B2b Marketing

INTRODUCTION

For economic reasons, many multinationals have outsourced some of their production activities in countries characterized by labor-intensive and relatively low cost compared to that of developed countries or other developing countries. These outsourcing strategies based on economic calculations nevertheless have certain drawbacks, such as being one open to ethical and environmental activists. Among the multinational companies in the crosshairs of activists whose image and ethical and financial results were affected by these attacks, it is difficult to find a better example than the market leader in sporting goods: Nike. With the emergence and development of critical and ethical demands more and more vehement, how the multinational Nike has she reacted? What are the consequences of the strategies? What lessons of a more general can be deduced from this particular study? Our contribution aims to clarify these issues. In the first part, we present some contextual elements and main characteristics of the multinational Nike. Further characterization of the multinational and the emergence of ethical demands, we seek to understand why these attacks have mainly focused on Nike, while the situation ethics of its main competitors (Reebok and Adidas) seems similar. Then, in a second part, we study the expectations of key stakeholders involved voluntarily or involuntarily in the ethical controversy that caters to Nike and its subcontractors. We distinguish stakeholders supported the explicit consideration of ethical strategies and stakeholders reluctant, and even inimical to the integration of this problem. A third part allows us to identify a reference to generic conceptual framework described by Godet (1991) and Louppe and Rocaboy (1994), the different generations of strategic responses of multinational and study their consequences. This third part is based on a historical reconstruction of the main ethical waves of attacks directed against Nike and its subcontractors and answers. We distinguish three phases in the responses of Nike: 1) a phase of inactivity and refusal of the ethical problem characterized by the rejection of ethical responsibilities to other agents, 2) a phase where reactivity Nike tries as best wrong to respond to criticisms and ethical demands, but the continuity of a permanent delay of answers to requests from ever-qualitative and quantitative growth, 3) a development stage shy and proactive strategies preactivated where Nike starts to anticipate demand or, in some cases, contributes to cause some changes. The analysis of these different responses and their consequences allows us to highlight some more general applications and suggest ways of deepening