Nike's Most Recent CSR Faux Pas Hauwa Gwarzo 5 November 2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nike’s most recent CSR faux pas Hauwa Gwarzo 5 November 2015 One of the most recent criticisms attracted by Nike Inc. is for the endorsement of American sprinter Justin Gatlin in March 2015 despite having failed drugs test twice. The fact that Justin Gatlin was banned twice for using performance enhancement drugs means that, Gatlin is not particularly the right ambassador for Nike or the best role model for children aspiring to become future athletes and the general public is against use of drugs therefore in order to promote the right corporate image, businesses are better off not associating themselves with athletes like Gatlin who have failed drugs. Therefore the fact that, Nike Inc. endorsed Gatlin after failing drugs test twice means that, they have failed to relate themselves to the expectations of the general public or community. Several multinational corporations like Nike use sports promotion as a marketing strategy to advertise their products and services, whereby sponsoring talented sports personalities is a very good way of reaching to their target market. Nike has particularly excelled in using this strategy to promote their products by sponsoring top athletes like Michael Jordan (Basket Ball), Carl Lewis (Athletics), Sebastian Coe (Athletics) and footballers like Ronaldinho, Cristiano Ronaldo, Mario Gotze, Wayne Rooney, Neymar, etc. Each of these sports personalities were carefully chosen because of their ability to excel without the use of performance enhancement drugs that could damage the Nike brand image that has been built over several years. However according to Slater (2015) Nike’s decision to endorse divisive sports figure like Justin Gatlin from expert’s point of view will without doubt be controversial for the company. This is mainly due to the fact that Gatlin has served two doping bans with the most recent one lasting for four years, 2006 - 2010 (Slater, et al. 2015). Many sports personalities like Jason Gardener and Marlon Devonish responded to the announcement of Gatlin’s sponsorship deal by regarding the deal as “a kick in the teeth to the 99% of the clean athletes” competing (Slater, et al. 2015). Many experts have been trying to understand the reason behind Nike’s decision to give Gatlin another sponsorship contract given the fact that, Gatlin was dropped by Nike prior to the second ban which lasted for four years from 2006 – 2010 (Aarons, 2015). 1 The fact that, Nike terminated the contract when Gatlin was found to have tested positive for performance enhancement substance clearly means that, Nike did not want to damage the Nike brand image and acted to protect their public image. Nike has clearly done so with other athletes like Oscar Pistorius in the wake of premeditated murder charges which was clearly the right decision to take at such times. It is understandable that, Gatlin’s recent performance demonstrates great challenge, however given the reaction to the news of the announcement of Gatlin’s new association with Nike means that, Nike is taking a major risk to disregard the public opinion since the public is against use of drugs to enhance the performance of sports personalities. From a personal point of view, most of the anger towards Gatlin arises from the fact that, unlike most sports personalities who have failed drug test before, Gatlin has refused to apologise for taking these drugs. Most athletes often apologised for their behaviour after finishing their ban, which helped them in gaining some sympathy. The fact that, Gatlin has blamed everyone else for taking the substances has angered the public and has often forced most people to regard Gatlin as someone with very low moral compass. In such situations it is very hard to impress the public with the recent forms of performance Gatlin has exhibited. This is arguably the key reason BBC regarded the recent meeting between Usain Bolt and Justin Gatlin at the World Championship at the Beijing National Stadium, China on 23/8/2015 as “Good vs. Evil” (Fordyce, 2015). This assertion was based on the notion that, Bolt winning the 100m would save the sports from twice drug cheat, Gatlin winning, hence Nike associating itself with Gatlin is clearly a risk, that is not worth taking. In another development, Aarons (et al.2015) British former marathon runner and Women’s Marathon World record holder Paula Radcliffe criticised the decision to give Gatlin a new sponsorship deal, arguing that the decision does not reflect the core values of Nike which Paula and many other athletes represent. Radcliffe regarded Nike’s association with Gatlin as a risk to its brand image given the fact that, Gatlin has recently become a very controversial figure in sports as demonstrated by the criticism received by IAAF for nominating Gatlin to be shortlisted for the 2014 athlete of the year which resulted in German discus thrower Robert Harting withdrawing his nomination suggesting Gatlin’s nomination to be an insult to athletes and funs. Most of the public anger towards Nike is based on the fact that, Nike appeals to younger generations, thus sponsoring twice drug cheat like Justin Gatlin will send the wrong message to assume that, using performance substance in sports tolerable to aspiring young athletes. 2 Conclusion Nike Inc. has clearly failed to practice the right code of conduct in the case of endorsing Gatlin, since endorsing an athlete who is perceived to be a drug cheat means that, Nike is tolerant to the use of performance drugs in sports, when every sports is trying to promote clean competition. Associating with Gatlin also implies that Nike Inc. does not condemn the use of performance enhancement drugs which is against public expectation and all ethical codes. Gatlin is clearly not the right ambassador for Nike Inc. since Nike customers expected Nike to promote clean sports. References Aarons, E. (2015). “Paula Radcliffe Criticises Nike for Giving Justin Gatlin New Sponsorship Deal”. The Guardian. Retrieved 23/9/2015 from: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/25/justin-gatlin-paula-radcliffe-nike-deal- criticise Fordyce, T. (2015). “Usain Bolt Delivers his Greatest Miracle in Beating Justin Gatlin”. BBC Sports Athletics. Retrieved 23/9/2015 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/34033556 Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring Corporate Strategy. 8th Edition. Harlow, England. London: Prentice Hall. Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do? Penguin Slater, M. (2015). “Nike Gives Controversial Sprinter, Justin Gatlin Sponsorship Deal”. BBC Sports Athletics. Retrieved 23/9/2015 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/32051389 Wheelen, L. and Hunger, D.J. (2008). Strategic Management and Business Policy. 11th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 3 .