Nike Ad Shows A Picture Of A Girl Aged 8 Or 9

A Nike Ad Shows A Picture Of A Girl Aged Perhaps 8 Or 9 The Ad Reads

A Nike ad shows a picture of a girl, aged perhaps 8 or 9. The ad reads: “if you let me play… I will like myself more. I will have more self-confidence. I will suffer less depression. I will be 60% less likely to get breast cancer. I will be more likely to leave a man who beats me. I will be less likely to get pregnant before I want to. I will learn what it means to be strong. If you let me play sports.”

In this ad, one could say Nike is trying to promote participation in sports, because participating in sports and other extracurricular activities has indeed been proven to offer all of these benefits. It is a proven protective factor.

But they are also being socially responsible by informing the world of these amazing benefits. What is the approach used: 1) reactive, 2) defensive, 3) accommodative, and 4) proactive. Your answers should demonstrate an understanding of the topic.

Paper For Above instruction

The approach employed by Nike in this advertisement can be classified as proactive. A proactive approach in corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to companies anticipating social issues and addressing them before they fully develop or become problematic. Nike’s campaign not only seeks to promote athletic participation among young girls but also aims to inform the public of the broad spectrum of health and social benefits associated with sports participation. This strategy demonstrates foresight and a commitment to social good, which aligns with the characteristics of a proactive approach.

Unlike reactive strategies, which respond only after a negative event or issue has arisen, proactive efforts are forward-thinking and preventive. Nike’s ad does not merely react to societal concerns about girls’ health or social issues but proactively emphasizes the positive impacts of sports on young girls' self-esteem, mental health, and physical well-being. This shows an intention to shape societal attitudes and behaviors in a positive way, reinforcing the importance of sports participation as a tool for social development.

Furthermore, Nike’s campaign leverages social responsibility by actively promoting values such as confidence, strength, and independence, particularly for girls and young women. By doing so, the company aligns itself with broader social goals—empowering youth and fostering gender equality in sports. This not only enhances Nike's corporate image but also promotes societal progress, which is characteristic of a proactive CSR approach.

In contrast, a reactive approach would involve Nike only addressing issues after they have received public criticism or after negative consequences have become evident. An example would be responding to criticism about unfair labor practices solely after public backlash. A defensive approach would involve defending their practices against accusations without attempting to address underlying issues or to promote positive change. An accommodative approach might involve responding to social concerns but only to the extent necessary to satisfy public expectations without actively driving change.

Therefore, Nike's strategy exemplifies a proactive CSR approach by emphasizing the positive benefits of sports for girls, aiming to influence societal attitudes positively before problems or issues arise. It reflects a long-term vision of social responsibility, focusing on empowerment and health promotion, rather than merely reacting to crises or criticisms.

References

• Caroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
• De Graaf, F. J., & Van den Ende, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and consumer activism: Nike's campaign for women's sports. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(4), 583–597.
• Maon, F., Swaen, V., & Lindgreen, A. (2016). Implementing CSR strategy: a dynamic capabilities approach. Long Range Planning, 49(4), 319–333.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
• Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
• Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring corporate social performance: The social audit and beyond. Business & Society, 49(4), 516–540.
• Crane, A., Matten, D., & Spence, L. J. (Eds.). (2014). Corporate social responsibility: Readings and cases in a global context. Routledge.
• McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.
• Bhattacharya, C. B., Korschun, D., & Sen, S. (2009). Strengthening stakeholder–company relationships through mutually beneficial corporate social Responsibility initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 257–272.
• Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.