Nike’s primary operational goals for their contract manufacturers
The group strives to advance labor values in the emerging field of production by addressing poor working conditions in their contract manufacturer’s factories. There are preliminary new source accreditation processes that all suppliers of Nike undergo.
Nike has a system of deportment for its contractors that constrain their rendition of necessary industry, ecological and security values (Locke & Romis). Complying with the set regulations in environmental concerns is vital.
To maintain a competitive edge, companies must keep evenhanded pricing, efficient production and maintain the superiority of products (Locke & Romis). If a supplier fails to meet these targets, then the line shifts to another factory, to avid the tarnishing of its name.
Fulfilling these operational goals in all their source industries has proven challenging, evidenced by the different working conditions in the separate industries. Prevalent problems such as deprived wages and limited operational conditions still face some branches. Satisfaction of employees is essential for maximum yield, and the necessary social image to enlarge demand for the products.
The most ineffective or counterproductive item measured by the auditors
Nike’s contract manufacturers have to endure three forms of audits; a basic environmental, safety and health evaluation, an M-audit, and periodic inspections by a leading stakeholder initiative that strives to improve working conditions. Different approaches to labor values are apparent in its two plants. The differing systems of tenure grouping and human resource management procedures employed differ.
Monitoring of the workers thus does not necessarily represent the organization desired in performance. When done singularly, it does not give the desired benefits; thus, it must be combined with other intercessions, which handle the exact causes of pitiable working conditions.
It is hypothetical to verify the strength of the workers and determine how they adapt to working conditions. Monitoring is specifically meant to ensure the appropriate procedures are followed using a dictatorial application by executives to ensure processes are stringently followed. Its weakness is that so long as the cause of the unfavorable working conditions is not identified, monitoring would not automatically result in efficiency.
Changes to be made to motivate good contractor behavior
The core values of any organization must be aligned to the strategies employed. Good conduct behavior will only be attained through the combination of the two. Intensified corporate control is required to respond to such issues as supplier labor practices and efficiencies in making (Brause, Locke, & Qin, 3).
Disclosure of sustainability power and its impacts should be done in order to promote better management. Issuing business environmental statements, for example, can ensure proper monitoring by the relevant organization.
Improving the capacity of suppliers to better program their work both in quality and efficacy, significantly improves working conditions (Locke & Romis).
Works Cited
Brause, A. Locke, R. & Qin, F. Does monitoring improve labor standards? Lessons from Nike. Corporate social responsibility initiative, working paper No. 24. Cambridge.
MA: John F. Kennedy School of government, Harvard University. July 2006. Web. Available at https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg
Locke, R. & Romis, M. improving work condition in a global supply chain. VOL. 48 NO. 2. MITSloan management review.