Nike’s Missing Values: Does Anyone Care?
The news on Tuesday that Nike Oregon Project coach Alberto Salazar had been banned for four years due to doping violations came at me out of nowhere. While I’d followed the early part of this story a couple years ago, I’d mostly forgotten about it in the ensuing months. I was relieved to hear that the investigative journalism of ProPublica’s David Epstein and the BBC’s Mark Daly, along with the brave whistleblowing of Kara Goucher and steve magness, had been proven through proper process. It was their story that initially broke the case wide open.
This is only the latest episode in an ongoing Nike ethics drama that seems to have no end. There’s Lance Armstrong, Joe Paterno, #metoo issues at HQ, refusing to pay pregnant female athletes, sponsorship of many track athletes with questionable doping histories, and more.
Is there a systematic flaunting of the rules going on in Beaverton? I’d argue that there is, and that the rule breaking is built into Nike’s DNA. For example, this article in the WSJ talks about how Salazar and Nike CEO Mark Parker discussed the specifics of performance enhancing drugs for their athletes. On one hand I’ve admired Parker as a designer who rose through the ranks to lead the company. On the other hand I have serious questions about the way he leads. For a brand that built its reputation on authentic athletic achievement, that is a serious problem.
Nike’s corporate vision statement is to “remain the most authentic, connected, and distinctive” brand. Right now, “distinctive” is the only word that does not ring hollow.
Oregon Project is like an appendage for the global brand, whose roots came from track and field. And Salazar was an early star athlete for Nike. In fact, the office building on the Nike campus that houses many senior executives, including CEO Mark Parker, is named after him. The team, led by Salazar, is as close to the soul of Nike as any other sports team. It’s also not lost on me that Nike has named buildings (some since changed) not only after Salazar, but also after disgraced ambassadors Lance Armstrong and Joe Paterno.
At the same time, Nike’s stock has skyrocketed over the last two years, hitting an all-time high of $92 per share last week. If you’re evaluating the CEO based on financial performance, you’d give him an A rating. I’m often aware of this tension in business: revenue vs values. Ethics sound great until they cost a company money. At that point they’re often thrown out the window.
While the Millennial/Gen Z customer typically cares more about values and authenticity than their Baby Boomer predecessors, I still wonder how many businesses will make decisions based on ethics. Do enough people make purchases based on the greater good to force a company to change its behavior? Companies like Walmart, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Patagonia have recently made values-based decisions that align with the majority of their customers, even if the financial impact was potentially negative. Will Nike side with customers or continue to chase share price? I’ll be following closely.
