ÌÇÐÄvlog¹ÙÍø

In an earlier work, we offered a view on how trade should be treated within a theory of global justice. We proposed an account of exploitation to spell out the nature of the obligations that arise from trading. That account greatly benefits from a detailed development for concrete cases. The goal of this study and its close companion is to explore how our philosophical views help formulate judgments on a range of moral problems that arise from trading and to identify responsibilities of various actors and inform policy responses to instances of exploitation in trade. To that end we use a well-known episode in the recent history of activism against a multinational corporation—the protests against Nike. We use Harvard Business School Case No. 9-700-047 (the Case), written up by Debora Spar. The title is Hitting the Wall: Nike and International Labor Practices. This is a thirteen-page discussion (plus several pages of exhibits) describing Nike’s success story and subsequent plights with labor activists through the ‘90s. Even though the Case has been used for teaching purposes since 2002, it has lost none of its systematic interest. It draws on a range of contexts where judgments of exploitation continue to be made and refers to ongoing businesses practices. The case has the additional advantage that it tells the story of one company (a well-known one, making it likely many of our readers own its products), which allows us to assess a number of judgments as part of an interconnected story, rather than deal with a laundry list of scenarios. In some instances, the Case itself uses the terminology of exploitation, but in others, it does not. Our aim in discussing this Case is twofold. On the one hand, we show that the notion of exploitation can fruitfully be applied to thinking about justice in trade. On the other hand, we cast judgment on central aspects of Nike’s activity in Southeast Asia.