Discussion questions [Please address at least two questions in your comment]
#1: Based on the video and our class discussion, what would be the advantages and disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain?
#2: Assume you are an experienced U.S. shoe worker. What arguments would you present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the United States?
#3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?
[Acknowledgment: Thanks to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Higher Education Ambassador Program for providing instructional references.]
FASH455 Global Apparel & Textile Trade and Sourcing 
World wide sourcing came about because we all want something at accesible pricing, remember when we salted meats, fishes, etc?
#1 There are advantages and disadvantages for Nike making Converse utilize the global supply chain to produce its products. The advantages are that it is cheaper to pursue manufacturing in countries like Vietnam because the costs are much lower. This makes the shoes cheaper for Nike to produce in multiple countries. It is also less expensive for consumers to purchase. However, there are many disadvantages. Even though it is cheaper to manufacture in other countries, there are still tariffs needed to be paid to import the product. There are also less pollution rules in Vietnam, contributing to climate change. 25% of gas emissions come from transport, adding onto the existing environmental consequences. On top of that, Vietnam pays factory workers less money, which could lead to bad working conditions and exploitation. Despite giving more jobs to foreign countries to manufacture Converse, there are some hidden costs involved.
#2 If I were an experienced shoe worker who wanted production within the country, I would argue making products domestically would bring jobs and more industries into the United States. This could boost the economy, which is a great advantage. I would not mention tariffs that make American goods more expensive and difficult to produce within the U.S., because that is the major drawback. However, emphasizing to Nike the perks of being climate friendly from less transport and having the chance to create new opportunities locally may shift their mindset.
I agree that there are quite a lot of disadvantages. It is so much more economically resposible to have other countries to produce the products in another country just on the labor costs alone. What I am curious about though is if labor didnt play such a huge role, would it be smarter to produce domestically if we were to replace the labor costs with technology/AI?
I found this video very interesting. I believe that Nike/Converse could benefit from producing Converse All stars in the USA because they could avoid import tariffs, create more jobs in the US, and shorten the production time. It is, however, cheaper to produce overseas.
#1: An advantage would be cost efficiency through potentially lower production costs through access to cheaper labor, materials, and production processes in different countries. A disadvantage would be quality control. Being able to manage production processes across multiple locations can pose challenges in maintaining consistent quality standards, leading to potential variations in product quality.
#2: The first topic I would argue for creating the shoes in the States is that american shoe workers are renowned for their expertise and commitment to quality craftsmanship. Producing Converse shoes in the United States would allow us to uphold the brand’s legacy of superior quality and attention to detail. The second topic i would argue for producing the shoes in the states is that it allows for domestic manufacturing to help with obtaining greater flexibility and agility in responding to changing market trends and consumer preferences. It also facilitates closer collaboration between designers, engineers, and production teams, fostering innovation and product development.
I think you made a really great point about quality control as an disadvantage. When products are being produced overseas it’s really hard to know what going on in those factories and how much care is going into the garment production.
You bring up a great point in regards to Converse’s legacy. By producing domestically with imported quality, they are able to really align with their brand image and can fully use this to their advantage in terms of marketing and branding. Also, the “All American” look/history of Converse can further encourage this way of thinking and perception among consumers.
I totally agree that emphasizing how American shoemakers have expertise and a high level of craftsmanship are a great argument to why Converse should produce Converse in the U.S. Stronger communication between teams and flexibility to changing market trends are valid points.
#2 I would bring up information about lead times and how producing domestically could shorten lead times for production. I would also bring up environmental and ethical reasoning as producing domestically would mean more regulations on production. This would lead to becoming a more sustainable company which is a good thing overall in the eyes of the public.
I definitely agree that producing domestically allows for more overall control over lead times as well as brings fewer ethical concerns in terms of environmental pollution and labor laws.
Hi Grace! I agree that there are both advantages and disadvantages to Nike using the global supply chain. I would also recommend producing them domestically if I was a shoe maker.
I totally agree that the costs would lessen for both companies, but on the flip side it is worse for the environment! If I were a shoe maker, I agree that I would also argue that it would create more jobs which would be very beneficial to the U.S. economy.
I love your argument that there would be more available jobs to the domestic country. This could easily be stated about any country that chooses to make their products domestically. This is a huge detail to mention to those you are pitching to. However it is important to keep in mind that while it may produce jobs for those domestically, how likley will it be finachially feasible in the long run to produce at the labor costs of a 1st world country?
I completely agree with your answer for #2, those are all points I would also bring up as a shoe worker. I do think bringing down lead times is definitely something that would be enticing to companies but I think shoe companies might not see this as a big advantage since trends do not change as fast in the shoe industry. Therefore those companies would not need quick turn around times for their shoes to ensure they sell.
Hi Grace! I agree that the high C02 emissions is a major disadvantage. I didn’t even think about this while answering this question. Great job!
#1 One advantage for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging the global supply chain would be lower manufacturing costs due to specialization of materials and products from other countries. A disadvantage for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging the global supply chain would be the increase in pollution due to transportation of materials around the world in order to manufacture and produce the shoe.
#2 An argument I would make to the Nike executives to produce Converse in the United States would be the increase in local jobs for the citizens of the United States. Having local manufacturing plants in the United States, similar to what Toyota and Hyundai have, bring more American jobs back to our citizens and can increase the sustainability of the production process.
Hi Lizzie! I really liked your take on how Nike would be increasing pollution due to the transportation of materials by continuing to make the shoes via imports. If they want to become more sustainable, they should produce the shoes domestically.
The advantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain include lower production costs and access to more specialized skills/resources in other regions. The disadvantages could be increased pollution with greater use of modes of transportation as well as ensuring consistent quality control across different countries.
Some arguments I may present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the US would be experiencing fewer ethical concerns in terms of environmental pollution and labor laws, greater marketing appeal to consumers who prioritize goods made domestically, as well as lower transportation costs.
Charlotte, great point about the ethical concerns being less if Nike produced domestically! With increased labor laws and wages in the U.S., Nike would certainly have less concerns about unethical labor within their manufacturing facilities.
#2- Some arguments I would give as experienced U.S. shoe worker to Nike’s sourcing executives in order to produce Converse in the United States would be firstly that producing within the country would allow for more convenient and quick access to finished goods which would allow for more speedy production. In addition to this, shortening the distance that finished goods have to travel would be a beneficial thing for the environment as it would decrease emissions produced by longer more intricate shipping.
I agree with your arguments. Bringing Converse production back to the US makes a lot of sense. Having everything local would definitely speed things up and help the environment by cutting down on all that long-distance shipping. Sounds like a win-win situation!
Hi Julia! I agree that utilizing the global supply chain is beneficial for production and distribution costs. Overall, it will keep the process at a lower cost and allow them to keep the cost lower for consumers as well which I feel they will appreciate. By moving production to the U.S., it will put the price at a disadvantage because everything would become more expensive.
#2: Assume you are an experienced U.S. shoe worker. What arguments would you present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the United States?
-By highlighting home manufacturing and supporting local jobs, Converse’s production in the US would improve the brand’s reputation and satisfy consumer demand for American-made goods. Additionally, it would reduce supply chain risks related to global production, giving higher control over delivery schedules and quality. Furthermore, being close to the US market may lower transportation costs and promote more environmentally friendly and sustainable production methods.
#3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?
-When protective tariffs are strategically applied to protect home businesses and employment and promote self-sufficiency, they may be worth the implications for foreign policy and the economy. However, overuse or excessive usage could provoke counterattacks that strain diplomatic ties and impede international trade. A sophisticated strategy that takes into account both immediate economic rewards and long-term diplomatic ramifications is needed to strike a balance between the advantages of defending local interests and any potential drawbacks.
#1. I believe that Nike would encounter higher costs from producing Converse in the USA. This is because the shoes are currently produced in other countries where the materials have been specialized and are less costly. By producing the shoes in the USA, the retail cost of the shoes would increase and consumers would have to pay more.
#2. If I were a shoe worker I would argue to Nike that they should produce converse domestically to cut down on pollution. Nike could advertise this environmentally friendly change while marketing Converse. Becoming more sustainable would improve Nike’s brand image.
Hi Molly! I also agree that Nike would encoutner higher costs from producing Converse in the United States. I agree that leveraging the global supply chain would decrease the manufacturing costs because of specialization.
Hi Molly I would agree that nike would encounter higher costs from producing in the US. This might make consumers less likely to purchase Converse if the price of them increased.
An advantage of Nike making Converse shift to the global supply chain is cost effectiveness, as they are able to produce these goods at a much lower cost and have a wide pool of options to choose from. A disadvantage of this is that there are many more complexities and risks associated with being involved in the global supply chain. Even if the company is functioning well, if there is an external event (ie. pandemic), they will be impacted rather significantly.
If I were an experienced U.S. shoe worker, my main arguments would surround streamlining production, bringing jobs to the US, and the perceived prestige that comes with a Made in the USA label. By shifting production to the US, more jobs would be available which would be a direct impact to the market and economy. Additionally, lead times would likely be impacted positively, and the risks associated with complex international supply chains would become, at least somewhat, mitigated. Lastly, the brand likely cares a lot about image and boosting Converse as a brand. By producing in the US, many consumers would associate this with higher quality production, rather than the international production labels many are used to.
Hi Liv,
I agree that there are many complexities and risks associated with being involved in a global supply chain. These include supply chain disruptions, logistical challenges, quality control, and ethical responsibility. I really enjoyed you pointing out the prestige that comes with the made in the USA label. I also answered that question, but did not even consider that as a factor! Great job!
I also thought that by producing their shoes solely in the US would boost Converse brand image and in turn help Nike’s as well. I didn’t think of the fact that lead times would be much shorter, but you bring up a really good point! If Nike were ever considering completely restructuring their production process and moving to the US, it would be wise for them to test this on Converse first because they are a much smaller brand.
#3 I think protective tariffs are not worth it because big companies can afford to pay them and put the economic burden on consumers. It hurts small companies more since they are not producing as much and it would drive their prices up in a way that makes it difficult to compete with the bigger companies.
#1. An advantage of making converse shoes a global supply chain would be market access. By manufacturing converse in different countries it can help meet different preferences of consumers around the world. A disadvantage would be quality control. It is difficult to maintain product qualities when manufacturing locations go global. They may vary in production processes and materials.
#2. I think I would use the disadvantage of moving production global to make my point. I would argue that quality control would be possible by keeping production in the US. This would ensure a higher level of consistency in the quality of the shoes.
A strong argument can be made for local quality control by highlighting the possible drawbacks of global production and stressing its advantages. By maintaining manufacture in the United States, the shoes’ quality is guaranteed to be more consistently good, allaying worries about fluctuations that could occur in a global manufacturing environment.
The advantages of Nike making Converse leveraging the global supply chain is the fact that they can make the shoe for cheaper, which consumers like, and also the ability to seek out specialized skills that the U.S may not have. However, the disadvantages would be increased pollution from shipping the products and resources multiple times, plus ethical concerns on things such as labor.
It would be more beneficial for Nike to produce Converse in the U.S so they could have increased quality control over their products. When Nike produces shoes across the globe, it’s harder to keep track of what’s going on. Also, the communication would be a lot smoother between manufactures if the U.S was the only country producing: there would be no language barrier or foreign policies that we would have to learn/follow.
I don’t know a lot about tariffs in general, but I’m not sure if protective tariffs really are worth the consequences. In my opinion, I feel as if the companies who are producing globally are typically large corporations, and can easily afford to pay the tariffs for doing so. I’m not really sure how much good they are actually doing, but I think it tries to protects jobs in the U.S!
#1 An advantage for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply supply chain is the price. It will be cheaper for the company to utilize countries globally and in hand it will be cheaper for consumers to purchase their items. The price overall will be more expensive for everyone if they started producing their shoes domestically in the United States. A disadvantage to leveraging the global supply chain is that it hurts the environment. It takes a lot of transportation to get the shoes and the products to make them from place to place and this becomes not only expensive, but it is harmful to the environment and contributes to a large amount of greenhouse gases.
#2 If I were an experienced shoe worker in the U.S. I would argue that it is very possible for the production of converse to be done domestically. As someone who sees it firsthand, I know people in America have the skills to complete the process. Furthermore, I would say that something that is made in America holds a lot of value to U.S. citizens and that would put the company’s products at an advantage if they saw that label on the shoes.
1.) Based on he video I feel there are more disadvantages than advantages for Nike to produce their shoes in the United States. While it would be attractive for consumers to know that Nike shoes are, “made in the USA” it would cause for a tremendous increase in price. Not only an increase in production prices, but increase on the price consumers will pay for their shoes. Due to this, Nike will lose many target consumers that can no longer afford their prices, and they will mostly likely go to common competitors with similar products such as, Adidas, or Puma.
2.) The main argument a U.S. shoe maker could make to Nike while they are considering producing their products in the Unites States is quality control. Nike could oversee the production process in much more depth if they produced in the United States, and could have increased quality products.
#1 One benefit is the potential for savings money due to lower production expenses, including access to less expensive labor, materials, and production methods in various countries. However, a drawback is the challenge of maintaining consistent quality control. Managing production across multiple locations can present difficulties in upholding uniform quality standards, resulting in potential fluctuations in product quality.
#2 Assuming I was an experienced U.S. shoe worker, an argument I would present to Nike’s sourcing executives would be to start producing domestically. If they were to start producing Converse in the United States then this would bring more jobs and increase our employment rate. This increase would boost our economy and give us an economic advantage over other countries. An argument I would not bring up is tariffs because they make domestic goods more costly which would be counterproductive to our goal of increasing economic growth. However, if Nike were to start producing in America then an advantage is that our weather is easier for transporting and overall increase the chance to broaden our work opportunities.
#1. Some advantages would be cheaper product, specialization, and supply chain relationships and connections. Disadvantages include pollution, tariffs, and humanitarian issues.
#2. People like products domestically produced and are willing to pay more for those products. Domestic products also can be imported to other countries.
Hi Hunter!
I agree that cost and specialization are huge advantages for producing Converse via the global supply chain. It seems as though the advantages are positive for the company and the disadvantages are negatives for average people (pollution, humanitarian issues). I also agree that there is a big market for Made in the USA products and Nike can capitalize on that. Our exports would also increase which is positive.
Hi Hunter! I agree that the cheaper production costs would be convincing for Nike when considering a global supply chain. It definitely draws the question of whether a company should value competitive pricing or a more ethical and honest production process.
#1 Advantages to Nike making Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain would be the cheaper production costs as well as integration into new markets. Disadvantages include dealing with tariffs on certain items and the high risk of a global supply chain.
#2 I would argue that there is more quality control and simplified transportation of goods when persuading Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the United States.
Hi Jenna! There are so many risks to the global supply chain and I am happy you brought this up. When COVID-19 hit we all learned about how much the fashion industry relies on the global supply chain. I do feel like the advantages outweigh the disadvantages when it comes to producing Converse globally. However, I feel strongly about protecting workers rights and if manufacturing in the US is the only way to ensure that, than that is what companies should do. Also, quality control is a great point for question two. Nike would have more control over its output and the quality of its products.
#1 Advantages of leveraging a global supply chain for Nike’s production of Converse shoes include risk diversification as production is spread out among many countries, lower costs because labor is less expensive in other countries such as Vietnam where many shoes are manufactured, and increased specialization of skills for different aspects of the production process through diversifying manufacturing to different countries. Disadvantages of implementing a global supply chain include more logistical complications due to an increased need for transportation of goods, increased pollution from transportation, and limited quality control with such a large and spread out global supply chain.
#2 If I were a U.S. shoe worker, I would argue for Nike to produce their Converse shoes domestically because of the many advantages of doing so. The advantages of implementing a domestic supply chain include better quality control over their products which could lead to higher customer satisfaction, easier communication through the supply chain (less language barriers), a more efficient supply chain (less transportation) as well as decreased pollution from transportation, and most importantly an increase in job opportunities for U.S. shoe and garment workers.
Hi Hannah! Looking at the advantages and disadvantages you listed makes it clear to see why this decision is a difficult one. In my opinion, I don’t think that the decreased cost of production is worth the decreased quality control. I think that it is vital for brands to satisfy their customers with quality products. This creates brand loyalty, as the consumer will begin to trust the brand and turn to it when looking to buy specific products.
Hi Hannah,
Great ideas! I agree that an advantage is lower costs because of labor being less expensive especially where they are specializing in goods and materials that Converse is looking for. I also agree with your disadvantages including pollution and more logistical complications. Global supply chains are a very long and detailed process and can be difficult to maintain for large companies.
Great point in #2 about better quality control! I didn’t think of that, but definitely very important that they are able to control what is being put into their shoes!
2. If I were an experienced shoe worker, I would advise Nike’s sourcing executives of the benefits of producing Converse in the United States including creation of new jobs, being able to sell products for cheaper due to less tariffs, and less environmental impact. As mentioned in the video, shoes have to be marked up significantly due to the price of tariffs charged when importing into the United States. If these shoes were to be made in the United States, this tariff would not have to be charged and the price of these shoes could decrease. More customers would then have the financial access to buy these shoes.
3. I believe that protective tariffs are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences because they protect domestic industries from foreign competition, generate revenue, and can be used as a negotiation tool in foreign policy.
Hi Diane,
You make a good point in your response to question 3! I took the same stance as you, that the protective tariffs are worth the consequences, but didn’t think about its benefit in regards to foreign competition. If we make it more expensive for them to export their goods to the U.S., they will be less likely to trade with us, boosting domestic business.
Hi Diane,
Great points you made in both questions! I agree with your point in question #2 about all the new job opportunities it would create in the US and the cheaper tariffs because they don’t have to pay for goods coming into the US when the goods are made in the US. The creation of these shoes in the US would definitely make them more affordable for customers!
1.There are many advantages for Nike to produce Converse using a global supply chain. The most enticing aspect for the company would be the fact that it is less expensive due to specialization and differing minimum wages. Despite the tariffs that they face when importing their final good into the USA, the money they save on labour costs out weighs it. However, this doesn’t come without disadvantages. They have less control over the production process and don’t really know what’s going on in each individual factory, this allows for easier exploitation and unsafe working conditions. Furthermore, the numerous factories and countries where parts of the shoe are being produced makes them highly susceptible to shipping and supply chain issues. The large amount of shipping also means that it’s not very sustainable and harms the environment. Quality control also becomes more difficult when more factories are involved, which could result in some units being subpar.
3. I do believe that protective tariffs are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences. No matter the reasoning, it will mean companies have to operate under stricter environmental laws and worker protections. This increases sustainability, not only due to the aforementioned laws but also the lack of shipping involved in domestic production. Ultimately, we only have a very short time left to respond to environmental issues and I don’t think that the political or economic ramifications will matter if we’re all dead or dying in 20-30 years.
Question #2.)
If I were an experienced shoe maker in the U.S., I would talk to Nike and tell them that there is talent in the U.S. that could easily make the Converse shoes. In addition to skilled workers, we also have a lot of technology that would assist in making the shoes quickly and with quality. Also, if they chose to manufacture here in the U.S., it would provide more domestic jobs. When more U.S. citizens are employed, there is more passive income to be spent on things like their shoes. By boosting the economy, Nike can increase their sales. Lastly, if products were made domestically, they would not have to pay any tariffs to import their goods.
Question #3.)
I personally think that protective tariffs are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences. This is because it promotes domestic manufacturing, which provides U.S. citizens with jobs, which will bring in more passive income to individuals, which will thus result in a boost in the economy. The tariffs force large corporations to think about the decisions they are making, and hopefully convince them to shift production into the U.S. While protective tariffs do result in higher prices for consumers, many of them do not notice the increase in price that is coming from these tariffs. Additionally, while it does make it more difficult for other countries to do business with the U.S., the benefits of them selling products in our country outweigh the tariffs that they have to pay in order to do business here, because the U.S. economy allows for massive amounts of consumerism from its citizens.
Hi Natalie, great response! You make a solid point about tariffs being worth the consequences. Personally, I agree with tariffs being set for certain industries where there still are a significant portion of American jobs as well as a stable or upward slope in the creation of those jobs. For other industries, there are so little jobs still here with the number of jobs steadily decreasing and having tariffs for them might serve no purpose other than to piss of other countries.
#1: An advantage for Nike in making Converse shoes by leveraging a global supply chain is reduced labor costs. Another advantage is specialization. There are places that specialize in manufacturing certain materials. For example, rubber is sourced from Thailand and Indonesia. A disadvantage for Nike in making Converse shoes by leveraging a global supply chain is the added cost of international shipping costs, tariffs, and taxes. Another disadvantage is that it goes against the brand image of an American company. Some consumers feel that American brands should be made in America.
#2: As an experienced US shoe worker, I would advocate for Converse to be made domestically to increase jobs for US workers. Also, since Converse is an all-American brand, it should be made in the US. It will also reduce the pollution caused by shipping. The US also has stricter labor laws, and producing Converse in the US would help ensure workers’ rights are protected.
Hi Abby! Great response. I agree with your comments regarding Converse production being moved to the United States. While many companies are very greedy and overly concerned with profits, the ethical and morally correct thing to do is risk cutting profits by a small margin and increasing costs slightly in order to ensure no labor exploitation is being committed in the process of manufacturing our goods.
Hi Abby! I totally agree with your perspective as a U.S. shoe worker because domestic sourcing creates more U.S. textile and apparel jobs, ultimately boosting the economy. I also agree with your point about Converse being an American brand, so they should source domestically to honor its heritage.
#1 Based on the video and our class discussion, what would be the advantages and disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain?
Advantages for Nike to make their Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain are lower production costs and therefore larger profits for the company as well as lower relative costs for customers. Because it is much cheaper to outsource production outside of the United States, particular in Southeast Asia, Nike is able to keep their overall production costs down which gives them a larger profit. While companies are able to more or less price their products however they’d like, lower production costs mean that Nike does not have to charge as high of an amount for each pair of shoes in order to not only breakeven but make a profit on each pair sold. Customers don’t have to pay as much money for their Converse as they might have to if the shoes were made in the United States.
However, disadvantages are still in play. Tariffs are often charged by the United States on many foreign made products which adds to the costs Nike must pay. The primary disadvantages however, are more ethically based. Part of the reason why it is so much cheaper to manufacture overseas is because the cost of labor is so low. Many of the countries businesses choose to base their production in are guilty of human rights abuses like child labor, low pay, unsafe working conditions and lack of legal protections for employees. While this does generate additional profits for Nike, it creates a miserable existence for employees who face high risks of injuries and death as well as large amounts of stress, all for pennies on the dollar. Environmental concerns are also a disadvantage. With climate change being the looming threat it is, its important for companies to make good decisions regarding how they produce goods. Many countries in Southeast Asia aren’t as stringent when it comes to regulations concerning emissions and runoff from factories.
#2 In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?
In my opinion, protective tariffs are occasionally worth the economic and foreign policy consequences when it comes to certain industries. For fruits and vegetables and certain textiles, I think it is important to safeguard US made goods but for ready made apparel and other hard goods, so much is outsourced already that the jobs still present in the United States for those industries are so negligible the tariffs really aren’t doing anything to help anyone.
There are many pros/cons when it comes to Nike using a global supply chain. The advantages are that the supply chain prices are much lower in different countries like Vietnam than in the US which allows for less cost for the brand as well as the consumers which increases sales. The disadvantages are the fact that using a global supply chain has harmful impacts to the environment and also less compensation for factory workers in those countries.
If I were an experienced shoe worker, I would present the idea that the shoes can be manufactured to better quality locally. I would also mention the fact that sustainability is on the rise and consumers are looking for more sustainable forward brands to purchase from.
Hi Mia! I also agree that domestic sourcing can be a more sustainable option versus sourcing overseas. Manufacturing locally limits the amount of carbon emissions produced from long-distance traveling. In addition, companies can have more quality control on their pieces if they are made domestically.
1#:
There are many advantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain. First, some of the manufacturing costs for example, Vietnam, are low which makes it cheaper to make the shoe. This allows them to create more inventory at such a low price. This is also ideal for the end consumer because they aren’t having to pay very high prices to purchase these shoes. There are also fewer pollution rules in other countries which allows them to follow less rules and regulations and ship/manufacture as much as they want.
There are many disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain. One disadvantage for Nike would be tariffs they have to pay to ship goods back into the United States. Recently, shipping has become very expensive and has been taking a significantly longer time due to the domino effect created from the pandemic. Another disadvantage is the pollution it causes and the significant impacts it has on our environment. The pollution comes from all of the water and air pollution due to the amount of traveling it takes to complete the supply chain.
#2:
If I were an experienced U.S. shoe worker, I would argue a lot of the significant topics that have been a huge force on the fashion industry. Pollution continues to be a significant problem and a threat to our environment for many years to come. Due to the amount of shipping involved within the supply chain process, tremendous amounts of pollution are created and will have a negative impact on our environment. Nike’s sourcing executives need to recognize this and try to find ways to product Converse in the United States or at least keep half of the supply chain within the United States to cut the pollution in half. Another argument I would present is the cost of having to ship items into the U.S. and the time it takes. After Covid, there has been difficulty with shipping and a significant rise in costs. If they start to produce Converse in the U.S., the shipping costs will decrease at least 50%.
Hi, Julia! Perfectly said. Pollution is such a huge threat to our environment. It is a shame that it is having such a negative impact. I agree that if converse were to be produced in the U.S., the shipping costs would decrease significantly.
#1: There are many benefits to Nike leveraging a global supply chain such as cheaper manufacturing costs. For example, labor wages are significantly cheaper in developing countries, making them an attractive option for manufacturing products. The cheaper labor costs allow Nike to sell the shoe for cheaper, allowing them to be more competitive in the activewear market. Despite its benefits, a global supply chain raises concern to many ethical and environmental causes. International production processes have a detrimental effect on our environment due to the exponential increases in CO2 emissions. In addition, the quality of work at many foreign work sites is often inhumane and unethical. For these reasons, Nike has a difficult decision when choosing whether or not to continue with their global supply chain.
#2: As an experienced U.S. shoe worker, I would argue that producing domestically improves communication between manufacturers and corporate workers. For instance, producing domestically eliminates the potential language barrier and time difference from the production process. Instead of relying on workers in another country, Nike employees will be able to make more frequent visits to manufacturing sites. This allows Nike to better monitor the quality of their production and ensure adequate working conditions. Essentially, producing domestically will create more transparency in the production process.
#1. An advantage for Nike would be the manufacturing cost being low which makes it a lot cheaper to produce shoes. Also, this allows the company to create more inventory. A disadvantage for Nike would be the tariffs they are having to pay while shipping products into the U.S. Another disadvantage would be pollution which is unfortunately impacting our environment.
#2. Assuming I am an experienced United States shoe worker, a few arguments I would like to present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the U.S would be the huge pollution threat to our environment. Due to all the shipments, more and more pollution is created and it is severely affecting our environment.
The advantages of Nike making Converse utilize the global supply chain to produce its products are that it is cheaper to produce and sell these products overseas, you can create more products, and you can connect with other nations. The negatives of Nike making converse utilize the global supply chain to produce its products are that it is not sustainable, there is not enough rules and regulations in other countries, also it is less attractive to consumers, not being fully produced in the United States.
If Nike utilized the global supply chain, they would seek advantages and disadvantages. For example, sometimes outsourcing materials from other countries can be less costly to the retailer. This way Nike and Converse can keep their cost of goods low to create a a successful profit margin. Some disadvantages of the global supply chain could be shipping delays. By sourcing inside the US, there would be more job opportunities for garment workers inside the US which would also help strengthen our economy.
An experienced US shoe worker may want Nike to source in the US because of the fear of job loss. The US shoemaker may also argue that they can manage quality control if Nike sourced domestically. The shoemaker could also discuss how it is more sustainable to source domestically because shipping would involve less carbon emissions.
Question #1: The video suggests that producing Nike shoes in the United States would have more disadvantages than advantages. While it might be appealing for consumers to have shoes labeled as “made in the USA,” this would significantly increase production costs and consequently raise consumer prices. This price increase could lead to a loss of target customers who may opt for more affordable options from competitors like Adidas or Puma.
Question #3: Protective tariffs, when used strategically to safeguard domestic businesses and employment while fostering self-sufficiency, can be justified despite potential implications for foreign policy and the economy. However, excessive use of tariffs could provoke retaliatory actions, straining diplomatic relations and hindering international trade. To strike a balance, a nuanced strategy is required—one that considers both immediate economic benefits and long-term diplomatic consequences—to effectively protect local interests without unduly harming international relationships or trade.
#1. One advantage for Nike to make Converse shoes leverage a global sourcing supply is that it can diversify its supply chain by decreasing the risk of relying on only one supplier in one particular region. Nike can also reap the benefits of the strengths and abilities of many suppliers in different regions. For example, Nike can take gum rubber from Thailand, Indonesia, or Vietnam, cotton for canvas from China, South Korea, or Turkey, and shoelaces from German polyester or Chinese nylon. Relying on one sourcing region would make it difficult to produce a shoe with all of these features. Nike can also save costs by sourcing in destinations like Vietnam, where manufacturing costs are low because there are fewer rules about pollution and people in factories work for less money. Ultimately, global trade increases the accessibility of goods. A disadvantage for Nike to leverage a global supply chain may be increased costs in the production and transportation of the product. It may be costly to move this product all over the world. Additionally, Nike must pay tariffs on imported goods to bring these Converse back into the United States, which raises prices for both Nike and consumers.
#2. As an experienced US shoe worker, I would argue that producing Converse in the United States would save costs on tariffs, which increase costs for both Nike and the end consumer. I would also argue that we could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions created by transporting goods around the world. These sustainability benefits may be very appealing to younger consumers who look to purchase from companies who strive to minimize their carbon footprint. Next, I would argue that domestic production would bring jobs and industry to the US. I would also argue that domestic production makes it easier to avoid restrictions and regulations imposed by other countries. These challenges can be avoided through domestic production.
If I were an experienced U.S. shoemaker I feel my biggest argument to possibly produce Converse in the U.S. would be the sustainability aspect. As mentioned in the video most shoe companies assemble or produce their products in Vietnam due to the cheap labor, and minimal pollution rules. While this may help the brand save money in certain areas of the supply chain, it is not sustainable and not something that consumers are attracted to. I feel in 2024 consumers are starting to take a serious shift in the importance of sustainability not only in materials but in supply chains more seriously. If consumers found out that the “all-American” Converse is now being made in the U.S. they may be even more inclined to purchase them. Yes, the price will increase, but consumers can ensure their products are made in safe working conditions and safe wage regulations.
I feel it is hard to give a direct, yes to whether or not protective tarriffs are worth the consequences. I feel in some cases tariffs protect the U.S. and other countries from unsustainable practices. In other cases, I feel it causes brands to source from lower-cost countries leaders to even more unsustainable practices.