have been used to overcome the cultural gap and reduce the cases of unethical behavior.

The Internet and social media escalated the complex issues to which Nike was responding. Since the various issues were publicized on the Internet, there was a growing concern and activism to put pressure on the decision-making of Nike. This scenario highlights the effects of globalization on the decision-making process because the company must not only deal with local laws but also global opinions (Union Andina, 2024). Finally, Nike could implement specific adjustments to the supply chain, including monitoring supplier factories, public reporting of supplier practices, and investment in labor practices. These transformations underscore that ethical decision-making in the global context involves diligence and management, rather than responsiveness.

The operations of Nike were also affected by the fact that it was a member of regional trading blocs. By sourcing their materials and manufacturing in many countries, Nike had to contend with different trade legislation and labor regulations. A more direct focus on ethical supply chain management and international labor standard adherence would have helped to address some of these issues (Union Andina, 2024). This complex global environment demands the realization of economic, social and cultural elements in decision making and willingness to make ethical long-term commitments at the cost of short-term profits.

To sum up, the case of Nike demonstrates that ethical decision-making is necessary in the international context. Globalization, diversity, insufficient supervision, and the rate at which information could be disseminated through social media became a menace. With such considerations and forward-looking ethical policies established, organizations stand a higher chance of overcoming the hurdles of international business. Nike reforms indicate some mistakes may occur, yet their experience and emphasis on moral values may improve the image and future success in the global market.