3 ms·
>Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution) So Nike is the next best to child prostitution, i get it :) But you
by nix23 6y ago
>Nike provides a better job than than the next best alternative (often child prostitution)
So Nike is the next best to child prostitution, i get it :)
But you are right, the next big question is, should a company have the right to do stuff like that. Witch would be illegal in the country where they have the HQ.
Switzerland has a really interesting discussion about that ATM:
https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/konzernverantwortungsinitiative.html https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/de/home/wirtschaft/gesetzgebung/k...
EDIT: Sorry no English version available to translate use:
https://www.deepl.com/en/translator https://www.deepl.com/en/translator
- s1artibartfast 6y agoIt certainly is an interesting question. From what I gathered, the initiative calls for companies to companies to respect internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards. I don't think this means that the supply chain must comply with swiss standards an regulations. For example, paying swiss minimum wage in Vietnam would be crazy. I think there is a big disconnect when people judge the working conditions in other countries by local expectations.
- nix23 6y agoNo it's really about "internationally recognized human rights and environmental standards" witch should be the standard anyway, with that law you can make those corporations responsible for the shit they do in other country's. ATM that other country have to do it by themselves, an example is Kongo, but they don't do anything for obvious reasons.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoWhen you say “no", what part are you addressing? This post seems to say the same as what I said in my last post.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nix23 6y agoChange the "No" to "Yes you are right" :)