If you order your cheap essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Nike Ethics Code. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Nike Ethics Code paper right on time.
Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Nike Ethics Code, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Nike Ethics Code paper at affordable prices with essay writing service!
The chronology of Nike's history begins back in 157 when Bill Bowerman, the coach, and Philip Knight, the athlete, met at the University of Oregon. The premise behind Nike's formation began in 16 after Philip Knight, wrote a market research paper about the breaking down of the German domination of the U.S. athletic shoe industry with affordable, high tech exports from Japan. During a trip to Japan, Knight met with the Onitsuka Tiger Company, who was the leading manufacturer and exporter of high tech running shoes. Knight placed an order for 00 pairs of shoes from the Tiger company, which he decided he would sell in the U.S. When Knight was asked which company represents, Knight responded with a fictitious company named "Blue Ribbon Sports". This ficticious company would 10 years later give birth to the athletics powerhouse - Nike. Nike Corporation has a long and extensive background. Presented below are some key highlights in the company's illustrious history· 167 Bowerman initiates the development of the Marathon, the first running shoe made with a lightweight, durable, nylon upper.· 171 Blue Ribbon Sports begins subcontracting its line of shoes. The Swoosh symbol is designed by student Carolyn Davidson for a fee of $5.
Cheap University Papers on Nike Ethics Code
· 17 BRS launches the NIKE brand at the US Olympic Trials. Canada becomes BRS's first foreign market· 174 The "Waffle" design becomes the best outsole in America's athletic training shoe market· 178 Nike signs it's first "celebrity" endorser John McEnroe The company is officially called Nike Inc.· 180 Nike files an initial public offering for million common stock. Employees number 700 and revenues top $6 million.· 18 The apparel line grows to nearly 00 styles and a value of $70 million. · 185 Chicago Bulls rookie Michael Jordan endorses a line of Air Jordan basketball shoes and apparel.· 186 Revenues surpass the billion dollar mark, reaching $1,07 billion.· 18 The "Just Do It" campaign enters its second year and the company's net income is reaching a record high.· 10 With the aid of the international market, Nike passes the $ billion revenue mark. Nike opens the its World Campus in Beaverton, Oregon and it opens its first NikeTown.· 11 Becomes the world's first sports company to surpass $ billion in total revenues and international revenues increase 80 percent, topping $860 million.· 15 The company breaks industry records, reporting $4.8 billion in revenues· 16 Nike's high performance apparel leads yet another banner year, accounting for nearly 1 percent of Nike's $6.5 billion in revenues· 17 China becomes both a source country and a vital market for Nike. Industry analysts predict Nike revenues will reach more than $ billion. Nikes overall driving force "Helping athletes perform" II. BackgroundOne Bowerman Dr. Beaverton, OR 7005 Phone 50-671-645 Fax 50-671-600 NIKE is the worlds #1 shoe company. It is a global marketer and designer of leading edge athletic footwear and apparel worldwide. The company controls more than 40% of the US athletic shoe market. The company designs and sells shoes for just about every sport, including baseball, volleyball, cheerleading, and wrestling. Wholly owned Nike subsidiaries include Bauer NIKE Hockey Inc., the world's leading manufacturer of hockey equipment; Cole Hann, which markets a line of high quality men's and women's dress and casual shoes; an NIKE Team Sports, Inc., which markets a full line of licensed apparel. In addition, it operates NIKETOWN shoe and sportswear stores and is opening JORDAN in-store outlets in urban markets. NIKE sells its products to about 1,000 US accounts, in about 140 other countries, as well as on-line via nike.com. Headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon, the company led by CEO Philip Knight directly employs more than ,000 people worldwide, including 5,00 employees based in Oregon. III. Financial InformationFor the first quarter of 001, Nike reported revenues of $,170.1 billion and total assets of $5,856. billion (www. CNBC.com 4/0/01). As of 4/0/01, Nike's stock price closed at $.74. The company has a market capitalization of 10,716 million. Presented below is Nike's one-year stock chartNIKEfff IV. Factories Since Nike is purely a design and marketing multinational conglomerate, it is not involved in the manufacturing of its products. Instead Nike outsources the majority of its production to overseas supply chain contract factories. In total Nike has 704 contract factories. Contract factories are located in 50 countries around the world, with a heavy concentration in Central and South America (1) Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Asia Pacific (11) Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand. Of the 700 factories, approximately 40 factories in 8 countries, make Nike shoes, while the other plants are involved in apparel and equipment manufacture. Footwear sales generates the largest share of the company's annual revenues. The opposite holds true in the apparel sector. Apparel makes up only one-third of the corporation's business, and yet more than 600 factories are required to produce its apparel needs. This is because under current US legislation import quotas are imposed for most of the established production countries. If, for example, Nike sources knitwear from Mauritius and local manufacturers reach their quota, manufacturing shifts to Cambodia; once Cambodia reaches its quota the company moves on to Thailand and so on. This quota system is set to end by the year 005 under the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. This is a date that Nike is anxiously awaiting attests Amanda Tucker, Nike's senior manager for corporate social responsibility (Phone interview4/1/01). Senior management is also waiting for this date, as Nike will then move towards contracting with a decreasing number of large suppliers.Tucker claims that Nike is facing its' biggest set of criticisms from the "anti-Nike groups" is in the apparel industry. This is because apparel manufactures will not grant exclusivity to just one brand because of changing fashion trends. Instead they want to manufacturer many brand names in the same factory (Ex Gap, Liz Claiborne etc) and this is where the problems arise. In factories where Nike has full exclusivity they have a much stronger presence and they can enforce their labor practice compliance than in the apparel factories where the company has less power to initiate change because of the limited presence. V. Issues Since Nike's formation in the early 170's the company has constantly been the focus of attention by anti-globalization forces. These groups have continuously targeted Nike as the company that is responsible for the extraction of global resources. The early 10's saw Nike growing at exponential rates to a multi-billion dollar company. As a result, Nike gained higher visibility in the world via multi million dollar celebrity endorsements. Due to the fact that Nike outsources the majority of its production in both apparel and athletic shoes to overseas countries, the company as recently between 16 and 17 has come under intense fire for their alleged uses of contract factory sweatshops. In October of 16, a CBS news reporter for the investigative news show 48 Hours, reported a story of Nike's labor practices in Vietnam. The reporter allegedly spoke with young women who worked in a factory that manufactured Nike athletic shoes. The young women reported tales of physical abuse, illegally low wages and long working hours. Further a Business Week article entitled "Pangs of Conscience over Sweatshops" July , 16 (Appendix 1) reported criticisms of The Nikomas Gemilang factory in Serang, Indonesia. This article brought to light the following workplace violations that were rampant throughout the factory· Overtime was mandatory· Exhausted workers were fainting from overwork· Punishment for misdeeds consisted of petty humiliation Ex A supervisor who skipped work to care for his sick wife and child was forced to clean toilets and then was demoted· One worker was forced to run laps around the factory because the shoes she assembled had defectsOne quote from the article summarized the overall thoughts of the workers"From the outside, Nikomas looks like heaven, but for workers on the inside, it''s hell" In addition, Price Waterhouse Coopers, the monitoring firm who is responsible for visiting all of Nike's contract factories and making sure the factories are in compliance with Nike's Code of Conduct, released a report in 17 and found the following violations in a plant in China· Health and Safety Air quality standards and ventilation· Blocked fire escapes· The improper use, as well as non existence, of protective equipment· Overtime pay not being properly calculated or even awarded· Excessive overtime Amanda Tucker, the senior manager of corporate responsibility for Nike, cited the example of a plant in Vietnam. She said that in 17 a monitoring team went into the factory and saw improper treatments by the supervisors to the workers. She also mentioned that many times the problem lies with the supervisor and their inadequate training. More specifically she was referring to the use 'expatriate management'. The company now insists on cross-cultural training for supervisors. VI. An up-close and in-depth look at a contract factory Kugdong International Mexico Atilxco, Pueblo Mexico This factory produces sweatshirts and pants for both Nike and Reebok. The plant has been producing garments for Nike since March 000 and has manufactured over one million pieces. This factory employs over 600 people, of which 85% are women. Workers are from the local area, but management and several supervisors are Korean. The typical age of the single female worker ranges from 16-. On average, these women possess a middle school education.The complaints against Kukdong allege that managers and supervisors of the Kukdong enterprise (1) Unlawfully employed childrenAuditor FindingsMexican law allows the employment of juvenile workers between the age of 14-15 as long as they have parental permission. The only way for minors to slip through the cracks, was by presenting false birth certificates to management. Interviews with workers revealed some workers who were 1 years of age.() Physically assaulted and verbally abused workersAuditor FindingsPhysical Abuse Ongoing incidents, mainly by supervisors in the cutting and sewing rooms. Ex "Slaps the female workers and pulls their hair"Sexual Abuse Security personnel made suggestive comments to female workers. Incidents were reported to management, but no action was taken. Ex Supervisors in the quality inspection line were found to "touch all the girls in a suggestive manner"Psychological Harassment Did exist. Ex Yelling at workers and using fowl language. Employees claimed that management "pulled worker's ears and hit them over the head with a screwdriver". In addition, workers were threatened with longer hours on Saturday, if they did not work faster() Unfair disciplinary practicesAuditor FindingsA worker reported that he/she was fired for returning late to his work station after using the toilet. Another worker reported that he was fired for using the washroom more than three times in one workday.(4) Health and SafetyAuditor FindingsEvidence showed that there were no fire extinguishers in the weaving section of the plant. Washrooms were not sanitized. Workers in the cutting sections did not have access to Personal Protective Equipment (Eye protection, mesh gloves etc)(5) Compensation and Work HoursAuditor FindingsThe regulation wage in Mexico was $4.8 US or 46.0 pesos. Some workers reported only earning $.6 US a day. Also, it was found that one-third of all the sewers were paid below the legal wage. One worker reported that he needed to get 8 different signatures before he could be granted a day off. A major problem was the fact that workers did not understand the method used to calculate their pay.VII. Stakeholders and their stakesThe internal stakeholder of Nike management plays a key role in the long-term outcome of the company's growth. The jobs and the livelihood of the managers are at stake. The management is expected to keep Nike as an industry leader and to grow sales. However, they will also be expected to control the issue of sweatshops. Management's effectiveness will be measured not only by their impact on Nike's sales, but also by how well they are able to handle the sweatshop issue. If management is unable to establish proper auditing procedures and to implement fair labor practices, the pressure from the media and special interest groups will continue. The Board of Nike will not wish to take the risk that consumers may, or may not, remain loyal to a company that is reported to condone such poor treatment of its employees. The challenge for Nike management is to identify the correct actions that must be taken and to implement them successfully, in order to ensure that Nike's profits and good reputation are sustained.The Nike employees of the LDC contract factories are internal stakeholders, and their stake is that they have the right to protect their personal well-being and to make a fair living under normal working conditions. The challenge for these workers is to take advantage of the audits and media attention in order to force change for their own well-being. The threat to these workers is that efforts to create this change could result in negative repercussions, such as the loss of their jobs. Another potential threat is that this change, could be too rapid, and result in the closing of entire factories if Nike imposes regulations that are too stringent.The Nike employees of the less developed nations also have a stake in the well- being of the company which provides their income. Therefore, the challenge for these employees is to assist in the corporate culture change, by supporting the improvement in working conditions for employees in the contract plants. The threat for these workers is their jobs would be in jeopardy if the company were to shift more work to LDCs in order to offset the increasing costs of doing business overseas.Since clothing styles and brand popularity change so quickly, the consumer will play a key role in determining if the Nike Swoosh remains popular in the future. The consumer's stake is that they will use their own judgement in order to decide whether or not to buy Nike products based on the media's assessment of Nike's progress in the monitoring efforts of its factories. The challenge for the consumer is that they will be required to educate themselves regarding this issue and to make an informed decision of whether or not to buy products from Nike. The receipt of good information, in order to make the decision will be difficult. After all, both Nike and the media will actively try to sway the public to believe their claims. The ultimate decision the consumer will finally make is a potential threat to the management and owners of Nike, the contract factories and the 500,000 workers that make Nike products. The activist groups and critics of Nike are external stakeholders that have been key in initiating change in the apparel industry thus far. At stake for these individuals and groups is the goal of fair treatment for workers throughout the world. Their challenge is to find a way to maintain an effective level of pressure and to continue to make Nike accountable for their actions. The threat for these activists is that the attention of the public is short. The public is quick to become desensitized to an issue when it has been reported over a long period of time. This means that the critic and activist groups could loose their political steam before their objectives are met.The management and owners of Nike contract factories in LDCs are also stakeholders whose jobs and profits are potentially at stake. The challenge for the managers and owners of these companies is to institute the changes that are being imposed by Nike to bring their facilities up to respectable levels. This would ensure good relations with Nike, since this would hopefully eliminate their likeliness of being the main focus of negative reports. The threat for the managers and owners of the contract companies is that if the change does not occur eventually, Nike may be forced to stop using them as a supplier. This would be devastating for many of these contract companies who have often made a previous agreement with Nike not to produce any products that are in direct competition with Nike in their offerings. The governments of the LDCs are also an external stakeholder. Their stake is the relationship that they have with the industry that operates within their boarders and the responsibility that they have to ensure a decent quality of life for all of their population. The challenge for these governments is to begin to take steps forward by setting enforced standards for health and safety that will improve the quality of life for their own population. The risk in doing this is that enforcing these regulations may be costly. Therefore, Nike may decide to negotiate their supplier contracts in countries where the cost of operating is not as high.VIII. Era of time and its effectIn order to effectively analyze this scenario, one must understand the history of owner-employee relations in western countries and the massive amount of media attention given to the issue of sweatshops over the past five years. At the start of the industrial revolution there were no laws and regulations regarding workers safety, hours of work and discrimination in the work place with respect to age, sex or color. As a result, poor treatment and lack of concern for the safety of employees was common. In the early 100's, workers began to organize and demand better working conditions and a higher pay. Although initially resisted by the owners, workers did eventually gain ground and improve workplace practices. Also, this better work environment was re-inforced due to the legislation passed by governments in the industrialized nations. However, regulations on worker safety and increased wages, due in part to unions, began to erode the profits of industry owners. By the 160's the amount of legislation and the general awareness of workers made it very difficult for industry to get away with widespread abuse. At the same time companies had already begun to look abroad for cheaper labor and less stringent environmental and worker safety requirements. As companies began to establish themselves in Less Developed Nations (LDN) they began to create working conditions reminiscent of the late 1800's in the western world. This practices went relatively unchallenged for decades until mid -1 when the Harper's Magazine wrote an article comparing the wage of a Nike factory worker with the amount of money made by Michael Jordan for advertisements of Nike products. The Harper's article was the catalyst that triggered other mainstream media stories that focused on the working conditions of factories that make clothing in LDCs. The articles got the public's attention since the sweatshops being reported were often compared with working conditions in the early days of the industrial revolution. The ultimate outcome was an increasing amount of pressure on companies like Nike to improve situations at their own facilities and the facilities of their suppliers. If they failed to do so, Nike was fated to run the risk of public criticism and a possible loss of sales. Nike shareholders enjoyed explosive growth from $750 million in 187 to $4 Billion US in 1 and a reported $ Billion US in 000. The stake for the investors is to maintain the sizeable return on their investment. The challenge for the Nike shareholder is to find a way to maximize profits while still having company policies that treat workers fairly. This means having a balance between profitability and the working conditions in the factories located in LDCs. The main threat the shareholders face is a damaged reputation that comes with having the public image of running or condoning sweatshops. If their reputation continues to worsen, the turn in public opinion would lead to a loss of sales. The shareholders of Nike must force their managers to find a balance between profitability and corporate social responsibility quickly so that Nike can distance themselves from the issue of sweatshops. This is key because image is everything when it comes to sales of sports apparel.IX. Environmental ForcesThe main economic force in this case is the push by Nike to maximize profit. Competition and high labor costs in developed countries has led them to do business in over 50 countries around the world. This wide spread of manufacturing throughout the world actually benefits Nike, as it makes them less vulnerable to the environmental or economic policies of any specific country. For example, if one country were to increase the minimum wage by a factor of 10, Nike could easily shift production to a similar facility in another country. A second economic force at work in this case is the natural evolution of the economy from being labor intensive and very low tech, to becoming a high tech economy. For example, consider the United States which began to industrialize in the late 1800's. Initially the economy was agriculture based and slowly evolved into a labor intensive and low-tech economy. Yet, over time the US economy has slowly shifted towards higher skill jobs, due to the education of people and the skills and talents they can offer a company. As the level of education for the average person increased, so did the wage expectation. This phenomenon is known as affluence and education factors in the social environment. Ultimately low tech/labor intensive industries like the apparel industry will begin to seek cheaper labor markets. This evolution of an economy suggests that Nikes is currently operating sweatshops in countries where the economy will eventually evolve to higher tech economies. In response to this, companies like Nike will repeat what was done in the US in the 160's as they will continually seek and move towards low-tech countries were labor is cheap. The distinction that should be made from this is that although these companies are benefiting from low labor rates there is a clear line between benefit and exploitation. Taking advantage of low labor rates is not unethical, but the refusal of basic human rights and the refusal to institute basic safety guidelines for workers is not only unethical, but immoral. Manufacturing methods are one of the technological forces that play an important role in this case. Critics of Nike claim that despite adequate technology available to keep workers safe and make their jobs easier, there is little consideration for worker safety in plants The key factor to consider is that as requirements for safety and ergonomics increase, the cost to produce the product also increases. As long as there are LDCs with weak or no regulations for safety and ergonomics, it will be difficult for any one country to begin the process of putting tough requirements into place. The reason again is that Nike will simply shift operations from one LDC to another due to their broad distribution throughout the globe. A second factor to consider with respect to additional technology is that if Nike were to use technology to automate some of its processes, it would be able to reduce the number of jobs required to make the products. This would be seen as undesirable for the LDC who would prefer to see as many of its citizens as possible employed. Therefore, technology and its forces are less likely to be welcomed by LDCs.There are three main political forces at work in this case. The first is the political environment of the LDC. When companies like Nike move into a new country they are subject to the employment and environmental laws of that country. Therefore, the government of these countries has a responsibility to the citizens to establish fair and humane requirements for the working environment. At the same time the government must be careful to uphold good relations with the companies investing in the country. A balance must be established between benefiting the population and the potential for profit of the investing company. Therefore, the political policies of LDCs must allow for the natural evolution of the economy, which essentially is the establishment of a middle class, who will eventually become engineers and nurses instead of sewing machine operators. The second political force is exerted by special interest groups. These activists are trying to gain public awareness and to apply pressure on companies who operate or contract work to sweatshops. Various groups, such as Student Against Sweat Shops, have nothing to gain personally by their efforts. However, they feel morally compelled to act on behalf of the people who work in these factories and do not themselves have the power to make changes. The third political force is the government of the home nation where the company originated, which in Nike's case is the US government. The US government is affected because they, as well as all other western nations, preach the necessity for human rights and the protection of the environment. It is ironic because at the same time western companies operating abroad are ignoring basic human rites and taking advantage of weak laws in order to use dangerous work practices and materials. Because of this, western countries are criticized for being contradictory since their firms are benefiting from the very actions which their western governments condemn. In response, the western governments place a great deal of political pressure on the accused firms to improve their operations overseas, by establishing basic humane conditions in the factories. An example of this is the American Industry Partnership (AIP), which was organized by former president Bill Clinton. The aim of the AIP is to get commitment from large corporations to establishe codes of conduct for factories and facilities in LDCs.Public policy and its implications Several questions must be raised in an attempt to understand the public policy implications of this case, which revolve around the public's reaction and opinion to the flood of information provided by the media, Nike and the activists groups. The first question with respect to public policy is does the public care about the issue of sweatshops? The initial reaction to the press releases about Nike suggest that they do. However, over time Nike has been able to restore all of their previously lost market share. This suggests one of two things. Either the public's concern is short lived or the public believes that Nike is working on making changes to eliminate poor working conditions. The second question with respect to public policy is "who does the public ultimately believe?" On the topic of sweatshops there is so much information provided from all sides that the public never genuinely knows what to believe. The third question is "even if the public believes that sweatshops must be stopped, are they willing to pay the price for this noble quest?" Today the cost of labor represents about 1% of the total cost of goods sold when made in LDCs. And the cost to abide by pollution and safety standards are minimal due to the lack of requirements. However, the cost to make goods would increase if sweatshops were reformed. This would ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumer.At this time there has not been a long-term change in public policy regarding sweatshops. In the end public policy will only change if the media and special interest group are able to magnify the pressure against firms who currently use or at one time did use sweatshops. X. Nike's Global Responsibilities As Nike ventures into the twenty first century striving to achieve the conceptualization of a responsible global company, in the sense that they provide a sustainable footprint in not only environmental performance, but also in people performance, they are met with many complex and delicate ethical issues. This complexity arises as result of the fact that there is a wide variety of value systems, stakeholders, cultures, forms of government, socio-economic conditions, and standards of ethical behavior that exist throughout Nike's manufacturing plants. Nike, similar to other Northern-based apparel and footwear brands, is a virtual company, since the vast majority of its supply chain is owned by other firms. Nike products are currently produced in more than 700 factories employing in excess of 550,000 people in over 50 countries. Since the United States has played such a major leadership role espousing fairness and human rights, US firms such as Nike have a heavy burden of social responsibility towards underdeveloped countries and LDCs.Nike attempts to balance ethical imperialism and cultural relativism An immense challenge for Nike, when operating in foreign countries, has been attempting to achieve a balance when trying to respect both the cultural and moral standards of their home and host countries. As Nike continues to espouse higher standards for their foreign suppliers, that cover such issues as wages, safety and worker's rights, they have been accused of attempting to unilaterally impose their standards and practices on the host country, thus acting under the philosophy of ethical imperialism. Yet, Nike has shown that they have also acted in the spirit of cultural relativism by respecting the cultural norms of their host countries. This is exemplified in 15 when Nike decided to make soccer balls in Pakistan. Using a production process that was decades old, leather panels cut by a factory were collected by middlemen, who provided the panels to dozens of subcontractors in the surrounding villages. Subcontractors delivered the pre-punched leather panels to stitchers, usually working in homes of mud or abode, the typical bulk of housing in one of the poorest countries of Asia. On one level, Nike recognized that the system of providing soccer ball panels for home stitching made good sense. It allowed workers with other obligations, including rearing children, running a home, and tending to crops and livestock, the opportunity to earn an income. However, the home stitching of soccer balls also elevated the potential for exploitation. Nike recognized that the simple homes of poor people did not offer a good work environment.Nike and its sole soccer ball supplier, Saga Sports, began to devise a plan for converting home work into a more controlled work environment. Under the philosophy of ethical imperialism, Nike may have opted for the easiest solution build a factory in the city, bus skilled stitchers to it, and eliminate home work altogether. Nevertheless, Nike was concerned that such a system would tear apart the delicate fabric that binds the families of stitchers together. After all, the little stitching villages were hours from the center of the main city. This would necessitate hours of daily commute time across a road system where accidents were common. Therefore, in the spirit of cultural relativism, Nike began to construct a series of stitching centers to ring the Sialkot district. In effect, this proposed bringing stitchers out of their homes, but not out of the village. Nike's respect for Sialkot's core cultural value of family resulted in them paying higher prices for their soccer balls.Nike and its efforts to achieve Laczniak and Naor's Four Recommended Actions for Improving Global Business Ethicsq Global code of conductq Ethical and impact statementsq Suspension of activitiesq Ethics and global strategyNike's Code of Conduct Multinational corporations have been severely criticized for operating with divergent ethical standards in different countries, thus making it appear as though they are attempting to exploit local circumstances. Undoubtedly, in such a scenario, the course of action that manifests ethical leadership would require the firm to adhere to the higher rather than lower set of standards. In numerous countries, Nike has found that local factory standards are not high enough. Therefore, in light this fact, Nike established a Code of Conduct. This code sets out minimum global standards that Nike contract factories would have to achieve, sometimes superseding local regulations, in order to maintain their business. Nike's Code of Conduct defines contractor's obligations not only to the Nike corporation, but also to the worker's themselves. The code provides a set of standards against which Nike measures their contractor's compliance to ethical work practices. The code is translated into the language of the worker and the manager, and is prominently
Please note that this sample paper on Nike Ethics Code is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Nike Ethics Code, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom research papers on Nike Ethics Code will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment from essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
