Once a company has incurred a bad reputation, that standing is challenging to alter.
My children are athletic and they prefer and choose various brand names for their clothing and equipment. For basketball, Jillian loves Nike®. She has a narrow foot and likes how the shoes fit, and in actuality, she prefers how Nike® clothing fits her too. For volleyball both of my children like Asics® and Mizuno® over all other brands, and because of their height and long bodies, they both like Adidas® for jackets and jerseys. This brings me to corporate social responsibility.
In 1996 it was discovered that Nike® contracted out their production of goods, and that a percentage of the people who were creating the products our children buy, were children. Nike® immediately responded to this accusation and it was evident that the information that had been pedalled was misleading. And yet 16 years later, it is still being passed off as truth. Nike® admits that in 1996 they made a mistake when they switched to a supplier in Pakistan, who was found out to be practising child labour. It was momentary and was remedied and even though they have raised the bar for themselves and other companies, their reputation had already been tarnished. And certainly tarnished in an unacceptable manner.
If you purchase, Bauer®, Hurley®, Converse®, Umbro® and others you must also know that they too are under the Nike® umbrella. If you purchase Adidas®, Puma®, Reebok® etc. are they socially responsible? All I’m asking is that you do your homework, before throwing stones or jumping on wagons.
I would love to see a “No-Logos” life for my children, but like many North American consumers, they are swayed by this lifestyle that we lead. All I can do is to continue to research and educate and maybe one day the insignia will not matter.