![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
corporate responsibility
Jan. 27th, 2007 01:59 pmAny of you who share this green and pleasant land with me will be aware that the vast majority of low level harassment and anti-social behaviour is committed by youths who are wearing one or more items of Nike clothing. I know it sounds like an absurd generalisation, but you all know it's true.
Back when I was at school, sports fashion was important. If your footwear wasn't expensive, you'd have years of misery ahead of you. The favourites back then were Nike Air, costing about £70, which is about £110 in today's terms. But there was an equal amount of respect assigned to you if you had the similarly-priced Reebok Pumps, or indeed British Knights. I managed to avert weekly playground beatings by having a pair of Pony Combats (the name of which is certainly amusing when taken out of context), though their red and black colour rather than the typical white and blue foreshadowed my clothing choices of the future.
These days, at least around here, even the venerable Reebok seems to be unacceptable. The yobs and those who aspire to be them are regularly clad head to toe in 'Nike Air' branded gear, despite the concept of air cushions built into tracksuits being somewhat ludicrous. (Though I can quite imagine air cushions built into their baseball caps, as it might explain why they hover an inch above their heads.) It effectively seems to be gang uniform. Is there no chance of being 'in' with them if you don't have the right brands? Does this slavish adherence to such brands increase their dislike of other subcultures? Does it encourage conformity? Strengthen the effects of peer pressure?
What I want to know is, should Nike be held responsible for all that?
Intuitively, you think 'no', because they just make clothing, not mug old ladies or steal cars. But there is some sort of precedent here. Alcohol companies have various voluntary and mandatory codes governing their advertising that means they're not permitted to portray alcohol consumption as making you more sexually attractive or popular - it is assumed they have a responsibility to their customers and to society in general. Chewing gum companies have only managed to avoid being taxed for their contribution to litter by pledging millions to cleaning it up, despite the burden of proper disposal obviously ultimately coming down to the consumer. And so on. Companies are considered to be responsible for how their product is used and how they promote it.
So, given that Nike makes money by having their brand as something considered essential for youths to fit in, and that such mentality seems to be negative, should they be held accountable?
Back when I was at school, sports fashion was important. If your footwear wasn't expensive, you'd have years of misery ahead of you. The favourites back then were Nike Air, costing about £70, which is about £110 in today's terms. But there was an equal amount of respect assigned to you if you had the similarly-priced Reebok Pumps, or indeed British Knights. I managed to avert weekly playground beatings by having a pair of Pony Combats (the name of which is certainly amusing when taken out of context), though their red and black colour rather than the typical white and blue foreshadowed my clothing choices of the future.
These days, at least around here, even the venerable Reebok seems to be unacceptable. The yobs and those who aspire to be them are regularly clad head to toe in 'Nike Air' branded gear, despite the concept of air cushions built into tracksuits being somewhat ludicrous. (Though I can quite imagine air cushions built into their baseball caps, as it might explain why they hover an inch above their heads.) It effectively seems to be gang uniform. Is there no chance of being 'in' with them if you don't have the right brands? Does this slavish adherence to such brands increase their dislike of other subcultures? Does it encourage conformity? Strengthen the effects of peer pressure?
What I want to know is, should Nike be held responsible for all that?
Intuitively, you think 'no', because they just make clothing, not mug old ladies or steal cars. But there is some sort of precedent here. Alcohol companies have various voluntary and mandatory codes governing their advertising that means they're not permitted to portray alcohol consumption as making you more sexually attractive or popular - it is assumed they have a responsibility to their customers and to society in general. Chewing gum companies have only managed to avoid being taxed for their contribution to litter by pledging millions to cleaning it up, despite the burden of proper disposal obviously ultimately coming down to the consumer. And so on. Companies are considered to be responsible for how their product is used and how they promote it.
So, given that Nike makes money by having their brand as something considered essential for youths to fit in, and that such mentality seems to be negative, should they be held accountable?
