This is an ongoing story that started last December. Couple of pretty close friends of mine were on the call that ended their jobs there at Nike. The situation has only got worse. Nike stock is way down. Heads are about to roll because of a number of blunders. Not only is Nike hurting themselves but the entire sustainability movement in apparel. This is an Oregonian story that is written pretty well on the subject. https://www.oregonlive.com/business...ng 2024-08-12&utm_term=Newsletter_whatscoming It starts like this- To get there, then-CEO Mark Parker said the Oregon company’s innovations in environmental sustainability would become a “powerful engine for growth,” a catalyst capable of changing industries. The company’s chief sustainability officer at the time, Hannah Jones, said achieving the goal would take “innovation on a scale we’ve never seen before.”
Corporations cannot focus on sustainability. They will not be competitive. Sustainability and environmental standards must be set and enforced by government. This is not a change any one company or any one person can make by themselves. The idea that we can encourage companies to behave this way is just silly. At some point they will need to make their quarter look good. And at some point that will come at a cost to the environment that even the most well-meaning corporation won't be able to claw back.
Man, I have a few close friends that have been out there forever. Every time they make these big cuts, I worry for them and their families.
It's honestly a very tough situation. You want the company to thrive but you also want that company that is thriving to make the moves to help the overall situation. When that move kills the company how can you expect them to continue to work in that manner?
In order to be sustainable these huge companies need to make changes moderately over time. They can't just make changes all at once and expect to succeed. That's a quick recipe for failure.
Well that seems obvious but probably easier said than done. In this scenario there were hundreds of people looking for ways to do it and stay productive/profitable. They were unable to do it and these were not slouches by any stretch. Nike also is probably one of the most stressful highly competitive situations there is. You screw up there you are gone.
You do too much too quick in a system that doesn't cater to such change, you are going to fail fashionably. It's like driving a semi 100 miles an hour and expecting to break in an inch. Going to be a bad outcome.
That all depends on what kind of change. More than likely any new restrictions would be phased in, IMO.
That's the second time you posted that and both times I cringed at the thought even though it's probably true the government will eventually need to implement the regulations involved. I can hear the outcry now....
I know. And I agree. But these kinds of changes cannot be made any other way. They are simply too big and too important to leave it up to any entity (individual, or corporate) with a personal agenda or motive.
The government cannot effectively carry out any policy unless it’s war or regime change. Any domestic initiatives are just bloated husks of waste that directly counteract whatever “fixes” they are pretending to implement. It’s all just more wealth extraction from the working class that disappears down the rathole of the DC Beltway never to reemerge into the economy the rest of us actually participate in. Meant to reply @Phatguysrule in this one too.
Key word being “will”, because a government program with the stellar attributes you listed hasn’t yet existed.
These companies can implement small changes gradually and be successful. I agree there does need to be regulations at the government level to force some level of change. All change doesn't have to happen at government level though. Companies can take their own initiatives. Many likely won't hence the regulations. Those who do should maybe be rewarded to further inspire companies to make some moderate and gradual changes on their own initiatives.
I disagree. Unless you have a monopoly (and the extremely high profit margins that come with it). There isn't enough markup in a competitive industry. Any public company in a competitive industry will need to cut those expenditures unless their competitors are also doing the same. As you say, most won't do it. So any company who is, is only punishing themselves. In fact the way public companies work, it's almost their responsibility not to "waste" efficiency that way.
