FASH455 Video Discussion: The Global Journey of a Sneaker

55 thoughts on “FASH455 Video Discussion: The Global Journey of a Sneaker”

1. 1.Advantage is lower labor and production costs in countries with cheaper manufacturing.( the video said “Many companies make their shoes in Vietnam because the manufacturing costs are low and people work in factories for less money. Also, there are fewer rules about pollution,”). Disadvantage is environmental Impact, higher carbon footprint due to long-distance shipping and transportation.

   2. Producing in the U.S. supports domestic jobs and strengthens the local economy, which can improve brand loyalty among American consumers. And Shorter supply chains lower carbon emissions, aligning with Nike’s sustainability goals.

   3.in my opinion, it makes higher costs, tariffs increase prices for consumers and businesses, reducing purchasing power. I don’t think it’s worth it. I’m just an ordinary person, and of course, I want things to be cheaper.

   4. Brands like Converse should Invest in eco-friendly materials and production methods to reduce emissions and environmental impact. And governments should Impose taxes on high-emission practices to incentivize greener production.

   1. I strongly agree that I do not think protective tariffs are worth it. Tariffs do increase prices for many businesses and consumers, which is not worth taking the risk to do. Most individuals always prefer the cheapest option, so there will be many upset individuals if negative consequences arise from implementing protective tariffs.

   2. I agree that brands should invest in eco friendly materials in order to move towards a more green world.

2. #1 Based on the video and our class discussion, the advantages of a global supply chain for Nike can lower labor and operational costs when manufacturing in countries such as China or Vietnam. Diversification and risk mitigation are also advantages for Nike, as sourcing from  multiple countries reduces dependency on a single region. This limits risks for Nike and protects the company from natural disasters or trade restrictions. Disadvantages may include quality control challenges as managing production across multiple countries makes the quality consistency harder to maintain compared to domestic manufacturing. Environmental issues may arise as global shipping contributes significantly to the release of carbon emissions overseas, conflicting with Nike’s sustainability goals.

   #2 If I were an experienced U.S. worker making a case to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce converse in the United States I would present an argument stating that producing converse in the U.S. would shorten lead times, allowing for quick responses to market trends on supply chain and responsiveness. Investing in U.S. manufacturing would create job opportunities and align with Nike’s national interests, economically benefiting policymakers and consumers by leading to tax incentives or domestic production reducing carbon emissions associated with overseas shipping.

   1. I like your response about a US worker’s case to make to Nike. From a American worker’s perspective, having products locally made is extremely advantageous. Aside from avoiding hidden costs that would harm the brand’s image, it would also help the US for economic reasons like you said. Furthermore, it would help to support last minute changes in supply. Thats a great point!

   2. Hi kasey,

      i really liked your response about potentially reducing carbon emissions if Nike produced converse in the US. This is a huge change that brands may need to start implementing to try and reverse or help the environment while we still can.

3. 2) If I were an experienced shoe worker, I would argue for Nike to produce in the U.S. for several reasons. The first is that there is a growing demand for American-made fashion products due to a new generation of more socially conscious consumers who are beginning to come into more disposable income. Other brands, such as New Balance, have successfully used “Made in the U.S.A.” marketing, commanding higher prices. While, yes, domestic production does have consequences that may not be the most fiscally convenient, it is more reliable than overseas supply chains, which can be prone to disruptions. There would also be more control over quality, and could enhance brand loyalty as Nike would be a more ethical and sustainable brand. Nike’s exposure to labor rights controversies would be significantly reduced.

   4) Converse can make a real difference by being open about where and how its shoes are made, choosing sustainable materials, and ensuring the people making them are treated fairly. Simple changes—like using recycled rubber, paying workers fair wages, and cutting down on pollution—can have a huge impact. At the same time, governments should hold all brands to higher standards by enforcing transparency, protecting workers, and cracking down on unethical practices. When companies and policymakers work together, fashion can be about more than just style—it can be a force for good.

   1. i agree your points.Emphasizing domestic production and ethical practices not only meets consumer demand but also builds trust and sustainability. Collaboration between brands and policymakers is key to driving meaningful change.

4. 1. There are both advantages and disadvantages to Nike leveraging a global supply chain. Nike is able to lower operating expenses such as manufacturing and labor costs by having their products made in other countries. This allows Nike to sell their product at a lower price, thus increasing their sales. Additionally, this gives Nike access to resources that the US may not have a huge supply in such as sourcing rubber from Thailand or Vietnam which are more rich in the material. However, by using a global supply chain, Converse will have to pay extra money for tariffs which will increase the price of the product. There are also hidden costs such as pollution and poor labor conditions associated with the product, harming the brand reputation.

   4. Nike will likely have to either change their strategy to something more sustainable whilst increasing their prices or simply be more honest but face feedback. Brand transparency has become a huge priority to the public. I recommend that they become more transparent about their production policies, explaining where their products are sourced and manufactured. I also recommend that they create a policy for change to show they recognize their own room for improvement. While its challenging for such large brands to make drastic changes in their supply chain as it compromises their competitive pricing, having a gradual plan make these things more feasible. Additionally, the public’s increased interest in sustainability alongside Nike’s loyal customer base may prove to be a source of support in the case that they do make a change. Government’s should improve their policy’s to regulate companies’ CO2 emissions as well as ensure labor practices are ethical.

   1. I agree that transparency and sustainability have become very important to customers. Being able to take steps towards being more ethical and transparent can lead to better practices and more customers who value sustainability. As you mentioned, I agree that there should be stronger government regulations on companies CO2 emissions and labor practices. Nike could utilize being transparent and more sustainable as a competitive advantage for their brand.

   2. You raised some really good points regarding Nike’s balance between ethical behavior and cost efficiency. Since consumers are placing a higher value on environmental and ethical production, transparency is important in the industry. A strategy that could help Nike maintain its competitive side while also improving its reputation is a transition to more sustainable practices rather than a complete makeover in the company. Establishing more specific sustainability objectives and sharing advancements with the public helps develop trust and bring in eco-aware consumers. In addition, stricter laws affecting labor and emissions would hold businesses to a higher standard and stop unethical behavior from becoming the norm. Nike can address hidden costs while maintaining its competitiveness by combining transparency, small changes, and respect for more strict requirements.

   3. Hi Isa, you made some really strong points about Nike’s global supply chain, and I completely agree with your take on the cost benefits and access to resources. Being able to source materials like rubber from countries where it’s more abundant is definitely a huge advantage for Nike. At the same time, you’re right that there are hidden costs that come with global manufacturing—tariffs, environmental impact, and labor conditions can all hurt Nike’s reputation and make consumers more hesitant to support the brand.

5. #3: While protective tariffs frequently have a high financial and diplomatic cost, they can help defend local companies and maintain jobs. They can result in increased consumer prices and retaliatory tariffs from other nations, which can harm shipments and strain international relations, even though they benefit local industries by lowering foreign competition. Tariffs can also restrict innovation by decreasing competitiveness and complicating global supply chains. Even though they could offer some financial rest, the long-term effects, like trade conflicts and weaknesses in the economy, often exceed the advantages. In other words, the economic and foreign policy effects of protective tariffs are usually not worth it, in my opinion.

   #4: To address the hidden costs of international trading, companies, including Converse, may agree to purchase goods ethically, cut carbon emissions, and enhance working conditions while maintaining their competitiveness through innovation and authenticity. To guarantee accountability, they can make investments in environmentally friendly products, implement ethical labor guidelines, and put supply chain tracking tools into place. Through marketing and labeling campaigns, they can also inform consumers about their efforts, increasing brand loyalty. Governments should enforce stricter labor rules, carbon footprint disclosure requirements, and frequent supplier audits. Policies that penalize violations and offer tax incentives for sustainable practices can further promote transparency and responsible sourcing.

   1. Hi! You did a great job explaining both general sides to the tariff argument, and I feel that this debate will be ongoing as global trade continues to increase. Personally, I feel there needs to be a deep evaluation and understanding of what materials and resources can be produced within the US efficiently and what can not be completed here. This way, the government can understand which products would benefit the US by having a tariff on it through imports. I feel that it is extremely important to remain a competitor in the export market, especially in China’s growing age, but it is crucial that these tariffs are not impacting US businesses directly because it will ultimately hurt the economy. This argument is tough and I feel that there will never be a clear answer, but will require constant consideration of new ideas and evaluations of the US production industry.

   2. Hi Cmeola! I completely agree that balancing ethical sourcing, sustainability, and competitiveness is key for brands like Converse. Transparency and accountability, through supply chain tracking and clear marketing, can build stronger consumer trust. Government regulations, like stricter labor laws and sustainability incentives, are also essential in pushing companies toward more responsible practices. It’s encouraging to see more brands embracing these efforts, but there’s still a long way to go in ensuring true industry-wide transparency.

6. #1: An advantage would be that there are lower production costs for the brand since they are producing the products overseas. This way, Nike can decrease their expenses on manufacturing and production. However, this leads to a disadvantage because they are being taxed significantly by tariffs when bringing the products back into the United States. Another disadvantage is the amount of CO2 emissions they are causing by producing the shoes overseas and transporting them back to the United States.

   #3: I would say that they are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences because it allows the United States manufacturers to compete with the cheap production rates overseas. This could be a reason why a company chooses to produce in the United States rather than in another country. It also encourages companies in the United States to improve their processes and invest in machines that will make their factory more efficient.

   1. Hi Samantha, I also reflected on question #1. I also felt that a major advantage was the lower production and manufacturing costs for the brand. As a result of that, it is possible to make the price of the item cheaper for the consumers and appeal to a wider audience. However, similar to what I discussed, if tariffs are added to the cost of the products then that price would actually go up. This would cause it to be more expensive for the consumers and could steer them away from the purchase.

   2. Hi Samantha! You did a great job explaining how Nike benefits from lower production costs overseas and how tariffs and CO2 emissions are key downsides. I like how you showed the impact of tariffs on pricing and sustainability. Your point about tariffs helping U.S. manufacturers stay competitive is spot on, and you made a strong connection to how they encourage efficiency and innovation in domestic production. Overall, your response clearly highlights the balance between cost savings, competition, and sustainability in global trade.

7. #1 Based on the video and class discussion, there are both advantages and disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain. Starting with advantages, producing globally would allow for lower/cheaper labor and production costs. Countries outside of the US , including China and Vietnam, produce products at a lower cost. By doing this, Nike is then able to sell their products at a price that appeals to the US consumer. However, using a global supply chain will also pose disadvantages. By importing products into the US, the environmental impacts will grow as emissions and carbon footprint increases. This can harm Nike’s sustainability measures. In addition, there may be tariffs on purchases outside of the US. This will increase the price of the item.

   #2 If I were an experienced U.S. shoe worker, some arguments I would present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse in the U.S. would be that this would create more job opportunities. Manufacturing and production jobs within the US would rise , strengthening the industry domestically. In addition, by producing Converse in the US, it caters to those consumers who may prefer to do their purchasing within the US. This simplifies the supply chain and appeals to conscious consumers who are interested in sustainability.

   1. I agree with your response for question #2, I think if Nike were to produce their products in the US, it would create many more job opportunities for people. Nike could be more sustainable and not have to source their materials all over the world. I wonder if that were to happen, if the cost of their products would increase or decrease?

8. #1 Nike leveraging a global supply chain has both advantages and disadvantages. For one, Nike is able to source their materials for their products in other countries who have the resources that are needed to construct the shoes. They are able to manufacture them in Vietnam for a lower cost and in return, increase their profit. The disadvantages are having to pay tariffs, which increase the product’s price and sustainability and ethical issues (such as underpaid workers and carbon emissions produced during transportation,) that occur in their supply chain. 

   #4 From a consumer perspective, I trust a company who has a transparent supply chain and sources their materials responsibly. Many brands such as Patagonia and Eileen Fisher have a sustainability page on their website for consumers to see. Many consumers now are focused on sustainability and circularity when purchasing new clothing and will buy from brands they know they can trust. The government could impose a tax on plastic or non eco-friendly materials that are sourced, forcing brands to make the switch to more sustainable or biodegradable materials. It would increase product cost, but it would be an efficient way for fashion brands to become more aware of materials they are using and how that affects the longevity of their products.

   1. Hi Hannah! I thought your comment on the government imposing a tax on plastic and harmful materials was very insightful- and something I have not thought of before! Even domestically, I feel that the government could possibly impose a tax on companies that use plastic for packaging rather than biodegradable packaging, especially at this point in the industry’s sustainability efforts. There are SO many alternatives for companies to use biodegradable packing materials, so I wonder if the government could start small within the US, and then look to impose a tariff on imported goods that are not environmentally friendly.

   2. Hi Hannah! You did a great job breaking down how Nike benefits from lower costs through global sourcing and how tariffs and sustainability play a big role in their supply chain. I liked how you brought up consumer trust and transparency, especially with examples like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher. Your idea of taxing non-eco-friendly materials is super smart and could push brands to be more sustainable. You could add how eco-friendly sourcing helps brands stand out with conscious consumers today. Overall, your response shows you get the connection between global trade, sourcing, and what drives consumer choices!

   3. Hi Hannah! I really agree with your response to question #4. I also trust a company that is fully transparent. With consumers, specifically in the Gen Z age bracket, focused on sustainability it is crucial for brands to disclose information about their manufacturing/sourcing practices to better the business. I also think that enhancing longevity of materials is a great idea for brands to look into. Using better/biodegradable materials can have a positive effect on the brand in many ways, including their carbon footprint and in sales.

   4. I completely agree that as a consumer it is easier to trust a company that has a transparent supply chain. I love companies like Everlane that use the transparent supply chain practice.

9. #1. Overall, Nike has a better financial and market advantage by using a global supply chain. By using global sourcing, they are able to find cheaper production and labor costs, as well as have access to resources that may be more affordable or simply not available in the US. While sourcing materials can be global, the design process can still be held within the US to keep the notion of the company being USA based. The disadvantages of the global supply chain is that Nike may be contributing to unfair labor practices and have little control over the conditions in which their materials and resources are being produced, which is a sustainability concern for the company. On the other hand, if Nike sourced and produced everything domestically in the USA, it would be incredibly expensive and likely take a longer period of time because our factories produce at a lower rate than other countries who specialize in the apparel industry. However, there are stricter regulations regarding labor laws within the US, so Nike would be contributing to fair labor and also the US economy largely. However, this would come at a large cost for consumers with an increase in price, which many are not likely to pay. This relates back to the idea that mercantilism is outdated, as importing these products and resources are beneficial to the end consumer, who is ultimately driving company revenue and keeping them in business. If Nike strictly exported, I feel that their company financials would see an immediate decrease and would have to restructure their business model in order to stay profitable. 

   #3. Protective tariffs can be both beneficial and harmful to foreign policy and trade depending on the materials and resources they impact. If there are materials that can be produced domestically in the US at the same- or cheaper- price as other countries, it makes sense for tariffs to be placed on these imports to focus efforts on domestic production. This allows for job opportunities and to boost the US economy to remain competitive within the exporting market, especially against powerhouses like China. However, if certain resources or materials are not effectively produced within the US, it does not make sense to have high tariffs on these items, because many US brands will need these materials for their products, which comes at a higher cost to both the businesses and consumers. Having unreasonable tariffs on foreign countries for materials that are essential puts the US in a difficult position within international trade, as some countries may feel that we are taking advantage of their need for US demand within consumption. Overall, if tariffs are kept reasonable and on products that we can produce domestically, I feel that there is not a major global impact, but when tariffs rise on essential products, it becomes difficult for both the US consumers and global workers to keep up with the demand and price balance. 

10. 1. The advantages of leveraging a global supply chain would be mainly for the lower production and labor costs. This allows Nike to save a good chunk of money compared to if they produced their products in the US. However, there can be some disadvantages to that. For example. unfair labor conditions outside the US are very common, and this gives Nike less control because they can’t constantly oversee production.

    2. If I was an experiences US shoe worker, I would tell Nike that of they wanted to produce Converse in the US, they would have to consider many factors. The biggest factor would be price of labor and production cost like I mentioned before. If Nike did start producing in the US, then they would have much more control over labor practices, but that comes at a huge price. This would also lead to an increase in the price of Nike products, and this may affect their sales. I would not suggest they go with this plan.

    3. Brands like Converse can address the hidden costs of global trade by implementing transparent supply chain practices, investing in sustainable materials, and ensuring ethical labor conditions. By adopting third-party certifications, such as Fair Trade or the Higg Index, Converse can demonstrate a commitment to responsible sourcing while maintaining market competitiveness. Policies such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act serve as models for holding companies accountable.

11. #3: Protective tariffs can be both harmful and protective on foreign policy and domestic industries. The protective tariffs help preserve domestic jobs and aid in the growth of local economies. However, consequences such as trade retaliation and tension between nations can result. Similarly to some of the current consequences of tariffs, tariffs can lead to global supply chain issues and trade wars. Therefore, although there are short term advantages of protective tariffs, the majority of the time the long-term disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

    #4: Converse and other companies can address their hidden costs of global trade through responsible sourcing and technology such as blockchain tracking. Regarding measures that the government could enforce, implementing mandatory supply chain disclosures could ensure that companies report their environmental impacts and labor conditions. Furthermore, providing incentives for sustainability manufacturing to encourage ethical sourcing and other sustainable practices.

    1. Haley, I think you made great points about how tariffs can be both protective and harmful. Especially the point you made about how tariffs can potentially result in trade retaliation and tension between nations. I did not think of this aspect of this discussion initially, but this point is very important for international relations between nations.

    2. Hi Haley! The idea you brought up in your second question about how the government should enforce mandatory supply chain disclosures was a really intriguing one. I believe that if brands are forced to be transparent about their production processes, then they may lean towards being more sustainable. It would be a bad look to consumers if they chose to continue doing the damaging procedures they already have been, so they may want to change to look better to customers.

12. 1. Nike’s use of a global supply chain to produce Converse shoes offers several advantages. Lower production costs from cheaper labor and access to specialized manufacturing capabilities help Nike maintain competitive pricing and increase profit margins. Additionally, diversifying production locations reduces the risk of regional disruptions and ensures a steady supply of products. However, there are also disadvantages. Longer shipping times can cause inventory issues and delays in meeting market demand. Managing quality control across multiple countries can be challenging. Additionally, the environmental impact of transportation and manufacturing in countries with lax regulations can harm Nike’s sustainability efforts.

    2. As a U.S. shoe worker, I would argue for domestic production by highlighting its potential to create jobs and drive economic growth. This would support local communities and enhance Nike’s brand image. Producing in the U.S. would also lead to better quality control and faster responses to trends due to shorter lead times. Additionally, domestic manufacturing would reduce the environmental impact of transportation, which would appeal to eco-conscious consumers. Although labor costs are higher in the U.S., the potential for increased brand loyalty and lower shipping costs could help balance these expenses over time.

    1. Rachel, you made great points about the pros and cons of Nike’s global supply chain. While lower costs and specialized manufacturing are benefits, shipping delays, quality control issues, and environmental impact are clear downsides. Your argument for U.S. production is also very strong: creating jobs, boosting the economy, and improving quality control would help Nike’s reputation, and shorter production times could help keep up with trends. Although labor costs are higher, the potential for stronger brand loyalty and lower shipping costs could make domestic production a worthwhile investment.

    2. Hey Rachel! I agree with you when you said that reducing the environmental impact of transportation will appeal eco-conscious consumers. The eco-conscious part of society will definitely grow over time because sustainability is becoming a main priority and the environment is not doing great so people will want to change that.

13. 1. Nike’s use of the global supply chain comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Some of the advantages include access to materials/ resources and labor and obviously lower production costs since they are manufacturing these converse in countries with lower labor costs. Nike produces converse in different regions all over the world that specialize in specific manufacturing skills and produce certain materials that ensure a high quality product. However there are also disadvantages to this as well. Global manufacturing has led to controversial views over labor wages, conditions and environmental impact. This could potentially harm Nike’s reputation as a brand. Another disadvantage happening now is high tariffs and trade restrictions due to political changes. These tariffs can increase costs and cause problems within the supply chain

    2. If i was an experiences shoe worker in the US, I would argue that producing converses in the US would create jobs for lots of American workers and boost our economy thus supporting middle class families. Producing Converse in the US would also have the potential of improving Nikes reputation as a company. This could increase customer loyalty.

    1. Bella, you made some great points about both the advantages and disadvantages of Nike’s global supply chain. I agree that access to specialized labor and materials plays a big role in ensuring high-quality production, and lower costs are a huge incentive for companies like Nike. However, as you mentioned, the ethical concerns surrounding labor conditions and environmental impact are major challenges that could damage Nike’s brand reputation if not properly addressed. The point about tariffs and trade restrictions is also very relevant, especially given the current political climate and ongoing supply chain disruptions.

14. #1: Leveraging a global supply chain for Converse production offers Nike several advantages, including lower labor and material costs, access to specialized manufacturing expertise, and the ability to scale production efficiently. Global sourcing can also help Nike diversify risks by using multiple suppliers in different regions, ensuring steady production despite geopolitical or economic disruptions. However, there are disadvantages, such as ethical concerns over labor conditions, potential supply chain disruptions due to political instability or shipping delays, and the risk of brand reputation damage if sustainability and worker rights are not prioritized. Additionally, relying on overseas production can create longer lead times, making it harder to respond quickly to shifts in consumer demand.

    #2: As a U.S. shoe worker, I would argue that producing Converse domestically would enhance quality control, reduce reliance on unpredictable global supply chains, and support American jobs, strengthening local economies. Domestic production could also improve Nike’s brand reputation by demonstrating a commitment to ethical labor practices and sustainability, potentially attracting socially conscious consumers. Additionally, shorter supply chains allow for faster response times to market trends, reducing inventory waste and improving customization opportunities. While labor costs are higher in the U.S., automation and advanced manufacturing technologies can help offset expenses, making domestic production a competitive and viable option for Nike.

    1. Spencer,

       Your response does a great job of breaking down both the pros and cons of using a global supply chain for Converse. I enjoyed your points about the key benefits like cost savings, risk diversification, and scalability while also acknowledging ethical concerns. Your argument for U.S. production is strong too—focusing on quality control, job creation, and sustainability makes a compelling case. Also, mentioning automation as a way to offset higher labor costs shows a realistic approach to making domestic manufacturing work.

       Good Job!

15. 1) Some advantages include cost efficiency, scalability, access to resources, market expansion. Some disadvantages include supply chain disruptions, ethical concerns, quality control challenges, and tariffs and trade barriers.

    4) By utilizing sustainable materials, maintaining ethical labor standards, and improving supply chain transparency, Converse could address the hidden costs of international trade. Eco-friendly goods and customer education can boost competitiveness and trust with the consumers. Stricter labor regulations, carbon announcements, supply chain inspections, and tax breaks for environmentally friendly businesses are all ways that governments can encourage responsible sourcing.

    1. I agree, Gillian! The balance between cost efficiency and ethical concerns is a big challenge for companies like Nike. I agree that sustainable materials and transparency can help address hidden costs. Regional manufacturing hubs could also be a solution to cut emissions while keeping costs manageable. I also like your point about government incentives, but enforcement is key. I think stricter penalties should 100% be put in place for companies that don’t meet ethical standards, and they should receive harsh consequences when they do not abide by them.

16. #1: Nike’s use of the global supply chain has both advantages and disadvantages. One big advantage is that making shoes in different countries saves Nike money. Labor and materials are cheaper in places like Vietnam, so Nike can sell Converse for a lower price while still making a profit. Another advantage is that different countries specialize in different materials, like rubber from Thailand or cotton from China, which helps Nike make good-quality shoes. But there are also many disadvantages. Since the shoes are made in many places around the world, shipping them takes a long time and costs more. Tariffs (taxes on imported goods) can also make the process more expensive. Another big problem is the environmental impact; shipping materials and products all over the world causes a lot of pollution. Plus, working conditions in some factories may not be fair to workers, which can hurt Nike’s reputation.

    #4: Brands like Converse can take steps to reduce the hidden costs of global trade while still keeping their shoes affordable. They could use more eco-friendly materials, like recycled rubber, to reduce waste and pollution. They could also be more open about where and how their shoes are made so customers can see if they treat workers fairly. Governments can help by making stricter rules on pollution from shipping and giving rewards to companies that use fair labor and clean energy. They can also require companies to be honest about their supply chains so customers know if they’re supporting ethical brands. This would push companies like Converse to be more responsible while staying competitive.

    1. Riley, I agree that Nike benefits from cost savings and specialized materials, but the downsides, especially shipping costs and environmental impact, are pretty hard to ignore. The long supply chain also makes it harder for Nike to control working conditions, which can hurt their brand image. I like your point about using eco-friendly materials and being more transparent. If Converse highlighted sustainable practices in their marketing, it could actually give them a competitive edge. Do you think customers would be willing to pay a little more for ethically made shoes, or would price still be the biggest factor?

    2. Hey Riley! I totally agree with your idea of recycling the rubber bottoms on the Converse shoes. This would help them save money and they would be helping the environment by minimizing waste. I think that we should start (and should have already started) to have stricter rules about pollution because it is definitely getting out of hand and soon we will not be able to fix what we have hurt.

17. #3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?

    In my opinion I have mixed views on protective tariffs. On one side I think they are beneficial to encourage domestic manufacturing and will help to reduce emissions resulting from shipping and transportation with the slight reduction of imported products. Tariffs will also encourage more manufacturing facilities to open in the U.S., therefore creating more jobs. On the other side, I believe that this will slightly discourage global trade resulting in less availability of products, and potentially slower technological innovation due to less collaboration with other parts of the world.

    #4: The “hidden costs” of global trade (e.g., emissions, labor conditions) are often obscured from consumers. How can brands like Converse address these “hidden costs” while maintaining market competitiveness? What specific policies or regulatory measures should governments implement to promote responsible sourcing and enhance supply chain transparency?

    I believe that Converse can address these “hidden costs” by investing in transparency within their supply chain, and to ethically source their materials. I also believe that they can invest in high quality and ethically sourced materials, and implement a circular product lifecycle. Specifically, Converse can implement a recycling program that encourages consumers to bring back their used Converse shoes in exchange for a discount on a new pair of Converse. This system would hopefully give Converse the opportunity to recycle their own used materials and reuse that material to make new Converse. This would give Converse differentiation within the market which would maintain their market competitiveness. I believe that policies and regulations regarding strict standards of ethical and sustainable supply chain practices that involve the entire product life cycle, including the potential waste that the product may create after use, should be implemented. I also believe that when companies do meet these strict standards, they should be rewarded in some way. This will incentivize companies to take action and increase sustainable and ethical practices, along with achieving profitability within their business.

18. Nike’s global supply chain is a key reason Converse sneakers remain affordable, as production costs in Vietnam are much lower than in the U.S. However, this comes with downsides, such as tariffs, supply chain risks, and ethical concerns like labor conditions and pollution from transporting materials across the world. While outsourcing keeps prices competitive, the hidden costs of global trade, such as emissions and factory working conditions, are harder to ignore.

    If I were a U.S. shoe worker, I’d argue that bringing production back home could create jobs and strengthen the economy. While labor costs would be higher, Nike could offset this by using automation and sustainable production methods. Plus, with more consumers caring about ethical and locally made products, Nike could use U.S. production as a selling point.

    Lastly, to address hidden costs, brands like Converse should be more transparent about where and how their products are made. Governments could also encourage responsible sourcing by offering tax breaks to companies that meet ethical labor and environmental standards. While a global supply chain is necessary, there are ways to balance cost savings with sustainability and fair working conditions.

    1. Hi Emma! I like how in your last response you address how brands need to start becoming more transparent with their consumers and addressing where and how their products are being made. I agree that if governments encouraged responsible sourcing by offering tax breaks, more brands would be inclined to become more ethically and environmentally responsible. I also think that if consumers started caring more about where these brands are sourcing from and boycotting the ones that aren’t doing it responsibly, this could help to encourage brands to change.

19. #1: After watching this video on the journey of a sneaker, there are many advantages and disadvantages for Nike to make Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain. Here in America when we get a brand new pair of converse we are thinking about the durability and price, not about the global supply chain. Some positives for Nike leveraging a global supply chain would include things like cheaper materials, faster production, lower risks, advanced technology and techniques. Disadvantages for these tasks are important because they are so global. We can see an increase in climate change and horrible environmental impacts, bad working conditions, low wages, and inconsistent quality.
    #2: If I were an experienced U.S. shoe worker and was going to present to Nike’s sourcing executives to produce Converse shoes in the United States I would make a few bold points. One point I would make would be the impact on the environment. If you produce in the U.S. you are helping the environment by not having intense transportation that causes so many greenhouse gases. Another point would be that here in the U.S., we are seeing the amount of manufacturing jobs decrease tremendously. If you were producing here you would be giving thousands and maybe millions of people jobs. The last point I would make is the fact that with our technology and AI getting to a whole new level, we can see easier and faster production for shoes with less risk of transporting them around the world.

    1. Hey Madison! I too agree that the disadvantages could work to the advantage of an American shoe worker trying to convince Nike to produce Converse domestically. Since the environmental and labor conditions affect so many people when the shoes are made internationally, it may be a better idea for the company to switch to domestic production even if it makes the end product higher priced.

20. #3: I do not think that protective tariffs are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences. International trade in the world we live in has improved productivity and business in general. Keeping all manufacturing and production in the USA could seriously hurt American businesses that rely on globalization through manufacturing and materials in other areas of the world. There is also a huge gain in keeping the peace with other countries through trade and adding these protective tariffs can diminish that relationship with these countries. Globalization can have consequences and is not perfect, but there is a great working relationship between the apparel industry in other countries and the US, that I do not think should be tampered with.

    #4: Converse is a very reputable brand that consumers will listen to. It is extremely important for brand’s to remain transparent about any ethical concerns related to their brand. I would suggest that Converse take a look at their sourcing and manufacturing “hidden costs” and make changes to keep their brand more sustainable. With that being said, they can address these “hidden costs” on their website, with a page dedicated to where they source/manufacture and why, including any concerns. Market competitiveness in a society where it is not required to inform consumers of where and how their products are being made is difficult to navigate. However, in my opinion, I would rather shop from a brand that is completely transparent and working on ethically enhancing their brand, rather than a brand that is more cryptic. I think the government should require brands to disclose any/all information about the production with “hidden costs” included. Having to be transparent with consumers could make brand sales plummet, which ultimately could make brands change their production practices into a more responsible and ethical system. 

21. 1. Nike has advantages and disadvantages to a global supply chain. Disadvantages would be tariffs and the greenhouse gas emissions of all that transportation. Advantages would be that they are able to source things for lower prices and things they cannot get at home.
    2. Protective tariffs can cause nations to become upset with one another as they alter trade. This to me makes them not worth it as nations need to be able to rely on each other for items they do not have in their home nations.

    1. Hi Lucy! I also mentioned how there are many advantages and disadvantages with using a global supply chain. I like how you mentioned that a big disadvantage would be the greenhouse gas emissions due to all of the transportation. In my response I mentioned how a big advantage would be lower manufacturing costs and the products will continue to be a cheaper price for consumers because of lower labor/production costs in other countries.

22. The advantages that Nike has for producing Converse shoes leveraging a global supply chain are that it makes the shoes a lot cheaper in the end and it overall boosts sales for the brand. Since the shoe is produced in multiple different places, the end cost ends up being cheaper because the brand is utilizing resources and labor from other locations. This then benefits them because consumers appreciate the fact that the end product is as cheap as it is and they want to buy more products from them, thus boosting overall revenue. The main disadvantage would be that the overall cost of the shoe production is really bad for the environment. The amount of greenhouse gasses produced from the production process and shipping exceeds almost all the positives of the production process. This may make consumers hesitant to purchase from them in the future. Personally, I believe that if I were to be working as a shoe worker in the U.S., I would recommend Nike to produce Converse in the United States. A big reason would be the environmental portion of the process. If produced domestically, the amount of carbon emissions would lessen immensely since the shoes don’t have to go through international shipping. Another reason I could argue would be that domestic consumers may appreciate the fact that the shoes are produced in the United States. This may want them to support the locally made shoe and make them want to purchase more in the future.

23. #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?

    I would argue to Nike’s sourcing executives that producing products domestically will help them have an easier time managing materials, labor conditions, and product quality. I would also help them understand that domestic production will make them more independent and less reliant on foreign suppliers.

    #3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?

    Yes, protective tariffs are worth the economic and foreign policy consequences because these tariffs will protect manufacturers from overseas competition and allow them to grow and keep jobs. Protective tariffs also help promote fair trade when it comes to currency and pricing overseas.

24. #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?

    If Nike were to make Converse shoes leverage a global supply chain, there would be both advantages and disadvantages. Some advantages include: lower manufacturing costs and the products will continue to be a cheaper price for consumers because of lower labor/production costs in other countries. In the video it talks about how each different part of the shoe can be from different countries (ex: the rubber in the sole, or the shoe laces)- this allows them to have more access to the supplies they need to make their products, rather than if they were only sourcing within the U.S. If Nike were to only manufacture within the U.S., it would make the overall price of the product more expensive, which would turn away consumers, so by sourcing globally for cheaper prices, it keeps the price of the product cheaper and more affordable for consumers to be able to continue to buy from them. Some disadvantages include: taking away jobs from workers in the U.S., Nike can also end up paying a lot in tariffs which would raise the overall cost for consumers, also if Nike continues to support unfair labor practices this could tarnish their reputation and that could lead to consumers not wanting to shop their brands.

    #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?

    If I was an experienced U.S. shoe worker I would argue to Nike’s executives to produce Converse in the U.S. because it would create more jobs for people in the U.S. which would overall help to improve our economy, it would allow Converse to be able to cut their shipping costs down and the products would get to the consumer quicker, and it would allow the brand to cut down their global footprint by not adding to the environmental issues of Co2, greenhouse gases, and they wouldn’t be supporting inhumane working conditions in other countries.

    1. I think the points you make in your response to question #2 are very interesting! These all seem to be very tempting benefits for Nike to shift their production to the United States! By transitioning production to the U.S., we know that Nike would be able to decrease shipping costs (global costs to domestic costs), reduce their negative environmental impact, and have better control of the working conditions throughout their supply chain. However, I wonder how much the cost to produce these shoes would increase due to the higher wages within the U.S. versus in foreign countries. I would be interested in seeing how much money shifting production to the United States would save for Nike versus how much more it would costs them, and if these two sides balance out or not!

25. #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?

    There are many advantages and disadvantages to Nike producing Converse shoes utilizing a global supply chain. By utilizing a global supply chain, Nike is able to cost-effectively source materials and production, leading to lower costs for their consumers. Under this manufacturing structure, Nike is able to source various parts of the production process to countries that specialize in producing that material or in carrying out that production aspect. If Nike were to produce Converse exclusively in the U.S., we could expect to see the overall price exceptionally rise as they would now have to import these materials from across the globe and therefore pay potential import fees and tariffs. However, there are disadvantages to Nike’s use of a global supply chain, notably its impact on the environment. The video stated that 25% of world-wide greenhouse gas emissions come from transporting goods, a shockingly large number! By utilizing raw materials from across the world and having to ship them to one site and then by shipping finished goods to stores, malls, customers, etc., Nike’s production of Converse is negatively impacting our environment. In addition, when labor is sourced to other less developed countries, such as Vietnam, the factory workers are not guaranteed high-quality working conditions and may often be underpaid.

    #3: In your opinion, are protective tariffs worth the economic and foreign policy consequences? Why or why not?

    I have very mixed opinions of protective tariffs. I believe that they are beneficial to U.S. manufacturing workers as they encourage production and manufacturing to occur within the United States rather than abroad, increasing the number of factory jobs. I additionally believe that they can work to help protect the environment as the amount of transportation necessary for goods may slightly decrease. However, I believe that tariffs overall raise the price of goods for the American consumer. Companies like Nike will not willingly take on the full burden of these tariffs but will rather pass some of the additional charges on to their consumers. In addition protective tariffs may strain the United State’s relationships with foreign countries, which could have unknown future consequences. I think it is very hard to classify protective tariffs as either just good or bad, and really depends on what each individual views as most important.

Comments are closed.