沒有公認的企業社會責任（CSR）標準定義。它通常是指一家公司的經營方法符合或超過公司要求的道德、法律和公共標準（Duthler和Dhanesh，2018年）。企業開展業務活動時，還考慮了公司對各利益相關者的影響（周、基，2018）。利益相關者是指能夠影響或受公司決策和行動影響的所有個人或團體，包括但不限于：員工、客戶、供應商、社區團體、母公司或附屬公司、合伙人、投資者、股東等（Kud_ak、Sz_cs、Krumay anD Martinuzzi，2018年）。從企業社會責任的定義來看，它與企業責任有很大的區別。傳統的企業責任是指企業如何獲得最大的利潤。企業社會責任要求企業對消費者、社區和環境等利益相關者負責，同時為股東和員工創造利潤并承擔法律責任（Sakunasingha、Jiraporn和Uyar，2018年）。隨著社會、文明和經濟的進步，企業社會責任的重要性得到了廣泛的認識。例如，企業社會責任可以促進創新和可持續發展。但是，一些企業甚至知名企業的管理實踐仍然違背了企業社會責任。本文首先回顧了企業社會責任的相關定義和研究。然后以耐克為例，通過深入分析這些行為對耐克利益相關者的負面影響，介紹耐克違反企業社會責任的一些行為，以企業社會責任理論為基礎，總結和評價這些行為的危害。
There is not a recognized standard definition for corporate social responsibility (CSR). It generally refers to a company’s operating methods that meet or exceed ethical, legal, and public standards for corporate requirements (Duthler and Dhanesh, 2018). When enterprises conduct business activities, they also consider the impact of the companies on various stakeholders’ (Zhou and Ki, 2018). Stakeholders are all individuals or groups that can influence or be affected by a company's decisions and actions, including but not limited to: employees, customers, suppliers, community groups, parent companies or affiliates, partners, investors, shareholders and so on (Kud?ak, Sz?cs, Krumay and Martinuzzi, 2018). Judging from the definition of CSR, it differs greatly from corporate responsibility. Traditional corporate responsibility refers to how an enterprise obtains maximum profit. CSR requires companies to take responsibility for stakeholders such as consumers, communities, and the environment while creating profits and taking legal responsibility for shareholders and employees (Sakunasingha, Jiraporn and Uyar, 2018). Although with the advancement of society, civilization and economy, the importance of CSR has been widely recognized. For example, CSR can contribute to innovation and sustainable development. However, the management practices of some enterprises and even well-known enterprises are still in violation of CSR. In this study, it first reviewed the relevant definitions and researches of CSR. Then, it took NIKE as an example to introduce some of its behaviors that violate CSR, by in-depth analysis on the negative impact of these behaviors on Nike’s stakeholders to summarize and evaluate the harm of these behaviors based on CSR theory.
2.0 Main body主體
2.1 Definition of CSR企業社會責任的定義
Stephen P. Robbins thought, CSR refers to the responsibility that an enterprise undertakes for long-term goals that are beneficial to a society and are in excess of legal and economic requirements (Liu, Wang and Chen, 2018). Stephen P.Robbins認為，企業社會責任是指企業為有利于社會的、超出法律和經濟要求的長期目標而承擔的責任（劉、王、陳，2018）。
Chen, Hung and Wang (2018) believed that CSR refers to the obligation that companies should undertake to safeguard and promote social progress while pursuing the maximization of benefits. That is, when making decisions, companies should abide by laws and regulations, pay attention to moral values, respect citizens, benefit communities, and protect the environment. Enterprises must assume social responsibility for different stakeholders, including production safety, occupational health, protection of employees’ legal rights, provision of safe products and services, compliance with business ethics, protection of the environment, support for the development of disadvantaged groups, and so on.陳、洪、王（2018）認為，企業社會責任是指企業在追求利益最大化的同時，應承擔的維護和促進社會進步的義務。也就是說，企業在決策時應遵守法律法規，重視道德價值，尊重公民，造福社會，?；せ肪?。企業必須對不同的利益相關者承擔社會責任，包括安全生產、職業健康、?；ぴ憊さ暮戲ㄈㄒ?、提供安全的產品和服務、遵守商業道德、?；せ肪?、支持企業的發展和發展。f弱勢群體等。
Shim, Chung and Kim (2017) figured that CSR is a broader responsibility than being solely responsible for the profitability of shareholders. It does not aim at the short-term economic benefits of a company, but is a rational and long-term comprehensive responsibility that is committed to social development and progress.
Judging from the above definitions of CSR, CSR has four characteristics (Kud?ak, Sz?cs, Krumay and Martinuzzi, 2018; Chen, Hung and Wang, 2018; Zhou and Ki, 2018). First, it requires the initiative of an enterprise to bear it. It exceeds legal and economic requirements. Second, CSR is a long-term rather than a short-term management behavior of an enterprise. Third, CSR requires that companies should not only focus on profits but also focus on the needs of stakeholders. Finally, corporate commitment to CSR is a rational act and it does not require companies to assume responsibility for stakeholders beyond their capabilities.
2.2 Nike sweatshop
Nike, the world’s largest manufacturer of sporting goods, issued a report in April 2005 acknowledging the existence of forcing workers to work overtime in its Southeast Asian factories and preventing workers from drinking water during working hours, thereby certifying the outside world’s accusations against Nike’s overseas factories as a "sweatshop" (Lagerie, 2013). Since then, Nike has tried to restore its image through various means. This includes strengthening the supervision of factories and cooperating with human rights organizations to rectify the supply chain. However, in recent years Nike's sweatshop scandals have been exploded. For example, a Nike OEM in Vietnam has a management system of deducting employees' wages, imposing mandatory overtime, limiting workers' use of toilets, and having direct access to toxic solvents. The workers unconsciously fainted in front of the sewing machine under extremely hot and extremely heavy work loads. In a Nike OEM in Cambodia, 500 workers in the factory were sent to the hospital because of high work load and poor working conditions - 6 days a week, 10 hours a day, 37 degrees inside the factory, which made them collapsed (Paharia, Vohs and Deshpandé, 2013). The Nike OEM in Honduras suffered from wage deductions, excessive work intensity, excessive restrictions on the personal freedom of laborers, poor working conditions, and other factors, leading employees to hold a rally against Nike (Adams, 2002).
2.3 Stakeholder analysis
From an employee's point of view, the Nike sweatshop incident seriously damaged the employees’ physical and mental health, and damaged their right to legal remuneration. Some of Nike’s actions were not merely violations of labor laws, and some are even involved violations of basic ethical and moral issues. From the perspective of shareholders, the sweatshop incident triggered a condemnation of Nike within the scope of the world, which had a negative impact on Nike’s corporate and product image, resulting in a decline in Nike’s share price over a period of time and damaging shareholders’ rights. From a consumer's point of view, consumers like Nike’s products, which is not only because of its high technology content, fashion, good quality and other reasons, but also because Nike represents a fashionable, young, athletic lifestyle, and the sweatshop incidents subverted the perception of Nike's image and has reduced consumers' psychological consumption experience for the products. In order to reduce costs, there are many loopholes in environmental protection in the sweatshops. The employees were directly exposed to toxic solvents, some toxic substances were directly discharged into the natural environment, which not only damaged the local environment but also affected the health of local people.
2.4 CSR analysis
Nike sweatshop incidents often occurred in areas with relatively low levels of economic development, such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and Honduras. Labor laws in these areas are relatively imperfect and there is a defect in the protection of employees’ rights. Therefore, Nike’s sweatshops cannot be effectively controlled. Therefore, to solve the problem of sweatshops, Nike needs to take active measures. So, does Nike have enough reason and motivation to solve the sweatshop problem? The author thinks that the answer is yes. The reasons are in the following two aspects. First, though sweatshops will reduce the companies’ cost and increase the shareholders' income in a short period of time, considering from an overall perspective, if the sweatshops are disclosed, its reputation will be affected, its image will be destroyed, consumers will refuse to purchase the products, business sales revenue will decline, and the share prices will fall. Taking all these into consideration, the benefits that the sweatshops bring to Nike are not enough to make up for the losses caused by sweatshops. Second, the Nike sweatshop incidents reflected that some of its corporate management thinking also positioned the company's development in a cost-driven model. The cost-driven model placed emphasis on controlling costs, and by participating in market competition through price advantage. This model is not conducive to the development of the enterprise in the long run, it will allow the company to lack of innovation and lose technical advantages, making it fall into the price war. The long-term development strategy of a company like Nike should be driven by technological innovation to drive the development of the company. Therefore, in the long run, the sweatshop model is not consistent with Nike's long-term development strategy. All in all, Nike has enough motivation to stop sweatshop incidents, but it does not mean that Nike needs to increase the welfare and income of the sweatshop workers’ at all costs. Reasonable social responsibility is a choice for Nike, for example, to protect Vietnamese employees’ welfare and economic income, to improve the working environment. However, there is no need to increase the income and salary of Vietnamese employees’ to the level of those that employees in the same position in the United States acquire.