CALL FOR RESEARCH - September 16 2000           -version 11/02/00

TITLE: Global Manufacturing and Taylorism Practices of Nike Corporation and its Subcontractors

A proposal to coordinate joint university researcher study groups,

sponsored by

International Academy of Business Disciplines,

and to be submitted to Nike Corporation,
The Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs, 
Academy of Management, Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 
International Association for Business,
Society for Business Ethics, and the American Accounting Association,
French association "De l'Ethique sur l'Etiquette,"
German Industrial Relations Association (GIRA),
International Industrial Relations Association (IIRA), 
Pacific Sociological Association

NOTE: This proposal is the sole work of the author (with 42 study group members' input) and is not endorsed by any journal, association, university, or any other institution. 

Contact Person:

David M. Boje, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Editor, Journal of Organizational Change Management and
Tamara, Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science
Department of Management, MSC 3DJ
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 30001/Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001
Phone (505) 646-2391 Work
Phone (505) 532-1693 Home Office
Fax (505) 646-1372
Email: dboje@nmsu.edu 

Home Pages http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this research proposal to bring basic and rigorous academic research and theory, as well as academic dialogue, to bear on two problems: 

(1) How to move from forms of "extreme" Taylorism to what we will call French Taylorism in a series of experiments in wage systems and working conditions?  French Taylorism is the evolution of scientific management in augmenting productivity by introducing multi-skilling of workers, negotiation between employer and employees, and stressing the importance of fair work rates and fair piece rate compensation.  In the words of Frederick Taylor, "the prosperity for the employee [is] coupled with prosperity for the employer" (1911: 72).

(2) How to reliably and validly monitor transnational corporate behavior in the apparel industry (with or without government)?  We are interested in developing appropriate scientific methods in measuring and observing the conduct of corporate and government labor practices.

We are not requesting monies from Nike Corporation for this research.  Forty-five academic scholars are agreeing to work with five designated country experts to conduct the most rigorous research yet attempted on four basic research questions. In the first three questions we are proposing to do "action research" experiments with alternative wage systems, working conditions, and efficiency approaches.  Action research is a collaborative effort involving multiple stakeholders in developing research findings with the goal of creating positive change.  The four research questions are:

1. How has Nike enacted its espoused Code of Conduct over time? This study group will focus on monitoring studies by PWC, FLA, and Global Alliance, as well as studies that support and question their methods and findings. 

2. Does Nike pay a living wage? This study group will sample subcontract factory workers, review factory payroll records, and collect data that will measure and validate various living wage formula. In addition we are proposing action research experiments that would implement and test various wage-payment schemes in a sample of factories across nations identified in Table Two.

3. Does Nike subcontract with "sweatshops"? This study group will look at definitions of sweatshops and measure said variables in a sample of subcontract factories. In addition, they will propose and conduct action research experiments that test what we described in our review as forms of French Taylorism. This way a sample of existing subcontract firms can be compared with the experimental options.

4. What is the relationship between Fair Labor Association (FLA) and Workers Rights Consortium (WRC)? This study group will focus on the monitoring efforts of FLA and WRC by sampling colleges and universities with and without FLA and/or WRC agreements. 

The purpose of the research is to develop interdisciplinary work and dialogue that will address a set of research questions that is of growing concern to academics, the general public, and the Nike Corporation. Basic research while important is not sufficient. We propose to embark upon action research initiative that brings various stakeholders (researchers, workers, corporate executives, managers, subcontractor mangers, governmental and non-governmental organizations) together to implement change. 

Thank you,

David M. Boje, Ph.D. 

i. Preface
While we seek approval from Nike to enter factories and interview workers and managers and conduct action research experiments, we maintain our independence as university researchers. We are not making a request for monies to support this research; we will make such requests from our universities and foundations for expenses of study subgroup members to meet to work out the details of our methodology and design, travel to locations needed to conduct their research and to reproduce and present our reports. In polling study group members (listed below) about Nike funding, the majority felt that it would discredit the project in the eyes of the academic community. At the same time, you will agree that as one study group member put it "True integrity is not for sale." We are non-profit and our aim is to conduct the most valid and reliable research ever done it this area. While we propose to involve various associations and will seek financial support from universities and foundations, we are an independent effort.  One association has agreed to provide limited financial support. Several members have already been successful in obtaining travel support. Other associations are giving consideration to other forms of support and advice as permitted by their policies and vision (See Appendix C).  For example, on 7 Oct 2000 I received this message:

Dear David,
Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to my colleagues on the board of the German Industrial Relations Association (GIRA). I also talked to the President of the International Industrial Relations Association (IIRA), Professor Manfred Weiss, University of Frankfurt. The proposal to research sweatshop practices at Nike has the full support of both associations. I hope this is helpful.
                   Best wishes, Joerg Sydow

We have also have times and places to meet in April and August, provided by two associations. This will allow us to work out details of exactly which factories and universities we survey quantitatively, and study using more ethnographic methods. Exact details will be worked out in response to Nike's feedback on the proposal.

The proposal will be submitted to Nike Corporation for comments on October 14th, and then on October 21st to the governing boards of each of the associations for any of their comments and to decide what types of travel, meeting space, symposia, and other support (if any) they elect to extend (See Appendix C). Please also see Appendix E for individual letters of support we have received (e.g. Abbass Alkhafaji, Executive Director of International Academy of Business Disciplines; Andrew Van de Ven, President of the Academy of Management; and  Joerg Sydow, member of the Board of the German Industrial Relations Association).   

ii PROPOSAL BACKGROUND

On Friday afternoon, September 15th, 2000, I (David Boje) received a phone call at my home from Amanda Tucker, of Nike Corporation, who then agreed to look at what university researchers (and various academies) might submit as a coordinated Nike Research Proposal, and consider whether this is something they would like to be a part of, based on the criteria spelled out in the email below:

From: "Tucker, Amanda" Nike Corporation
To: "'David Boje'"  New Mexico State University

"Hi David, Good to talk with you today regarding your request to visit Nike factories... Nike has had numerous academics in our contract-factories to do academic research, some of whom participated in both the IABS [International Association of Business & Society] and Toronto sessions [Academy of Management Annual Meetings]. We ask that research proposals are sent to us so that we can evaluate them on the basis of objectivity, past academic work on the subject, and methodological design.

I am interested in working with the Academy of Management to follow-up on our session if that is of interest to the Academy. The group approach you mentioned is of interest to me because it might be the best way of balancing differing perspectives. We also have to look at the volume of case studies being carried out on Nike's Corporate Responsibility work. I think that even as I write this there are at least 5 universities/research groups studying or Corporate Responsibility work, including the International Labor Organization itself. We have to balance all of these requests both in terms of time and geographically, not only so that we don't overload particular factories but also so that our people can do their key jobs, which is overseeing compliance in our contact-manufacturers" (Amanda Tucker, Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:34:49 -0700, additions in [ ] mine). 

How this proposal began? The agreement for Nike to look at a coordinated university researchers' proposal began with an All Academy Showcase session on "Nike and Time" the Academy of Management Toronto Meetings, August, 2000 (See Appendix D for participants). At that Time Amanda Tucker and I discussed the research possibility outlined above. There is precedent for this proposal.  Phil Knight, the CEO of Nike Corporation in a series of bold moves, invited university research of "global manufacturing and responsible business practices such as independent monitoring and health issues" in item number 6 of his speech in 1998:

"6. We will fund university research in open forums to explore issues related to global manufacturing and responsible business practices such as independent monitoring and health issues. We will begin by funding four programs in United States universities in the 1998-99 academic year, and we'll have our first public forum in October of this year in Hong Kong" (Phil Knight's speech to the National Press Club on May 12th, 1998).

I (David Boje) am therefore contacting you to help me draft this proposal to Nike Corporation. Again, we are not asking for money, we are only asking for access to a sample of subcontractor factories.  If you would like to comment on the proposal, join the study group or suggest relevant academic research for this project, please contact me dboje@nmsu.edu 

How this proposal resolves one of Nike's Problems: I would like to propose a joint task force between members of various academies, including, but not limited to International Academy of Business Disciplines, The Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs, Academy of Management,  Administrative Sciences Association of Canada,  International Association for Business and  Society, Society for Business Ethics, and the American Accounting Association. Our aim is to encourage submissions by the study group to sessions at their respective annual meetings (subject to the criteria of their normal review processes).  At this time one association, the International Academy of Business Disciplines is deciding what to contribute to the costs of the proposal and would like to co-sponsor the study. Other associations are talking about the proposal to their boards or have at least indicated they encourage the scholarship and invite submissions.  In this way International Academy of Business Disciplines (and other sources as they become available) can fund academic study efforts and encourage wider participation and dissemination of finding to several other academic associations.

 iii Purpose - The purpose of the research is to develop interdisciplinary work and dialogue that will address a set of research questions that is of growing concern to academics, the general public, and the Nike Corporation. Basic research while important is not sufficient. We propose to embark upon action research initiative that brings various stakeholders (researchers, workers, corporate executives, managers, subcontractor mangers, governmental and non-governmental organizations) together to implement change. There has been a good deal of consulting (i.e. Global Alliance, Fair Labor Association, and Price Waterhouse Coopers) and non-governmental organization (NGO) report and media writing, but limited academic empirical study (See Appendix B). The issue is to rethink labor and environmental monitoring practices, within a larger context that compels a reframing of the institutions and ethics of development and globalization. Our purpose can be summarized: to promote dialogue that leads to basic, applied, participatory, as well as action research efforts that lead to change.  

I hope for a truly postmodern approach to collaborative research and change with many voices coming from many different sources, swirling around each trying to make a difference. In some ways, this effort looks a lot like Nike itself--hard to summarize, quick, shifting, unpredictable, Tamara-ish. We have a process to get the proposal to its next stage of readiness. That is we have been co-sponsored at the Academy of Management meetings in Washington D.C. by the History, Research Methods (RMD) , and Organization Development and Change (ODC) Divisions for four 90 minute workshops (one per study group listed below). At these workshops we are inviting stakeholders mentioned in the project and Academy members to meet work with us to develop the proposal. ODC will act as facilitators. Then we would like to head for the field and collect the necessary data. But we do not stop there; we intend to follow through to see what positive changes can be made in monitoring, working conditions, and implement study group recommendations. In short, we seek an action research project the facilitates that starts and ends with participatory dialogue.  

To begin the dialogue, I am putting down some ideas about objectivity, the subject of the research, and methods. I also propose that the results of the studies be submitted for review to the respective journals of our Academies as well as journals that have already shown interest. Please send your ideas on the proposal to dboje@nmsu.edu so they can be integrated into the proposal before it is sent to Nike and the various academic associations we will submit the proposal to for feedback.

We seek to promote dialogue and experimentation that leads to basic, applied, participatory, as well as action research efforts that lead to change.  

MAIN PROPOSAL SECTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION 

II. FROM FEUDAL FACTORIES TO FRENCH TAYLORIST ONES

Introduction We will now review why we believe scientific experimentation with pattern of work organization, working conditions, and wage schemes is to Nike's advantage.  Specifically we propose to work with a sample of factories (the size and location will be determined with Nike and stakeholder input).  The result we anticipate is to be able to contrast different forms of pay-systems and work design and working conditions. The implementation will be according to action research methods. That is, an effort that involves workers, managers, and other stakeholders, including the study groups we list below in the design of the experiments we are proposing. 

Literature Review Karl Marx (1867), Adam Smith (1776), and Frederick Taylor (1911) agreed that there are organizational alternatives to sweatshops that yield more productivity, profit, and net workers higher wages.  “The name, sweatshop, goes back to the late 1800s, and refers to the technique of "sweating" as much profit as possible out of each worker. Once a thriving tradition at the turn of the century, sweatshops saw their numbers dwindle in the face of relentless encroachment by labor organization and social legislation. By the post-war years they were pushed to the brink of extinction. But with the new arrangements made possible by the global economy -- highly mobile transnational capital, computer-coordinated production schedules, and free trade policies” (Sweat Gear web site).  Apparel manufacture too often equates to sweatshop work that is based on modes of production and piece-wages that appears feudal in contrast to the kinds of factories that are recently attaining ISO9000, ISO14000, and SA8000 certification.

What about the influence of wage rates? Smith (1976) in the  Wealth of Nations, saw the choice about paying each worker a "living wage" was clear, economic and moral:

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation (Smith, 1776, CHAPTER VIII Of the Wages of Labor). 

Adam Smith did not favor sweatshops. Adam Smith, among others, contended that interests of self-centered interests of merchants and manufacturers ran counter to the general welfare of society.  Smith advocated local accountability, moral reasoning, and a limit to bigness of business. Smith did favor the landowners over the merchants and manufacturers.

The proprietor of land is necessarily a citizen of the particular country in which his estate lies.  The proprietor of stock is properly a citizen of the world, and is not necessarily attached to any particular country (WN, 2: 848).

What was revolutionary about Taylor's scientific management, was the observation that rest and refreshment are necessary to quality and sustained work. Any profit gained by overwork and snatching time for mealtimes and rest breaks and from paying the least possible bare subsistence wage and over-work in unhealthy and unpleasant situations was meager compared to the output of the high productivity enterprise. In short, both Taylor and Marx held out solutions to sweatshops' "slow sacrifice of humanity" (Marx, 1867: 244).

For Marx, piece-wage was a special form of time-wage. "In time-wages the labor is measured by its immediate duration, in piece-wages by the quantity of products in which the labor has embodied itself during a given time" (1867: 553). And piece-wages, from his point of view, afforded the "source of reductions of wages and capitalistic cheating" of workers (p. 553). That is, with piece-wages, the incentive is for the capitalist to parasitically "sub-let" labor by using the services of middlemen (subcontractors). "In England this system is characteristically called the "Sweating system."

On the one hand piece-wage allows the capitalist to make a contract for so much per piece with the head laborer--in manufactures with the chief of some group, in mines with the extract of the coal, in the factory with the actual machine-worker--at a price for which the head laborer himself undertakes the enlisting and payment of his assistant workpeople (p. 554).

To Marx, it is in the personal interest of the subcontractor using piece-wage systems to "strain his labor-power as intensely as possible" by lengthening the working-day. And this is exactly what we have witnessed in apparel manufacture: without the external control of government or the global enterprise's policies and codes, subcontractors use piece-wage and extend the working day, as well as the number of days worked each month. In Marx's day, the "Children's Employment Commission: and other agencies intervened to change working and employment practices.

Piece-wage is the main pay system in today's apparel subcontract factory. Marx hypothesized that piece-wage is paid such that it becomes the average wage, thereby negating any incentive for independence, self-control, or liberty. "Piece-work has, therefore, a tendency, while raising the individual wages above the average, to lower this average itself" for the workforce. In practice, the quotas in the apparel industry are adjusted to keep the piece-wage to a bare minimum and working conditions such as rest periods and subcontractors avoid training in more efficient production methods, unless external controls are enforced. The assumption of the subcontractor is that since the alternative to work is starvation or more rigorous demands of agriculture, those workers have ample incentive to produce. This is defined here, as feudalistic sweatshop practice. We would like to conduct research that would implement and test experiments in alternative pay schemes.

For example, going back to Taylor (1911), his innovation in pay schemes was to introduce the idea of differential piece-rate systems. In his series of experiments he demonstrated that workers when performing a carefully calibrated and planned task, would increase their effort when wages increased by 60 per cent (p. 74). In short, raising quotas and extending the working day, were found to be less productive alternatives than ensuring "prosperity for the employee, coupled with prosperity for the employer" the key to his compensation philosophy.

For Taylor, the solution to feudalistic sweatshop factories was to convince employee and employer, that through scientific experimentation, work conditions and work processes could be redesigned so that workers toiled few hours, with more rest breaks, and at higher pay, while the firm enjoyed the fruits of sharp increases in production. It is our proposal to test Taylor's option in the apparel industry. That is to move from what is called "extreme Taylorism" managing work processes with central control and high division of labor, to what Taylor had originally described, a system of work which is productive for employers and prosperous for employees.

Taylor (1911: 14-18) argued that it is possible to have prosperity for both owners and workers and the diminution of poverty and the alleviation of human suffering. We believe this is an attainable objective for the Nike corporation, its subcontractors, and global workforce. Taylor concludes, "the writer has great sympathy with those who are over-worked, but on the whole a greater sympathy for those who are under paid" (p. 18). This is the gist of our attempt to prove that living wage payment and healthy working conditions combined with scientific work processes makes economic sense.

The Experiment  In short, we hypothesize that the modern scientifically managed subcontract factory will dramatically out-produce and out-pay the feudal sweatshop. We seek permission to run this experiment. Taylor (1911: 92-96, 136-143) hypothesized that better working conditions including shorter hours (from 12 to 8.5 hours), rest periods four times a day, paid days off each month for "girls" (his term), and rigorous scientific work procedures would lead to both higher factory output and higher wage levels and therefore to more harmonious relations between employer and employees. Taylor also included "the consumers, who buy the product" of employer and employees "and who ultimately pay both the wages of the workmen and the profits of the employers" (p. 136). This described the global subcontracting production and distribution network of Nike Corporation. Taylor was able to convince sweatshop owners and their subcontractors that this hypothesis had scientific validity. We believe that by turning from consultant and monitor reporting to scientific study (quantitative and qualitative) and to action research experimentation, that we can convince subcontract factory owners and managers, that sweatshops are not as profitable as the modern firm.

The world at the turn of the century embarked upon experiments that proved in one industry after another that feudal sweatshop production was not as efficient or humane as scientific management. We can do the same in this century.

Scientific management, on the contrary, has for its very foundation the firm conviction that the true interest of the two [employer and employee] are one and the same; that prosperity for the employer cannot exist through a long term of years unless it is accompanied by prosperity for the employee, and vice versa' and that it is possible to give the workman what he most wants -- high wages -- and the employer what he wants -- a low labor cost -- for his manufactures (1911: 10).

The reason it is a lower labor cost, even with higher piece-wage payments is because the factory applying scientific management (now a days, TQM, ISO9000 and ISO14000) with the kinds of working conditions spelled out in SA8000 (living wages, safe and healthy work environments) -- is assumed to yield higher output than is true for the feudalist factory. Nike in 1998 announced plans to move toward ISO14000 certification. We would like to measure the results and extend the experiments to other factory locations. 

Further, we seek permission to work with select factories to implement alternative piece-wage systems. Taylor, for example, recommended that once scientific work procedures were implemented, such that production rose, the workers would be paid 60% to as much as "double wages" during the scientific experiments, and that such wages would remain this high after the implementation (pp. 54, 72, 74).

We would also like to work with factories that do and do not have active labor unions. Where Marx and Taylor disagreed was over the role of labor unions. For Taylor (sounding much like Nike executives) unions are "labor agitators" who are "misinformed and misguided... sentimentalists" that appear "ignorant of actual working conditions" (p. 18). However, for Marx, the trade union movement and worker democracy was essential for insuring that factories did not back slide into feudalistic sweatshops. As Marx put it, "I demand therefore a working-day of normal length, and I demand it without any appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out of place (p. 234). Marx details the wage cheating, ways of stretching the day of forcing people to clock in early, work overtime off the clock, and strange pay deductions. Marx describes the same complaints in 1865 that we hear today, how time is "snatched from the workers by encroaching upon the times professedly allowed for rest and refreshment" (p. 241). The point is apparently subcontract factory management holds to the out-dated feudalistic belief that such practices are in the long run more profitable than what Taylor proposed and what Marx demanded. In short, we want to test working conditions and wage situations in both settings.

French Taylorism - Defined - In a special edition of Journal of Organizational Change Management, Dominique Besson and Slimane Haddadj (2000) review post-Taylor approaches. Different countries throughout the world including Asia and Europe have implemented Taylorism quite differently. We hypothesize the implementation in apparel factories in Southeast Asia is the reverse to the Taylorian philosophy itself, and even a return to the feudalistic factory conditions and piece-wage compensation schemes of the 1800s. By contrast, French Taylorists implemented what Besson (2000) describes a more postmodern approach. It is more accurately "critical postmodern." On the one hand, it is an approach with strong links to Braverman's (1976) Labor and Monopoly Capital project and Marx's (1867) critique of sweatshops and piece-wages. On the other hand, the postmodernists see a drift between what Taylorism was in Taylor's day, and what it is now, in France (and elsewhere). Instead of taking an anti-Taylorism approach, Besson (2000) argues that the post-war configurations of Taylorism in France have not adopted the deskilling system that Braverman points out. But are French workers more "empowered" compared to Asian workers?  French workers are not disempowered from their knowledge and know-how (Besson, 2000: 425). At the same time, French Taylorism achieved high increases in productivity and efficiency in "an informal kind of postmodern administration" (p. 426). First, instead of implementing flexible work rules, the French prefer to keep those rules more rigid, in order to give employees confidence in the work design. The French adjusted rigid Taylor principles to allow for continuous improvements in work designs and such postmodern notions as "work autonomy spaces" (p. 434). Second, the wage contract is considered an essential way in which workers negotiate with management in order to adjust work conditions, skill levels, wages, and the authority system. In this way workers in French Taylorism have a way to invoke resistance as well as ongoing-negotiation, as part of the work organization. This is not a totalizing consensus seeking strategy; it is one where parties know what side of the bargaining table they sit on. Third, instead of management total control over the system of work, employees can avoid such productive despotism by co-control over work processes. Multi-skilling, for example, is seen as a way to enhance worker's negotiating position. Fourth, Taylorism, in its French manifestation, is part of a plurality of perspectives. Management and worker, as well as customer and supplier have voice in the postmodern version. "There existed, and there still exists today, a coded social dialog between workers, union officials, organizers and the hierarchical management" (p. 434). Fifth, the French variation of Taylorism is based on a conflict-engagement approach in which employers and employees actively consider social power and diversity and the dangers of hegemony. Sixth, my own observations of French Taylorism is that working conditions, including good food, rest breaks, and those long French vacations make quite a difference.

Could Taylorism in France be assimilated into the Asian subcontract apparel system? It is a question that merits scientific study. Our proposed experiment stands as alternative to increased levels of governmental regulation of industry working conditions. French Taylorism is a mid range solution between trade unionism and feudalistic sweatshops. It is an improvement over classical Taylorism, that allows piece-wage systems to be modified in ways that increase productivity and worker wage levels, while affording workers avenues of resistance to totalizing systems of control.

Our proposal to the Nike Corporation and its subcontractors is to experiment and scientifically compare alternative work design, work conditions, and wage-incentive schemes. It represents a step forward in establishing stakeholder dialogue and getting beyond expose research projects, or naïve consulting reports, that do not detail methodology nor go beyond the report to actually implement meaningful change. Why not try French Taylorization as a possible improvement over "extreme" forms of Taylorization now in use in the apparel industry in third world nations?

Besson, Dominique (2000) "France in the 1950s: Taylorian modernity brought about by postmodern organizers?" Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 13: (5): 423-438.

Besson, Dominique & Haddadj, Slimane (2000) Towards a post-Taylorian approach to Taylorism. Special guest issue of Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 13: (5).

Marx, Karl (1867) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I The Process of Capitalist Production. Translated from the Third German Edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Edited by Frederick Engels. NY: L.W. Schmidt; 1967 edition, NY: International Publishers.

Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. NY: W.W. Norton & company, Inc. 1947 edition.

Next is a review of issues of objectivity,  past work by the study group members, issues of sampling, the four main research questions, and the overall methodology for basic and action research initiatives. 

IV. OBJECTIVITY

Objectivity - How do we enact findings and experiments that are free from bias?  Nietzsche argues that everyone has a bias.  Bias is something that occurs in both qualitative and quantitative work (see Kincheloe & McLaren in Handbook of Qualitative Research (hereafter, HQR, p. 165 for more on this point). Every researcher brings their biases into the research setting. In qualitative work there is an active attempt to become self-reflective on bias issues and to look at the setting from multiple points of view. In quantitative work, there is also bias and attempts at objectivity are arrived at through triangulation.  To establish objectivity we propose to include the perspectives of researchers from different disciplines and to enlist researchers who have reached positive and negative conclusions in prior studies of Nike Corporation. We also intend to include the voices of workers, managers, government, union, and NGO in the study. There have been studies that have been quite positive about Nike and those that are critical. We will invite study group members from each of the following areas (for list of academic work in the area, see Appendix B). 

The notion of `perspective' is I think more relevant than bias. Perspective can account for different positionings in relation to identity politics and experiential background, could serve as a more appropriate framing concept that bias, especially when it comes to the present research topic. In terms of representation, it attracts a far less negative connotation than the word `bias'. 

The issue of objectivity is however an important one. As Van de Ven (letter in Appendix E) comments it is what " separates the "wheat from the chaff" among the hotly-contested views of many partisan groups. Of course, there is always the possibility of scholars being seduced to take the position of a partisan interest group, but we know and trust that you and your interdisciplinary colleagues will implement the methods of scientific discourse that prevent this from happening." In order to: establish objectivity, the desired outcome could more productively be re-defined as seeking: balance through diversity in including alternative perspectives and voices. We have therefore included academics who have published and presented work that is more positive and others who are more critical about Nike's monitoring of subcontractor labor practices. We also seek to enact action research that moves from basic research findings to stakeholder dialogue and change. 

(1) Review of Academic Work that is Supportive of Nike's Efforts - Positive studies may be viewed by Nike and others as more "objective" since the findings agree with the self-presentation of the Nike Corporation. Mihaly and Massey (1997), for example, supervised Dartmouth MBA students in wage studies in Vietnam and Indonesia that confirmed that Nike pays not only a legal wage, but a living wage that allows employees to put away savings and purchase items such as motorcycles and televisions. Kahle, Boush and  Phelps (2000) from the Sports Marketing Department of the University of Oregon in a study of one factory in Vietnam confirmed the positive findings of former Ambassador Andrew Young's visits to three Vietnam factories (he also visited China and Indonesia). The finding was that Nike behaves more ethically than its competitors and there was absolutely no evidence of sweatshop, poverty wage or any other questionable conditions in the factory they toured. Kahle et al (2000) found the pay issue complicated and used descriptive summaries. Clearly more empirical research on pay and living conditions is called for even by studies claiming positive work and environment conditions. We propose to invite these researchers into the current study design.  And we propose to include researchers who have drawn negative conclusions (see Appendix B for list of works)/

(2) Review of Additional Academic Research that Raises Concerns - First a brief overview of the Academy of Management All Academy Session where several academics presented concerns about Nike, followed by academic studies raising concerns about Nike Corporation will be presented. These may be questioned as not being "objective" since they disagree with the viewpoint of the Nike Corporation and academic studies with positive findings. Panel member Amanda Tucker of the Nike Corporation responded to concerns of the panel by recommending they and the audience consider recent and more positive academic studies such as, the one above by Kahle, Boush and  Phelps (2000).Logsdon and Wood (2000), for example, argue from a business ethics and social responsibility perspective and raised questions about Nike at the Toronto meetings of the Academy of Management meetings (Jeanne Logsdon is past president of the International Association for Business and Society).   Boje (2000a, b, c, 1999, 1998a to h) from a narrative and discourse perspective raised critical issues about Nike's ability to effectively monitor its overseas factory conditions. Landrum's (2000a,b) perspective during this session focused on narrative strategy and situates Nike in comparison to Reebok but also presents critical findings concerning the differences between espoused statements in annual reports and actual labor conditions. Work presented at this session by Wells and Greenberg (2000) and Knight and Greenberg (2000) form a political science perspective was critical of the ability of the Fair Labor Association and audit firms such as Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) to audit labor conditions effectively. Oakes (2000) from an accounting perspective also raised issues about PWC and Nike's program for monitoring its overseas practices. Amanda Tucker of Nike responded to each critique pointing out the work that Nike is doing to control the issues raised and raised problems with the panelist's conclusions (See Appendix D for a list of the Academy of Management "Time and Nike" presentations). 

There is other research beyond the Toronto Academy of Management session that has raised concerns.  For example, Carty's (1999) is the perspective of a sociologist, who looks at the relationship between Nike's postmodern culture strategies to effect brand popularity and its post-industrial subcontracting practices. Carty's work extends a line of inquiry by Gereffi and  Korzeniewicz (1990), Korzeniewicz (1994), and Donaghu and Barff (1990) into global commodity chains, which has also taken a critical perspective on Nike. She is critical of both the Andrew Young and the Mihaly and Massey (1997) studies for various research method shortcomings (These range from use of Nike translators, pre-arranged factory tours, relying on factory wage statistics, to not doing interviews away from the managers' gaze). Boje (2000b) has critiqued Kahle, Boush and  Phelps (2000) for repeating the same research method flaws in their study. Barry (1999) also looks at strategic and narrative discourse of Nike and has come to critical conclusions. Anita Chan's (1996, 1998, 1999 with Chen Meei-shia) perspective contextualizes Nike within the entire athletic apparel industry operating in China. Her perspective has been critical but also suggests that Nike is no worse than other athletic apparel manufacturers.  Cole's (1995 with Amy Hribar, 1996, 1997) perspective situates Nike advertising claims and postmodern consumption within the African-American community in the US. She has been critical of the relationship between Nike advertising and inner city violence perpetrated to acquire Nike and Reebok shoes.  Venkatesh (1999) from a marketing perspective has also drawn critical conclusions about Nike's advertised claims.  Hancock's (1996, 1997) perspective is more ethnographic, doing extended field visits to two factories in Indonesia. His research has been critical of Nike for closing the better of two factories that exhibited, in his view, sweatshop conditions and paid less than livable wages.  From an accounting perspective, Macintosh, Shearer, Thornton and Welker (1997), and Oakes, Townley, Chwastiak ( 1997) have raised critical issues about Nike's and PWC's  auditing research methodology of its overseas subcontract factory operations. O'Rourke (2000) has just completed the first known study of PWC auditing practices and raises concerns with the reliability and validity of their methodology.  Finally, in the most recently published journal article Stabile (2000) from a communication studies perspective has reviewed Nike's rhetoric in its press releases, web sites, and speech making, and reached critical conclusions (see Appendix B for list of works).

In sum, to control for objectivity and bias, we propose to include researchers on the study team who have previously drawn positive and negative conclusions. We will also include team members who have had no prior research experience with Nike Corporation. Finally, we believe that there are action research opportunities here and have invited academics with skills in facilitative groups with differing perspectives and views so that we might offer round table forums involving not only academics of differing views but also subcontract factory owners and managers, government representatives, unions, NGOs, workers, Nike executives, and other stakeholders. In this way we propose to do more than research the questions raised, but create forums for dialogue and concerted experimentation that will lead to positive change. 

V. PAST ACADEMIC WORK OF STUDY GROUP MEMBERS

Past academic work of the study team members  (See example by Boje, Study Group members will provide similar listings) and Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix D list known available academic work on Nike Corporation.  These people will be contacted about being included on the study team. Those listed after each research question, have confirmed their intent to participate either in the design of the methods, report writing, facilitating dialogue, or actually going to third world nations to conduct basic research.  Our aim is to include people from a wide range of disciplines, accounting, communication, marketing, management, and anthropology, and other areas. And to include people who are new to the study of Nike Corporation.

VI. SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH 

The subject of the research is to explore and where possible confirm or disconfirm four research areas that are developed in the research questions listed below. 

1. How has Nike enacted its espoused Code of Conduct over time? This study group will focus on monitoring studies by PWC, FLA, and Global Alliance, as well as studies that support and question their methods and findings. 

2. Does Nike pay a living wage? This study group will sample subcontract factory workers, review factory payroll records, and collect data that will measure and validate various living wage formula. In addition we are proposing action research experiments that would implement and test various wage-payment schemes in a sample of factories across nations identified in Table Two.

3. Does Nike subcontract with "sweatshops"? This study group will look at definitions of sweatshops and measure said variables in a sample of subcontract factories. In addition, they will propose and conduct action research experiments that test what we described in our review as forms of French Taylorism. This way a sample of existing subcontract firms can be compared with the experimental options.

4. What is the relationship between Fair Labor Association (FLA) and Workers Rights Consortium (WRC)? This study group will focus on the monitoring efforts of FLA and WRC by sampling colleges and universities with and without FLA and/or WRC agreements. 

The main study group had already divided into sub-groups to pursue each research question.  The first three questions involve travel to factories and specific experiments to be decided by each team. The fourth question does not involve travel to third world factories. 

Experts - Each study group will work with country experts that will serve as advisors in issues of sampling, experiment, translation, and other research design issues. Professor Anita Chan is an internationally recognized expert in China and the athletic apparel industry. We are also inviting Professor Pun Ngai, a Hong Kong Chinese sociologist who knows a lot about factories to join, and she is interested.  There are also other experts  like Tim Connor and Peter Hancock (Indonesia), Junya Yimprasert (Thailand) and we are seeking a Vietnam expert.. 

• Dr. Anita Chan
  Senior Research Fellow
  Australian Research Council
  Contemporary China Centre
  9 Liversidge Street
  Australian National University
  Canberra 0200 Australia
  Tel. (61) 2 62494260
  Fax (61) 2 62573642  Anita Chan is an expert in the athletic apparel industry in China.  Her work is cited  in Appendix A and Appendix B. 
  

• Dr Peter Hancock
  Registrar & Director
  West Coast Institute of Management and Technology
  251 Adelaide Terrace - Level One
  Perth WA 6000
  mobile 0412 148 575
  Ph 61 08 9225 4121
  Fax 61 08 9225 4120
  email phancock66@hotmail.com 
  email registrar@westcoastinstitute.com.au
  His work is cited  in Appendix B

 

• Tim Connor, BA, LLB
  Doctoral Candidate, 
  School of Geosciences,
  University of Newcastle,
  Australia.
  Address: 55 Wells Street, Redfern NSW 2016 Australia
  Phone: 61 2 9698 2394
  email: tconnor@nlc.net.au  His statement and work is listed in Appendix A. 

 

• Dr. Pun Ngai" npun@hkucc.hku.hk  I would be very happy to work with you all, and thank you for listing me as a country expert.
  
  Thanks,
  Pun Ngai

 

• Junya Yimprasert "Lep"  jyimprasert@access.inet.co.th 
  Phone: + 66 1 617 5491, +66 2 692 7963 Fax: +66 2 692 7963
  Her experiences and publications concern codes of conduct practices are:

  • Human Rights Coordinator for Reebok Company, Thailand officer, January - May 1998

  • "Can Corporate Codes of Conduct Promote Labour Standards? Evidence from Thai Footwear and Apparel Industries." with co-author Christopher Candland ccandlan@wellesley.edu .

  • "Lian Thai workers and the Global Alliance," produced for Clean Clothes Campaign (8 September 2000) http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike00-09-15-1.htm  

  • "Taiwan shoe's makers - Thai workers," produced for Jeff Ballinger, this is on Nike factory- Pou Chen

Sampling - There are several alternative we now present for Nike to provide its feedback.  The ideal situation is for Nike Corporation to provide a complete list of subcontractors and we do the picking using a stratified random sampling design. A second choice would be for us to provide the sampling criteria and Nike to draw the sample.  A third choice is to contact local NGOs in the countries identified in Table Two and grant us access to a set of factories we propose.  Before proceeding with the design, we need to know which option Nike will allow.

Next is the issue of which countries to sample factories from. At a minimum, we assume that China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea and Taiwan will likely be selected for study. They are the main Nike subcontractors. The reason why we suggest Taiwan is that Anita Chan visited both the Pouchen and Fengtai factories two years ago. Nike still has a few production lines in Taiwan to make special sneakers and to try out new models; R and D is done in Taiwan, not in Oregon. We will need to seek out an expert for Thailand and South Korea. Thailand production lines have OSHA labels and warning at each work station. It will be interesting to do a comparative time study and organization study between the parent factories and their factories in other countries. Each study group will make sampling recommendations and may well want to expand the sample to include Central America and Mexico. 

Carty (1999) and Korzeniewicz (1992, 1994) have suggested that Nike operates a complex and stratified, three-tier system of global subcontracting for its athletic footwear based upon the technology in use. We have extended the idea by including garment manufacturing subcontractors along with the athletic footwear factories (refer to Table Two).

In Tier one is the most advanced subcontractor production technology, tier operates volume production. Taiwan and South Korea, for example, represent the "developed partners" of Nike use flexible manufacturing processes and are designated as producers of Nike's most expensive and sophisticated styles; they in turn subcontract to tiers two and three (Carty, 1999: 187). Tier two includes China and Indonesia who use less flexible manufacturing with large volume production runs of standardized products.  Tier three are subcontract factories that are the "developing" sources, such as Vietnam and Thailand and consisted of more recently formed partnerships where the cheapest labor is utilized. Our hypothesis is that factory conditions vary significantly across the three tiers.

Table Two: Three-Tier System of Nike Subcontractors and their Technology

NIKE TIERS	NATIONS
Tier One (semi-periphery -- most expensive shoes, high level of  technology, very flexible)	South Korea* Taiwan* Italy Canada Portugal
Tier Two (semi-periphery/periphery -- volume production)	Indonesia* China* Mexico Brazil
Tier Three (periphery -- the developing sources that produce for Nike)	Vietnam* Thailand* Bangladesh India Malaysia El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Dominican Republic Philippines Sri Lanka Bulgaria
KEY   * is country we intend to randomly sample subcontract factories for research and experimentation.

The sample design for the fourth study subgroup looking at universities will include U.S., Canadian, European, and Australian universities that are members of (a) Fair Labor Association, (b) Workers Rights Consortium, (c) both, and for control (d) neither. The exact number and name of each university to be included will be worked out in the subgroup meetings just identified.

The specification of the exact number of factories and universities will depend on which proposed sampling option Nike elects.  We intend to finalize the design for the sampling and the action research experiments by convening the four study groups and invited stakeholders to the meeting of the International Academy of Business Disciplines in April, 2001 and the Academy of Management professional workshop meetings (see methodology section below) that meets in August, 2001 in Washington D.C. We have been approved for both actions. We are also organizing subgroup meetings in Europe, Australia and Asia (and are waiting on responses from various associations that are granting us spaces and times to meet and present). In short, since the team comes form all areas of the world, we want to provide venues that allow affordable travel. This is important since each study group member is seeking university and foundation funds for this project.

In the next section four basic research questions are presented. Code of conduct, living wage, what is and is not a sweatshop, and the choice among FLA and WRC for universities is assumed to constitute the core issues of the question of monitoring. 

1. Angana P. Chatterji, Ph.D.       Angana@aol.com (Subgroup 1 coordinator)
   Professor, Social and Cultural Anthropology
   California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco
   Director of Research, Asia Forest Network Program
   Center for Southeast Asia Studies
   University of California, Berkeley

2. Tim Connor, BA, LLB
   Doctoral Candidate, 
   School of Geosciences,
   University of Newcastle,
   Australia.
   Address: 55 Wells Street, Redfern NSW 2016 Australia
   Phone: 61 2 9698 2394
   email: tconnor@nlc.net.au  

3. Linda Perriton email rooster@cabsav.demon.co.uk 
   Lecturer, Centre for Management,
   University of York
   Heslington UK
   YORK YO10 5DD

4. Robert D. Kreisher  rkreishe@chuma.cas.usf.edu 
   Doctoral Candidate, Department of Communication
   (813)974-2145
   And Office of Diversity Initiatives
   (813)974-9195 
   University of South Florida
   4202 E. Fowler Ave. CIS 1040
   Tampa, FL 33620 

5. Mary Boyce, Ph.D. --  boyce@jasper.uor.edu    University of Redlands, CA. I am just beginning work on a research project aimed at examining the internal organizational dialogue of executives of multinational corporations as they determine how involved to become in an emerging democracy with a transitional economy. Mary is sending her statement and her relevant publications. 

6. Professor Usha C. V. Haley, Ph.D. alamo@compuserve.com 
   Associate Professor, School of Management
   University of Tennessee at Knoxville. 

7. Graham Knight  Ph.D.       knightg@mcmail.mcmaster.ca 
   McMaster University
   Department of Sociology
   1280 Main Street West
   Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
   L8S 4M4
   905-525-9140 x24481 (Voice)
   905-522-2642 (Fax)
   knightg@mcmail.mcmaster.ca 

8. Marilyn Slaughter, MA International Affairs (added to Subgroup February 22, 2001)
   Washington University at St. Louis
   E-mail: marilynslaughter@netscape.net 
   "I have studied and researched labor issues in Asia for many years, particularly migrant women workers who work for foreign companies in urban areas and special economic zones.  However, most of my research has focused on China's labor issues which resulted in a Master thesis titled: Search for Equality: Chinese Women Factory Workers.  Previously, I studied U.S. factory workers and their contribution to building America but with the wave of globalization in the 1980s and 1990s, my interest followed manufacturers overseas to observe how they would try to transform a workforce in another culture to meet their production demands.  While studying in China, I had the opportunity to tour and see first hand the factory operations of several European and American textile, computer, electronics and pharmaceutical factories." 
   
   

   
   
   

The following NGO study reports and media reports on the issue have been suggested by readers of this proposal:

• Cruel Treatment Working for Nike in Indonesia  Urban Community Mission Survey Report, December 1999 Source: Press For Change Jeff Ballinger Jeffrey_Ballinger/FS/KSG%KSG@harvard.edu 

• Dara O'Rourke, a professor of environmental and labor policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that "PwC's monitoring efforts are significantly flawed," said Dr. O'Rourke,  "PwC's audit reports glossed over problems of freedom of association and collective bargaining, overlooked serious violations of health and safety standards, and failed to report common problems in wages and hours."  On the other hand, ..."Pricewaterhouse officials defended their monitoring, saying their inspectors often uncover violations of minimum wage, overtime and safety laws. But these officials acknowledged that the firm's inspectors occasionally missed things that an expert on industrial hygiene, like Professor O'Rourke, would uncover" (Source  Stephen Greenhouse "Report Says Global Accounting Firm Overlooks Factory Abuses"  New York Times, September 28, 2000). To download entire report using ADOBE see http://web.mit.edu/dorourke/www/PDF/pwc.pdf 

• The article looks at the auditing practices of PWC for Wal-Mart, Timberland, New Balance, and Nike. The implication is that "auditing systems can miss serious problems -- and that self-policing allows companies to avoid painful public relations about them." And therefore a study of self-monitoring, PWC, FLA and other monitoring systems is needed.  "While no company suggests that its auditing systems are perfect, most say they catch major abuses and either force suppliers to fix them or yank production."  (Source: Roberts, Dexter & Bernstein, Aaron "A Life of Fines and beatings," Business Week, October 2, 2000 pp. 123-128).

• Report Says Global Accounting Firm Overlooks Factory Abuses. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/28/business/28SWEA.html September 28, 2000 By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
  

1. Shawn M. Carraher, Ph. D. email: Shawn_Carraher@tamu-commerce.edu  (Has volunteered as subgroup coordinator)
   Professor of Management & Global Entrepreneurship
   Texas A & M University - Commerce

2. Anita Chan, Ph.D. anita@coombs.anu.edu.au 
   Senior Research Fellow
   Australian Research Council
   Contemporary China Centre
   9 Liversidge Street
   Australian National University
   Canberra 0200 Australia
   Tel. (61) 2 62494260
   Fax (61) 2 62573642  Anita Chan is an expert in the athletic apparel industry in China.  Her work is cited  in Appendix A and Appendix B. 

3. George Watson, PhD email watsong@stjohns.edu; gwatson01@aol.com  (Has volunteered as subgroup coordinator)
   Department of Management
   St. John's University
   (On Leave)
   Current mailing address:
   10416 Greenmont Drive
   Tampa, Florida 33626
   813-792-1430
   727-553-1024
   gwatson01@aol.com
   (willing to help with quantitative and qualitative research design issues). 

4. Nancy E. Landrum, Ph.D.  n.landrum@morehead-st.edu 
   Assistant Professor
   Morehead State University
   website: http://web.nmsu.edu/~nlandrum 
   Nancy's research on Nike is listed in Appendix B and in her statement.  Her dissertation was a comparison of Nike and Reebok.

5. John T. Luhman, ABD.  luhman@anderson.unm.edu  
   Visiting Lecturer  
   Anderson Schools of Management 
   University of New Mexico 
   Albuquerque, NM 87109    505-277-8887

6. Carolyn L. Gardner, ABD.  wzygardner@yahoo.com  
   Assistant Professor 
   School of Business 
   New Mexico Highlands University
   Las Vegas, NM 87701             505-454-3118

Being at home also means the young women are under constant surveillance of other members of their communities. Using oral histories, focus group and ethnographic methods, Hancock "factory employment has acted as a catalyst, and most women saw the opportunity it provided them compare to very limited opportunities in the agricultural or trading sectors" (p. 7).   The point is comparing manager, worker, and even outsider definitions of what is and is not a sweatshop will reveal the complexity of this research question.

2) Based on the definition of sweatshop it seems important to examine the incidence of regulatory violations/complaints in each facility.  There are government and union records in some locations as well as NGO and corporate audit reports that detail regulatory violations.  There are allegations of forced overtime, unsafe working conditions, excessive noise, inadequate ventilation, confiscation of identity cards, wage cheating, wages set below the minimum legal wage, termination for being pregnant, terminations for being over twenty-four years old, illegal one month wage deposits, and illegal deductions from pay checks for infractions such as talking, breaking a sewing needle, or a machine that is down for repair (through no fault of the worker).  The research question is to establish the validity of such complaints and to examine the type of factory and locations, if any such violations are found to recur. 

3)Compare to other industries where sweatshops are purported to operate, such as a sample of factories in making non-apparel items.  It was also suggested this group look at "white collar" sweatshop such as call centers to see if similar patterns emerge.

4) Incorporate the concept of commitment to ethics (Weaver, Trevino & Cochran, 1999a) 5) compare firm/industry performance for sweatshops versus non-sweatshops--is the relationship moderated by strategy, commitment to ethics or what? This would be a place to implement action experiments in French Taylorism and compare them to a sample of subcontractors using more traditional approaches.  Research by Weaver, Trivion and Cochran (1999b: 539) "showed how the scope and control orientations of ethics programs reflect influences from the external institutional environment and from top management's commitment to ethics." 

• Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999a). Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990s. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 283-294. 
• Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 
  42 (5): 539-552.
  

For example, "I just heard that Nike pull out an order from Cambodia because of the BBC reports on child labours in June Factory. This is in the front page of Cambodian Daily for a few days now and the Cambodian Government is trying to bring Nike back to Cambodia and refuse [to acknowledge] that there are child labours involved in producing Nike. I think this BBC documentary is going to be aired on 16 Oct." (Junya [Lek] Yimprasert jyimprasert@access.inet.co.th October 8, 2000).  Instead of pulling out, we would like to take some of the worst case situations and develop action research alternatives that improve conditions and prove to subcontract managers that alternatives to "extreme" Taylorism are profitable.

Volunteers for Study Group 3 (Press on name link to see statements and relevant publications):

1. Dr Ngaire Bissett   ngaire.bissett@rmit.edu.au SUBGROUP COORDINATOR
   School of Management
   RMIT University
   239 Bourke Street
   Victoria 3000
   Australia
   tel + 6 1 3 9925 5941
   fax + 6 1 3 9925 5580
   e-mail: ngaire.bissett@rmit.edu.au 
2. Dr Peter Hancock
   Registrar & Director
   West Coast Institute of Management and Technology
   251 Adelaide Terrace - Level One
   Perth WA 6000
   mobile 0412 148 575
   Ph 61 08 9225 4121
   Fax 61 08 9225 4120
   email phancock66@hotmail.com 
   email registrar@westcoastinstitute.com.au
   His work is cited  in Appendix B
3. Professor Laura P. Hartman, Ph.D.         lhartman@wppost.depaul.edu
   Asst. Vice President/Assoc. Prof. of Business Ethics
   DePaul University, Executive Offices
4. Professor Sanjay T. Menon, Ph.D.   menons@clarkson.edu 
   Director, Shipley Center for Leadership and Entrepreneurship
   Clarkson University, New York
5. Nicholas S. Miceli, Ph.D. n-miceli@onu.edu 
   Associate Professor of Management
   Ohio Northern University
6. Professor Joerg Sydow  sydow@wiwiss.fu-berlin.de 
   Free University of Berlin - see letter. 
7. Professor Peter John Anthony Elsmore, Ph.D.  P.J.A.Elsmore@uel.ac.uk University of East London, UK.  
8. Professor Miguel Caldas, Ph.D. mcaldas@fgvsp.br 
   EAESP/FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas)
   São Paulo, Brazil 
9. Lynn Kahle, Ph.D.  lkahle@lcbmail.uoregon.edu 
   James Warsaw Professor of Marketing
   University of Oregon See Appendix B for Kahle et al research. 
10. Pun Ngai, Ph.D.  npun@hkucc.hku.hk 
    Research Assistant Professor
    Centre of Asian Studies
    University of Hong Kong
11. Professor Maria José Tonelli, Ph.D. mjtonelli@fgvsp.br  
    Professor of Psychology
    Escola de Administração de Empresas
    Fundação Getúlio Vargas de São Paulo
    Departamento de Fundamentos Sociais e Jurídicos da Administração
    Av. 9 de julho, 2029 - 9o. andar
    05417 - 010 São Paulo - Brazil
    phone: 55 11 281 77 96
    fax: 55 11 281 78 05
    e-mail: mjtonelli@fgvsp.br  I have been working with a qualitative methodology to study time and speed at work
12. Professor Miguel Pinto Caldas Ph.D.  mcaldas@fgvsp.br 
    Professor of Organizational Theory
    Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
    Fundação Getúlio Vargas
    São Paulo - Brasil
13. Professor Flavio De Carvalho Vasconcelos Ph.D.  fvasconcelos@fgvsp.br 
    Professor of Strategy 
    Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
    Fundação Getúlio Vargas
    São Paulo - Brasil
14. Professor Thomaz Wood Junior Ph.D. twood@fgvsp.br 
    Professor of Management
    Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
    Fundação Getúlio Vargas
    São Paulo - Brasil

    VOLUNTEER AFTER 15 OCTOBER, 2000: 

15. Dr. Michael Fichter" mfichter@zedat.fu-berlin.de  
    Joerg Sydow has informed me of the Nike project and asked me to join him in the study group three. Joerg and I will be organizing a  student research group in preparation for a seminar on  sweatshops we plan to teach next Spring at the Free University of  Berlin. I have taken a look at the project proposal and find its  concept and goals quite impressive. I would be honored to join the  study group. Hopefully, I will also be able to make a substantive 
    contribution. As to my background, I am a political scientist and have done most  of my teaching and research on trade unions and labor relations in  Germany and Europe. A particularly important focus of my recent 
    work (and one which I see as being especially pertinent to the Nike  project) has been on labor relations and work organization in the  transformation societies of central and eastern Europe. At present,  I am directing a joint German-Hungarian team of researchers on a 
    project to analyze the impact of German foreign direct investments on labor relations and work organization in Hungary. The study, which has just commenced will be based on 15-20 general and 4-5 indepth case studies. Further information on my background can be found on my 
    webpage at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~mfichter . Of less crucial  importance for the project, but of possible interest to you  personally is that I am familiar with Las Cruces because I grew up in Albuquerque before going to Stanford for my B.A. I am looking forward to participating in this complex effort. I think that the seminar which Joerg and I are planning could make a sound contribution to the work of the study group three.If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact 
    me. Best regards, Mike Fichter
    
    

Items suggested for Study Group Review:

1. "Global Alliance gives Asian workers a voice." Newly released data reveals first-ever look inside factories from workers' perspective. For Release September 6, 2000. Washington, D.C. - Amidst the debate about working conditions in overseas manufacturing facilities, the workers themselves finally get a voice with the release of a comprehensive independent assessment of 3,800 Nike footwear and apparel workers in Vietnam and Thailand. The survey was conducted by the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities. http://www.theglobalalliance.com/content/press2.cfm Maria Eitel, Vice President Corporate Responsibility, Nike, Inc., United States is on the Board of Global Alliance. The approach is to conduct focus groups and surveys with workers and managers. http://www.theglobalalliance.com/content/about.cfm (Jeff Ballinger adds Global Alliance is a "Public Relations firm responsible for this has also done work for NikeTown, (Michael) Jordan brand, Disney, Hasbro..." -- The implication is that the study group review the research methods and findings. See also http://www.nikebiz.com/media/n_enhance.shtml 

2. On the other side of the issue, 

   • There is a September, 2000 critique of the Global Alliance methodology and findings available http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike00-09-15.htm   The new study was conducted by Junya Yimprasert of the Thai Labour Campaign and looks into the situation at Luen Thai, one of the five subcontract factories. The report contends that "10% of workers at five Thai factories producing garments and footwear for Nike were surveyed by the Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) as part of the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities project, an initiative that includes Nike, the World Bank, the International Youth Foundation, and others... What they fail to report is how workplace conditions have been defined. For the purposes of the Global Alliance study, "workplace conditions" does not include several major topics of concern to Thai garment and footwear workers. What's missing from the Global Alliance report are worker's opinions on issues relating to wages, hours of work, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Though Nike describes the Global Alliance as part of Nike's overall monitoring program this initiative is clearly not investigating issues of basic workers rights." According to the main report at http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike00-09-15-1.htm  "In the Global Alliance study selected workers were asked to answer multiple choice questions. In this way, their priorities were suggested for them."  Finally, after interviewing Luen Thai workers, the Thai Labour Campaign found that "...they felt that the questionnaires were guiding them and tried to encourage them to conduct activities at the community level. The workers questioned why they, the workers, have to do community development while their working conditions were not improved." Please consult the report for additional issues related to methodology.

• There is a new survey of wages in Indonesia conducted between 10 September and 18 October 1999.  The Urban Community Mission in Jakarta worked with Workers to survey 3,500 workers from 11 different Nike contract factories. The survey results allege that sweatshop and abusive management practices are widespread Review the survey in preparation for your response. (Press here for survey results). 
  

 

1. Professor Carty, Victoria Louise  cartyvl@jmu.edu  Group Coordinator
   Assistant Professor
   Department of Sociology
   James Madison University
   Harrisonburg, VA 22807
   e-mail cartyvl@jmu.edu 
   phone: (540) 568-5361  

2. Professor Tony Tinker, Ph.D.
   Professor & Co-Editor
   Critical Perspectives on Accounting
   Baruch College: Box E-723
   City University of New York
   17 Lexington Avenue
   New York, NY 10010
   USA
   Tel: 212 802 6436
   Fax: 212 802 6423
   Email: TonyTinker@msn.com 
   Email Tony_Tinker@baruch.cuny.edu 
   Standing Critical Conference Website:
   http://bus.baruch.cuny.edu/critical/ 

3. Professor Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D.    aosland@georgefox.edu
   George Fox University, OR
4. Professor Alexis Ann Downs    adowns@ucok.edu 
   University of Central Oklahoma 

5. Professor Dvora Yanow, Ph.D.    DYanow@csuhayward.edu 
   Professor and Chair
   Department of Public Administration
   California State University, Hayward
   Hayward, CA 94542 US
   tel 510/885-3282 fax 510/885-3726
   Dvora is available as a resource person to the team. 

6. Professor Dominique Besson, Ph.D.  dominique.besson@iae.univ-lille1.fr 
   Enseignant-chercheur/
   Assistant Professor, 
   IAE de Lille, 
   104 Avenue du Peuple Belge, 
   59043 LILLE CEDEX
   FRANCE
   Ph: +33 (0)3.20.12.34.85
   Fax: +33 (0)3.20.12.34.00
   Email: dominique.besson@iae.univ-lille1.fr  Dominique is in touch with some of the activities in French universities and in France with regard to the issues of this study group. 

7. Professor Arzu Iseri  iseria@boun.edu.tr 
   Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
   80815 Vebek Street
   Fax 90-212-263-7379

8. Don Wells Ph.D.  wellsd@mcmaster.ca 
   Department of Political Science and Labour Studies
   McMaster University
   Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M4
   905-525-9140 x24122 (Voice)
   905-528-1228 (Fax).

Reaching out to other voices -- The idea of the event is to have facilitators work with the study groups and interested stakeholders to develop the research and dialogue opportunities, such as "French Taylorism." We would like members from each of the four study groups to coordinate between local action that is already present within practitioner, government, union, and academic groups in  the nations we are studying (several are already among our country experts or members of study teams, but there are others out there). This requires planning and rehearsal. We believe a set of four 90 minute meetings, one for each study group to meet with other academics and members of the stakeholder groups listed above would facilitate the research question development and lead to dialogue among stakeholders that can have positive impact. We have already been accepted as a Professional Development Workshop by the History, Research Methods and Organization Development and Change Divisions, for the August, 2001 meeting of the Academy of Management meeting in Washington D.C. See Academy of Management in Association Section of this proposal. The Four Study groups have also been invited to meet and present at the International Academy of Business Discipline Meetings in Orlando Florida in April, 2001.  Nancy Landrum and I are also submitting  a proposal for a study group workshop for the IABS meeting for their March, 2001 meetings. Note, many study group members travel great distances, so funding for conference travel and fees is being sought. For example, Professor Alexis Downs is currently contacting Business For Social Responsibility http://www.bsr.org/ for possible support for our conference and research travel expenses.  These venues will allow us to flesh out details on sampling and study design issues.  Nike along with country experts, and other stakeholders are invited to these sessions. The main concern is to develop not only basic but action research experiments in alternative wage, working conditions, networking, and other systems. 

Leadership Forums - On this objective on government and monitoring -We propose to conduct leadership forums with governments  (in the nations we are studying), Nike Corporation, factory owners (and managers), workers (and their representatives), and monitors such as PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Fair Labor Association, Workers Rights  Consortium, Global Alliance and others we discover.  It is crucial to provide spaces of alliance without compromising ethical functioning, agendas or vision of the four study (sub) groups.. This is quite a challenge, but postmodern (and some modern) research is about such problematics.  We are interested in putting the results of our research into action. "This means processes, commitments and frameworks that facilitate forums that result in dialogue and in collaborative social action. Such collaboration does not infer the lack of conflict, contradiction or dissonance, neither does it assume consensus [This approach to action research] refers to strategic relationships that dismantle inequities of power, operate at multiple levels and are committed to social and environmental justice." (See 'The politics of sustainable ecology' by Angana Chatterji, 2000:108). 

One option open to us is to submit a grant application to the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for "The Business of Government." Recent work by Dara O'Rourke (2000) has suggested ways that PWC can improve its inspections of labor practices in thousands of factories it inspects around the world.  

O'Rourke, Dara (2000). Monitoring the Monitors: A Critique of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Labor Monitoring.  Unpublished paper September 28th, 2000, MIT. To download entire report using ADOBE see http://web.mit.edu/dorourke/www/PDF/pwc.pdf  

PWC endowment fund has a call for research and leadership forum grant applications that for "Leveraging the Private Sector. This area focuses on innovative ways in which the public sector can leverage private sector assets, expertise, and incentives to achieve public sector missions. Examples of leveraging the private sector include contracting out, outsourcing, privatization, and public-private-non-profit partnerships."  Since PWC is the leading monitor for governments and universities who purchase apparel made by workers in outsourced and subcontract factories, they may entertain a proposal. Awards of $20,000 are for either research or conducting forum events. Deadline is June 29, 2001. http://endowment.pwcglobal.com/ The theme of the Annual Academy of Management meetings in Washington D.C. in august, 20001 is also on the theme of "how governments matter?" (see call below). 

There are other funding sources and other venues for promoting dialogue and action research implementation of our research efforts.

STUDY GROUP MEETINGS PLANNED FULL PDW PROPOSAL (Click here)