© Copyright 2026 The Hearst Corporation All Rights Reserved.
A code of conduct pledged by Nike, Reebok and others is only a first step toward
EXAMINER EDITORIAL WRITER
April 17, 1997WITH STRONG caveats, we endorse the creation of a code of conduct to fight sweatshop practices around the world. It is a good first step if the participating shoe and apparel manufacturers are serious about making it work.
Agreement was announced Monday by several companies, including Nike, Reebok, Liz Claiborne, Patagonia and L.L. Bean, along with human rights and labor groups that joined together as members of a presidential task force. Some critics, however, said the code would only lead to "kindler, gentler sweatshops."
Required under the new code are the elimination of child labor, a guarantee of pay at the minimum wage prevailing in the country of manufacture, a maximum 60-hour week, the end of abusive working conditions and protection of workers' right to organize. Unsettled are details of inspections and sanctions, which are critical to success of the code.
In exchange, companies that comply will be able to emblazon merchandise with a "No Sweat" label, a signal to buyers that sweatshop labor was not used in its manufacture.
The responsibility of American manufacturers toward workers in their foreign plants, in Indonesia, Vietnam, Haiti and other countries, has been a controversial issue. Now, at least, the companies are publicly pledged to uphold minimum standards and to fight abusive conditions.
"This is a breakthrough agreement that really stands to benefit workers around the world," said Michael Posner, a task force member and executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Human Rights.
To prevent the code of conduct from becoming merely a public relations device, a coverup for continued sweatshop activity, we believe two additional steps are necessary.
First, manufacturers must agree to factory inspections carried out by truly independent groups, not just auditors hired by the companies. Inclusion of internationally respected groups such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would clinch the effort's credibility.
Second, violations must be announced publicly and quickly. This carries two beneficial effects: Consumers will be reassured that the inspections aren't a sham, and companies will be prodded to correct deficiencies without delay. Companies that don't must be stripped of their "No Sweat" logos.
The code will not solve all the world's problems. Nor should it be expected to do so. No realistic, economically sophisticated person should expect Nike or Reebok to pay workers far above their country's prevailing wage, no matter how "just" that may seem to U.S. critics.
What's more important is halting abuses such as those reported by USA Today earlier this year in plants run by Nike subcontractors in Vietnam. One factory floor manager was convicted of beating Vietnamese workers with a shoe. Another Nike subcontractor was cited for making 56 Vietnamese women employees run laps as punishment until some dropped from exhaustion and had to be taken to a hospital.
Such revelations are not good news for Nike or any other manufacturer that basks in an all-American image. Self-interest, if not humanitarian zeal, ought to be an impetus to just do the right thing.
American companies that manufacture abroad are sometimes portrayed as economic pirates. Left unsaid is that they benefit hundreds of thousands of foreign workers, who, after all, are not coerced to work for Nike or Reebok but line up for the chance. They know that a job that pays even a few dollars a day is better than no job.
Nothing should absolve American companies of their wider social responsibilities. The code is a beginning. The debate will continue.
As long as it's sincere, this joint effort by companies and human rights groups can accomplish more than rhetorical campaigns to improve the lot of international workers. But the "No Sweat" labels must mean a real commitment and not a public relations gimmick. Over time, cheaters never win.
Nike in the News