Nike And Other Companies Like Tesla, Lyft, Airbnb, Starbucks

Nike As Many Other Companies Like Tesla Lyft Airbnb Starbucks Alo

Nike, as many other companies like Tesla, Lyft, Airbnb, Starbucks, along with numerous tech giants have raised their voice related to political concerns. The information below offers some background and overviews of Nike’s controversial ad. After critically reflecting on the sources, post your response to the following question: Is an organization taking a political stand an ethical dilemma? If so, why? If not, why not? Draw on course vocabulary to support your thoughts. Are you aware of Nike’s controversial ad where they used a picture of Colin Kaepernick for their “Just Do It” advertisement?

To understand this case, we need a little background knowledge about this football player. Colin Kaepernick was a well-known NFL football player. In 2016 he chose to kneel on one knee rather than stand during the national anthem before a game as a sign of protest against injustice against African-Americans in the United States. At the pre-season game in 2016, Colin Kaepernick sat on his chair during the US national anthem, later, he kneeled to show his protest (Mindock, 2018, paragraph 6). He said: “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour,” (Mindock, 2018, paragraph 8).

Barack Obama was still in office at that time and stated that Colin Kaepernick has the right to protest. However, Donald Trump blamed Colin Kaepernick's behavior in his rally in September 2017 (Chambers, 2018, paragraph 21). The words from Trump made this case more influential than before (Chambers, 2018, paragraph 21). It is normal for athletes to show their dissatisfaction with politics; however, NFL officials disagreed with his behavior (Mindock, 2018, paragraph 4). Colin Kaepernick chose to leave the San Francisco 49ers and became a free agent (Chambers, 2018, paragraph 22).

For more information on this incident, please read the following articles: Mindock C. (2018). Taking a knee: Why are NFL players protesting and when did they start to kneel?, Independent News; Chambers E. (2018). Colin Kaepernick: From kneeling NFL player to face of the new Nike advert, how has he become a political force?, Evening Standard News.

Fast forward to September 5, 2018, Nike featured Colin Kaepernick as one of the faces for advertisements commemorating the 30th anniversary of its "Just Do It" slogan. Kaepernick posted a black and white Nike ad on Instagram and Twitter with the words “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything,” and Nike’s slogan “Just Do It.” On September 3, 2018. The advertisement made no direct reference to the kneeling movement. Based on social media posts, people took offense at Nike hiring this “activist.” Those opposed to Kaepernick announced their intention to boycott Nike on social media. Soon after, there were comments supporting and criticizing Nike, including videos of people burning Nike shoes.

American citizens protesting Nike believed that the company was disrespectful of the American flag and the national anthem. After a short dip due to the boycott, Nike’s stocks reached an all-time high on September 14, 2018. Nike has historically taken a stance on controversial issues and is quite explicit about its position. Gino Fisanotti, a Nike vice president of brand for North America, stated, "We believe Colin is one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation, who has leveraged the power of sport to help move the world forward." Nike later issued a statement emphasizing that the social justice issues Colin and other athletes raised deserve attention and action. They expressed that they embrace their role and responsibility to promote meaningful, positive change in communities.

As May (1993) explains, organizational lives are interconnected with broader societal and personal realms. Increasingly, the boundaries between private and public, work and leisure have blurred, making it vital that organizations recognize their influence and responsibilities. Given that Millennials and Generation Z are highly socially aware and politically active, we should consider whether organizations taking political stances represents an ethical dilemma, and how such actions align with organizational ethics and social responsibility.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether an organization taking a political stand constitutes an ethical dilemma is complex and multifaceted, rooted in the principles of ethics, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and organizational communication. This case involving Nike's advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick exemplifies the tensions organizations face when engaging in politicized actions. On one hand, organizations have a moral obligation to reflect societal values, advocate for justice, and support causes aligned with social equity. On the other hand, they risk alienating specific stakeholder groups, facing backlash, or damaging their brand reputation if their political position is viewed as controversial or divisive.

Organizations wield significant influence in shaping social narratives, and their involvement in political issues can be viewed as an extension of their ethical responsibility to contribute positively to society. Nike's decision to feature Kaepernick, who symbolizes resistance against racial injustice, aligns with the concept of corporate activism—where companies proactively participate in societal debates to promote social change. This aligns with stakeholder theory, which posits that organizations have responsibilities toward diverse stakeholder groups beyond shareholders, including consumers, employees, communities, and society at large (Freeman, 1984).

From an ethical perspective, supporting social justice issues can be seen as fulfilling corporate moral duties to uphold societal values and promote fairness. Nike’s stance resonates with virtue ethics, emphasizing moral character, authenticity, and the pursuit of justice. By publicly endorsing Kaepernick’s activism, Nike demonstrates virtue-driven behavior aimed at fostering a more equitable society. This stance is especially relevant given the increasing societal awareness among Millennials and Generation Z, who prioritize corporate social responsibility and expect brands to take clear positions on social issues (Bhattacharya & Korschun, 2008).

However, critics argue that corporate political activism may compromise organizational neutrality, provocatively politicize consumer-brand relationships, and potentially violate ethical principles related to loyalty and respect for national symbols. Opponents of Nike’s campaign believed that supporting Kaepernick disrespected the American flag and national values, thus raising questions about the limits of corporate activism in relation to patriotic or nationalistic sentiments. From this perspective, taking a political stand can be considered ethically problematic if it conflicts with the perceptions and values of certain stakeholder groups.

Furthermore, there is an ethical debate regarding the authenticity of corporate activism. Critics claim that some firms engage in "cause-washing" or opportunistic activism to improve corporate image or gain profit, rather than genuinely committing to societal change (Marwick & Lewis, 2017). Nike’s clear stance contributed to polarized reactions; some consumers appreciated the company's commitment to social justice, while others perceived it as an act of pandering or political posturing, leading to consumer boycotts and brand backlash (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). This demonstrates the ethical dilemma between authenticity and superficial engagement.

Despite these conflicting viewpoints, organizations can navigate this ethical landscape by adopting transparent, consistent, and values-driven communication strategies. Being explicit about the reasons behind political actions and acknowledging stakeholder concerns helps mitigate ethical concerns and fosters trust (Cornelissen, 2017). Nike’s public statements underscored its belief in leveraging sport for societal progress, positioning its stance within a broader ethical framework aligned with social justice. This aligns with organizational communication theories emphasizing authenticity, consistency, and stakeholder engagement (Heath & Goodman, 2014).

In conclusion, whether taking a political stand is an ethical dilemma depends largely on the motives, authenticity, and stakeholder perceptions. While it can serve as a moral act promoting societal good, it also risks alienating stakeholders and challenging organizational neutrality. Nike’s case illustrates that corporate activism, when rooted in genuine values and communicated transparently, can be a powerful tool for social change—an ethical stance that aligns with contemporary societal expectations, particularly among socially conscious Millennials and Generation Z. Ultimately, organizations must weigh the ethical implications of their political engagement, balancing social responsibility with stakeholder respect, to navigate the complex landscape of organizational ethics in today’s societal context.

References

• Bhattacharya, C. B., & Korschun, D. (2008). Stakeholder marketing: Beyond the 4Ps and the marketing concept. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 7-15.
• Cornelissen, J. (2017). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications.
• Fatma, M., & Khan, M. (2019). Corporate social activism: The influence of cause-related marketing and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 467-480.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing Inc.
• Heath, R. L., & Goodman, L. A. (2014). Media, message, and meaning: An introduction to mass communication. Routledge.
• Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). Media manipulation and disinformation online. Data & Society Research Institute.
• May, S. (1993). Organizational communication. In S. May (Ed.), Organizational Communication (2nd ed., pp. 1-25). SAGE Publications.
• Mindock, C. (2018). Taking a knee: Why are NFL players protesting and when did they start to kneel? Independent News.
• Chambers, E. (2018). Colin Kaepernick: From kneeling NFL player to face of the new Nike advert, how has he become a political force? Evening Standard News.
• 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.