17 Facts About Nike sweatshops

Nike sweatshops has strongly denied the claims in the past, suggesting the company has little control over sub-contracted factories.

Nike sweatshops has since began initiatives to improve their factory conditions.

Nike sweatshops's reports included claims that an Indonesian worker was illegally working for 14-cents an hour, below national minimum wage.

At Brown University, Nike sweatshops went so far as to pull out from a contract with the women's ice hockey team because of efforts by a student activist group that wanted a code of conduct put in place by the company.

Keady publicly refused to support Nike sweatshops and was forced to resign his position as soccer coach in 1998.

Related searches

Nike sweatshops travelled to Indonesia and for a month lived among the Nike factory workers, surviving on $1.

In 2019, Nike sweatshops received the worst rating in Tailored Wages UK report, published by The Clean Clothes Campaign.

Nike sweatshops began to monitor working conditions in factories that produce their products.

Nike sweatshops spends around $10 million a year to follow the code, adhering to regulations for fire safety, air quality, minimum wage, and overtime limits.

In 1998, Nike sweatshops introduced a program to replace its petroleum-based solvents with less dangerous water-based solvents.

Nike sweatshops created a non-governmental organization called the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities that became aligned with several other groups including the International Youth Foundation.

The Global Alliance received backlash in 2001 when a report about the Nike sweatshops Inc did not include recent events such as strikes, worker terminations, and the lack of collective bargaining in their Indonesian factories.

Between 2002 and 2004, Nike sweatshops audited its factories approximately 600 times, giving each factory a score on a scale of 1 to 100, which is then associated with a letter grade.

Nike sweatshops had plans to expand their monitoring process to include environmental and health issues beginning in 2004.

Nike sweatshops chose to have the word “sweatshop” embroidered on them.

Nike sweatshops sent Peretti an email explaining that his personalization request could not be granted for one of four things: it contained another party's trademark or other intellectual property, the name of an athlete or team Nike sweatshops does not have legal right to use, profanity or inappropriate slang, or was left blank.

Nike sweatshops responded by allowing Peretti to alter his personalization and Peretti chose not to change it and cancelled the order.