please see attached


PURPOSE: The purpose of this exercise is to conceptualize and operationalize variables, and understand how conceptual and operational definitions impact the conclusions drawn about variables.

WRITING REQUIREMENTS: The essay should be 7-9 pages. APA formatting should be used throughout (cover page, running header, major heading, subheadings, in-text citations, and reference list). Any time you paraphrase or directly quote a source, in-text citations should be used. A full APA-formatted reference should be included at the end of the assignment.

The essay should include the following subheadings:


Conceptualizes race

Operationalizes race

Census Bureau changes

How changes to variables affect conclusions


INSTRUCTIONS: Make sure to follow the directions in order.

First, provide a definition of the terms: “conceptual definition” and “operational definition”.

Next, conceptualize and operationalize the variable “race.”

Read the Census Bureau’s report on race.

Answer the following questions after reading the report:

What changes did the Bureau make to the conceptualization and operationalization of race in the 2010 census?

Why did the Bureau make these changes?

Could the difference in operationalization produce different conclusions about race?

Does the Bureau’s conceptualization and operationalization of race coincide with yours? If so, how? If not, what is different?

General requirements:

Submissions should be typed, double-spaced, 1″ margins, times new roman 12 pt font, and saved as .doc, .docx, .pdf.

Use APA format for citations and references

View the grading rubric so you understand how you will be assessed on this Assignment.

Disclaimer- Originality of attachments will be verified by Turnitin. Both you and your instructor will receive the results.

This course has “Resubmission” status enabled to help you if you realized you submitted an incorrect or blank file, or if you need to submit multiple documents as part of your Assignment. Resubmission of an Assignment after it is grades, to attempt a better grade, is not permitted.

Week 11 discussion post

See attached

Discussion: Disseminating Research

Researchers disseminate their findings formally through a variety of methods. The most common include professional papers, conference sessions, publication in professional, peer-reviewed journals, and dissertations. Researchers can also disseminate their findings informally by networking with colleagues. Both formal and informal methods can create opportunities for practice improvement and social change.

In this final Discussion, you share your research informally by identifying a key idea or piece of information from your research proposal. You also connect your study to social work practice, and identify any limitations that might exist.

To Prepare:

· Review your research proposal. While doing so, consider one thing you learned that would be helpful to your social work colleagues. This could relate to the literature you read on your topic, how you approached the research proposal, or a concept or process you found particularly enlightening.

· Think critically about your proposed research and how, if the study were conducted, it might inform social work practice. Consider any limitations.

By Day 3

Share a key takeaway from your research proposal with your colleagues. Then, explain how your proposed research would inform social work practice. Finally, identify what you perceive as the potential limitations of your proposed study and how you might address those if you were to conduct the study.

Please support your response with external sources (i.e., cite and reference).

By Day 6

Respond to two colleagues by describing ways in which their research could influence social change.

Social research


My topic: how common is substance abuse among teens

This assignment requires you to search electronic databases that specialize in scholarly journals. Some of these include Academic Search Complete, Psych INFO, Social Work Abstracts and MEDLINE (you are not limited to these databases, but they are a good starting point).

  1. Select      a social work topic of interest to you (e.g., the relationship between      alcohol use and suicide). Based on your topic, create a research question      (e.g., what is the relationship between alcohol use and suicide in adult      males?).  See list of sample      research questions below.
  2. Identify      the independent (e.g., alcohol use) and dependent variables (e.g., suicide      completion).
  3. Locate three (3) quantitative      research studies (articles) from scholarly journals relevant to your research question      using any of the databases stated above. These studies cannot be literature reviews or meta-analyses.
  4. Describe      your topic and the database(s) you used to locate the study (article). Write a short paragraph (a couple of sentences)      about each article describing the findings (relevant to your research      question), the independent and dependent variables in each study, and the      sample size. 

Reporting findings:

Report findings in two ways:

1) Provide a direct quotation of results reported in the study.

2) Paraphrase the results.

Please use the following format:

Study 1:

Direct quotation of findings

Paraphrase findings

Study 2:

Direct quotation of findings

Paraphrase findings

Study 3:

Direct quotation of findings

Paraphrase findings

  1. Provide      the full citation      of the article using APA formatting style.

Searching Using Electronic Databases

Library Website

–Electronic Information

–Library Databases

–Choose a database (e.g., Psych Info, Academic Search Complete).

Example of APA Citations of Articles:

Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309-337.

Example of using authors’ name in text:

Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2000) found…

Example of Citing a Direct Quote:

“There’s no place like home” (Dorothy & Toto, 2009, p. 365)

Example of Paraphrasing Another’s Work

My house is a truly unique location (Dorothy & Toto, 2009).

Exegetical research help service


Bible Study Project: Application Template

Passage: Acts 9:36-43

A. What points of application can be made using the “Four Questions for Application?” State and explain 1 point of application for each of these four questions. Your explanation for each of these points should be 1 paragraph (150-300 words) in length. 

1. The question of duty

Regarding the question of duty, Peter as a disciple of Jesus Christ, had a duty to pray for Tabitha when her life ended. It is vital to acknowledge that Tabitha was also one of the disciples. Notably, owing to the fact that Peter had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, his prayers were always heard by God. It is due to the personal relationship with Jesus and God that his prayer was heard, and Tabitha came back to life (Cartwright & Hulshof, 2016). At the Church I go to pray when a member of the church gets sick; the pastor announces it during a service and asks the church members to pray for the sick individual. 

Remarkably, Christians have a responsibility to take care of each other and love one another, for it is the greatest commandment of God. Christians should always help others in their time of need, especially when sick. As Christians, we should acknowledge that prayer is powerful because Peter was able to bring back Tabitha to life. Notably, Christians need to form personal relationships with God and Jesus Christ to increase the chances of their prayers being heard. The only way Christians can help people in need is to help them by praying for their quick recovery because God has healing powers over all sicknesses. 

2. The question of character as answered by assignment help service site.

A critical examination of the disciple, Tabitha, indicates that she is an exemplary example of good character. According to Acts 9:36, Tabitha was a woman full of good works and exhibited great deeds. It is vital to acknowledge that God often works through the Holy Spirit, which is why the Holy Spirit works through human beings, especially those who believe in God as the superior being (Cartwright & Hulshof, 2016, retrieved from https://assignmenthelpsite.com/category/social-sciences/). Notably, when human beings allow the Holy Spirit to have control over their lives, it is often evident in their actions. Remarkably, most people want to be like God because He made us in His own image and we are supposed to glorify His name for the good things He has done in our lives. It is vital to acknowledge that human beings can accept the Holy Spirit to guide their lives into righteousness through prayer. 

Just like the Holy Spirit led Tabitha, Christians can accept the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in their daily lives. Remarkably, Christians should acknowledge that God has only good intentions, and He cannot lead them in the wrong direction. The best way for Christians to be of good character is by trusting God and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead them. 

3. The question of goals

Based on the story about Tabitha, it is evident that the disciples were goal-oriented. When Tabitha died, the disciples made an effort to look for Peter to help in bringing Tabitha back to life. It is vital to acknowledge that the disciples were determined to see Tabitha rise from the dead, and this is the reason they called on Peter to help (Cartwright & Hulshof, 2016). Remarkably, the disciples had the information that Peter was not far away from Joppa, where Tabitha had died, and thus they traveled to where he was to seek his assistance. For my future career, I want to be the reason why people feel cared for and loved because I will be actively involved in helping them when they are suffering from their problems, such as addiction. I believe it is my passion is a source of motivation that has helped me to keep going to school. I have learned never to give up if the situation becomes difficult. 

Just like the disciples had a goal to save the life of Tabitha, human beings should have a purpose in life. The disciples did all they could do in their power to help save Tabitha, who had just died. Human beings, and especially Christians, should learn to trust God to help them get through difficult situations. 

4. The question of discernment

Peter, the disciple who brought Tabitha back to life, was well aware that the only thing he could do was get on his knees and pray to God, who is the provider of life. The act of Peter getting on his knees and praying to God is well stated in Acts 9:40 (Cartwright & Hulshof, 2016). It is vital to acknowledge that in difficult situations, there is a dire need to seek God’s help because He has all the solutions to our problems. There was this day that I had gone to town to make purchase some products for use in the house. I was getting into the supermarket a guy bumped into me and asked me for food. The unfortunate thing is that the guy was living on the streets, and he could not even afford to find something to eat. I sympathized with his situation and gave him all the cash I had on me. The guy got overwhelmed and greatly appreciated my kindness. As an individual who values assisting other people, I felt the need to help the needy guy. Just like Peter helped bring back Tabitha to life, it was imperative to help the stranger. 


Cartwright, J., & Hulshof, C. (2016) Everyday Bible Study: Growing in the Christian Faith (2nd Ed.) Nashville, TN: B & H Academic: https://assignmenthelpsite.com/assignment-help-services/ 


Concept of God in Christianity and Islam

Student’s Name

Institution’s Affiliation

Concept of God in Christianity and Islam


God is commonly seen as the highest deity, maker, and primary object of trust in monotheistic religions. Each of the three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam have varying practices and consideration about God. Nonetheless, Christianity and Islam are the primary religions of discussion in this paper. Based on the size of the dominance of the Abrahamic religion, Judaism is the largest, followed by Christianity and the Islam falls on the third position with the least dominance. The teachings of Jesus, a Jewish descendant, and a son of a virgin mother, Mary, are the foundation of Christian beliefs. Islamic religion, on either hand, finds its roots in the life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad.  He was the final apostle sent in by God, and the core mission of spreading the Islamic word and validating Jesus’ monotheism principles. As a result, there are certain similarities and distinctions between the concepts of God, and the accompanying belief systems and spiritual activities between these Christianity and Islamic faiths in terms of their fundamental beliefs. The reference for writing this thesis is outlined at
exegetical research paper help service

Basic Tenets of Christianity

The “Trinity of Persons” is the foundational principle of Christianity. Because Christians believes in existence of just one God, they are categorized into monotheism. Christians believe that God is the maker of humankind the cosmos and all things in it, and that he is divine, all-powerful, and omnipresent. This one Deity, on the other hand, is shown as three people in one. Trinitarian seems to be the concept of God existing in three individuals. The Trinity, is considered as one Deity who works in three different ways, and therefore, Christians do not have three gods in one God, in other words, one super-natural being who portrays himself three different forms. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are these three forms wherein the almighty God as well as His holy existence. God, the Father, is considered by Christians as the first character and also the Trinity’s link of oneness, as well as the Godhead’s spring and foundation, and also the parent and consequence of the essential genesis for each of the other two individuals. God, the Son, is considered as the second member of the Trinity and assumes the appearance of both God and humanity, expressing divine sense of compassion. The Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity and represents God’s life among Believers (Latief at Assignmenthelpsite.com, 2011). Although they coexist in Trinity, the three persons are one, and possess similar values that guides the believers throughout their spiritual life.

“God the Father”, “God the Son,” and “God the Holy Spirit” are really not independent individuals; rather, God’s identity is made up of the interaction among the three forms. Christians believes that the conviction in Deity’s Trinity is the way to Heaven’s everlasting life. Christians, more than any other faith, places a high value on their principles and more focused on maintaining righteousness. The source of the word “orthodox” is “right belief,” which refers to religious activities that are thought to adhere to the guidelines and conventions established by the larger Christian community. To call oneself a Christian, one should believe in and follow the Christian ideas and principles (Latief, 2011). To embrace the Holy Spirit’s involvement as well as the Father’s graces, one must embrace the precise lifestyle provided by Jesus Christ.

Basic Tenets of Islam

The fundamental pillars of Islamic religion regard God as a unique character and sovereignty, His creation of the earth and humankind, and mankind’s destiny after life. As the Islamic religion, God is considered as just one, with qualities such as being almighty, omniscient, and ethereal.  Through His kindness, compassion, and might, the one God regarded as Allah rules over the entire cosmos. Allah is the one and only maker of the nice and lovely cosmos. Humanity is Allah’s most magnificent creations, with everlasting spirits capable of living perpetually with Heavenly father. According to the religion, Muslims should adopt the particular viewpoint in Allah, the Almighty Creator, as the only Deity, in order to achieve eternity in heaven (Esposito & Burgat, 2013). Muslims are also expected to exercise their faith by meeting the responsibilities referred to as the “five pillars” of Islamic religion. Regular prayer, recitation of the creed, almsgiving, pilgrimage to Mecca, and fasting throughout Ramadan are the five principles.

Muslims are required to recite Salat, which is the daily prayer as a way of worshipping God, five times daily, at dawn, lunchtime, midafternoon, twilight, and nighttime. This Islamic core belief, or Shahadah, is primarily comprised of a short statement: “there is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the messenger (prophet of Allah), (La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasul Allah).”  At least once in their lives, every Muslims are obligated to repeat the confession in its entirety, carefully and with enthusiasm, although most of the Muslims in the contemporary society do it many times per day. Providing to the needy is what almsgiving/charity, majorly referred to as zakat includes. Besides, the Muslims are expected to give 1/40 of their earnings to help the poor. Fasting (sawn) is the practice of refraining from meals, sexual activity, medication, nicotine, and alcohol from dawn to dusk throughout the holy month of Ramadan.  Among the adult, normal Muslims are required or mandated to do the “Hajj” (pilgrimage) to Mecca (Esposito & Burgat, 2013). Every Muslim is expected to do the ritual at least once in their lives.

Similarities and Differences in the Concept of God between Christians and Muslims

Both Christianity and Islam are laid on the foundation of a single God, the Almighty and almighty creator of the world and humankind. Muslims and Christians also believe in the afterlife life or rather eternity, which is attained by clinging to the Christian belief of single God and following each faith’s prescribed principles. Even though the two religions share numerous ideas, principles and other aspects there are notable variances in their ideologies. God exists in three people according to Christianity (Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit). Muslims, on either hand considers God as just a single person, Allah. This creates a difference between the two religion’s consideration on the existence of God.  Muslims consider Jesus Christ as a spiritual leader, the divine prophet while Christians adore him as God, where He falls under the “God the Son” in the Holy Trinity. This suggests despite both religions sharing Jesus as the divine being, their titles or roles varies such that the Islamic religion considers Him as a spiritual leader whereas the Christianity considers him as God. Christianity believe is founded on Jesus, who is believes to have rose from the dead and went to Heaven to join God, whereas Islamic religion is centered solely in Christ’ ascension though not in his crucifixion, death and resurrection. Therefore, both Muslims and Christians regards Jesus as a prophet. Despite the various difficulties surrounding Jesus’ identification by Christians who believes that he was a messenger of God, and hence he is God.

Besides, Christians maintains that all humans have acquired their parents; Adam and Eve’s sinful nature, whereas Muslims maintains their believes in Adam and Eve’s guilt but the variation from the Christians beliefs is that Muslims do not consider that all humans have inherited sin from Adam and Eve (Esposito & Burgat, 2013). As a result, in Christianity religion, the condemnation of everyone because of single person’s transgression is applicable, unlike the Islamic religion where sin is considered as a personal deed and hence the beholder takes the full responsibility. Another similarity arising between the Muslims and Christians is on the denominational divisions within the faiths. On the Christianity, God is the same for all the denominations, “the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Restorationism” whereas the Islamic religions also has the “Sunni” and “Shi’a” as the main two denominations. Despite the denominational differences among believers within these faiths, believers from both sides think that God would keep working with all of the varied denominations provided that they remain committed to the core foundations and remain obedient on the commandment that God gave them to govern their faith.

Considering the scriptural differences and similarities between the two religions, The Gospels, Torah, and Psalms are accepted as holy texts by Muslims, while the remainder of the Christian and Hebrew writings are disregarded. This suggests that despite the Muslims using Quran as their holy book and Bible for Christianity, there are some similarities in the readings, and so are the differences.  Christianity, on the other hand, recognizes a wider biblical repertoire compared to Muslims, which includes prophetic and historical works, as well as wisdom and aesthetic writings (Esposito & Burgat, 2013). Furthermore, Christians maintains their believe that God intervened particularly in the form of Jesus Christ, according to Latief (2011).  Jesus Christ is seen as Divine genuine likeness, as well as the savior and messenger who embodies and portrays God’s real picture to humanity. As a result, Christ is worshipped as both God and humanity in Christianity.  Considering the creations, Christians believes that God made human beings in His likeness, and this translates to the reason why Jesus is considered as God-man (Genesis 1:27). Believers of Islamic religion, on the other hand, consider that humanity was not made in Divine fearfully and wonderfully, or rather in image and likeness of God (QS. 42:11). Conversely, according to Islam, they believe that Allah breathed new life into mankind after creating him from the “dust” of the ground (QS. 23:12; QS. 32: 9; 15:29). Through this, it can be suggested that Muslims have no idea of the real image of Allah, the God, or do not have an idea of his likeness like the Christians do.


Throughout this paper, the two Abrahamic religions, Islam and Christianity’s concept of God was evident to be possessing some differences and similarities based on the tenets of each religion. The faith in a single Supreme Deity is the common ground across Christianity and Islam. The distinctions in the understanding of God among these faiths, nevertheless, occur in the framework of the Trinity of persons: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Through this, believers of Christianity trust in God’s presence as a trinity, which is considered as three persons in one in this Trinity (Mark 12:28). Nonetheless, Muslims in their Islamic doctrines believe in the oneness of God, which is inscribed in the Holy Quran (QS. 112: 1-4). Consequently, despite their differing viewpoints, both faiths are founded on monotheism faith which recognize and regard God as a single individual who is in charge of the entire universe, and above all the creator of the universe and all the things in it. However, some other differences occur between these religions which includes the roles and title given to Jesus, where the Islam considers Jesus as the spiritual leader, with divine power of guiding them throughout their religious lives while Christians considers Jesus Christ as God, and falls under the Holy Trinity as “God the Son,” unlike the Islam where Allah was the only single-person God. As can be seen from the above ideas, God, is considered as the highest actuality, and is the maker of the universe and everything as per the Islam and Christianity. He is considered as the creator as well as the nurturer and destroyer of all things. God is completely reliant on the rest of the globe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful.


Abulafia, A. (2019). British Library. Retrieved 2 May 2022, from

Craig, W. L., & Ally, S. (2002). The concept of God in Islam and Christianity. 
Debated by William Lane Craig and Shabir Ally at McMaster University.

Esposito, J. L., & Burgat, F. (Eds.). (2013). Modernizing Islam: religion in the public sphere in the Middle East and Europe. Rutgers University Press.Retrieved from

Hall, A. (2012). 
Why Christianity: Fundamental Principles and Beliefs. Charisma Media.

Humphreys, R. S. (2020). Islamic history. In 
Islamic History. Princeton University Press.

Larson, W. (2008). Jesus in Islam and Christianity: Discussing the Similarities and the Differences. 
36(3), 327-341.

Latief, J. A. (2011). The Concept of God in Christianity: an Islamic Perspective. Al-Ulum, 11(1), 1-16.

Miner, M., Ghobary, B., Dowson, M., & Proctor, M. T. (2014). Spiritual attachment in Islam and Christianity: Similarities and differences. 
Mental Health, Religion & Culture
17(1), 79-93.

Renard, J. (2011). Islam and Christianity. In 
Islam and Christianity. University of California Press.

Countertransference and transference


With any relationship, the boundaries between people can sometimes become blurred. An interaction that has been identified in social work practice as a potential for blurring boundaries is called countertransference. This dynamic occurs when a social worker unconsciously relates to the client’s situation. Perhaps the client reminds the social worker of themselves at a point in their lives or of a close friend. This perspective may result in intense feelings, a narrowing of professional boundaries, and ultimately a weakened client-social worker relationship.

Similarly, these same intense feelings can occur in the client if the client aligns the social worker with an influential person in their life, such as seeing the social worker as a mother figure. This phenomenon is known as transference. Reflect on countertransference and transference and how you might minimize its effects in a social work scenario.

  • Define the concepts of countertransference and transference as they relate to working with a client.
  • Identify a population or a social issue to which you may personally relate.
  • Reflect on and describe how countertransference could negatively impact your relationship with a client who may relate to the population or social issue you identified.  
  • Reflect on and describe how the client may engage in transference with you for similar reasons. Identify two strategies you would use to address countertransference and/or transference in this scenario.

Psychoanalytic Social Work, 18:136–148, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1522-8878 print / 1522-9033 online
DOI: 10.1080/15228878.2011.611788

Working Through Countertransference Blocks
in Cultural-Competence Training

Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, Israel

The encounter with clients from diverse cultural backgrounds may
stir in the practitioners intense counter-transferencial reactions,
which if unexplored may obstruct the helping relationships and in-
terventions. This article presents and demonstrates a cultural com-
petence training where such countertransference can be worked
through. The training applies a combination of narrative analysis
that emphasizes the active participation of the listener in the sense-
making process and of the exploration of group processes from a
psychoanalytically oriented point of view. Presented are four vi-
gnettes that demonstrate different types of countertransference and
of the group process.

KEYWORDS immigration, cultural competence, countertransfer-
ence, training


It is commonly agreed that three basic elements are necessary for effective
cross-cultural practice in the helping professions: cultural awareness, culture-
specific knowledge, and culture-attuned skills (Lu, Lum, & Chen, 2001; Sue,
2001; Lee & Greene, 2003). Cultural awareness typically implies the aware-
ness of the impact of culture on the lives of clients, but also self-awareness
of practitioners as to their own cultural background, and culturally molded
attitudes, beliefs, and biases (NASW, 2001). Expanding practitioners’ self-
awareness is, therefore, one of the aims of cultural-competence training. To
achieve this aim, experiential learning has become an important compo-
nent in training (Weaver, 1998; McCreary & Walker, 2001; Lijtmaer, 2004).
A multitude of experiential techniques is applied in training, among them
structured exercises and role play (Arbour, Bain, & Rubio, 2004), narrative

Address correspondence to Julia Mirsky, Social Work Department, Ben-Gurion University,
PO Box 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]


Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 137

analysis (Kerl, 2002), cultural immersion (Lough, 2009), multimedia and Web-
based learning (Korhonen, 2004), etc.

Viewing self-awareness as a prerequisite for developing cultural aware-
ness as well as internalizing cultural knowledge and skills, this article sug-
gests that conscious as well as unconscious barriers to self-awareness need
to be overcome in training programs for cultural competence. The en-
counter with clients from a different culture, whose experiences as immi-
grants, refugees, or members of a social minority are unfamiliar to Western
practitioners, may stir in the latter a myriad of intense, often unconscious,
emotions. The term cultural countertransference, borrowed from the clin-
ical context, was put forward to denote such emotional reactions. It was
suggested that cultural countertransference is expressed in a matrix of in-
tersecting cognitive and affect-laden beliefs and experiences that may exist
within the practitioner at varying levels of consciousness. Within this matrix
lies the practitioner’s cultural life value system; theoretical beliefs and prac-
tice orientation; subjective biases about ethnic groups; and subjective biases
about his or her own ethnicity. These countertransference attitudes are often
disavowed by the practitioner but they may exert a debilitating influence on
the encounter and interventions (Perez-Foster, 1998).

Practitioners who have experienced immigration, even those who be-
long to a similar cultural group as their clients, are not necessarily free
from unconscious counter-transferencial blocks. In addition to the dynam-
ics described above, these practitioners may be dealing with unconscious
conflicts over their own immigrant identities or immigration experiences,
and unresolved personal issues may hamper their empathy toward clients
(Comas-Diaz & Jacobsen, 1991; Chamorro, 2003; Yedidia, 2005).

This article presents a training model for cultural competence that at-
tempts to address conscious as well as unconscious blocks stemming from
practitioners’ counter-transference. The conceptual assumptions of the model
are presented and followed by number of vignettes that illustrate how the
model is implemented.


Aims and Rationale

The long-term goals of the training are (1) to help practitioners develop
empathy toward clients from various cultural backgrounds, (2) enrich their
knowledge about clients’ culture, and (3) help them implement culture-
attuned interventions. The training emphasizes the open-ended nature of
this process and encourages ongoing cultural knowledge seeking and skills
developing. An intermediate aim, central to the training model, is to help
trainees develop the awareness of their own subjectivity and of their cultural
attitudes and biases. Modeling is offered for a continuous reflection and

138 J. Mirsky

self-exploration as an inseparable part of multicultural practice in the helping
professions. The training combines two techniques—narrative analysis and
the exploration of group processes—each based on a conceptual rationale.

Narratives have been increasingly recognized in mental health and re-
lated disciplines as an important source of insight into the complexity of
human experience (Lieblich, 1998; McAdams, Josselson, & Lieblich, 2001).
Narrative techniques are especially suited for the exploration of the experi-
ences of immigrants, refugees, and members of minority populations. They
are flexible and narrator oriented and therefore can contain unique cultural
as well as personal materials (Holland & Kilpatrick, 1993; Peterson & Van
Meir, 1996; Lijtmaer, 2004).

The analysis of narratives is based on the notion that sense making is an
interactive human activity (Glanz, 2003). Therefore, it investigates the mean-
ing (not the cause) of experience, and this meaning is shaped in a collabo-
rative creative relationship between the narrator and the listener. The use of
narrative analysis in training and teaching is recent and follows a postmodern
view of learning—that is, that truth is constructed through the interaction of
participants. When trainees are active participants in the sense-making pro-
cess, learning may result in greater self-awareness, which then becomes the
ground for empathy (Kerl, 2002). This approach is in line with the concept
of intersubjectivity, the intersection of two (or more) subjectives, which has
become a key concept in contemporary psychoanalysis (Schulte, 2000).

The conceptualization of the class setting as a group is based on a
psychodynamic view of group processes. Two fundamental notions typify
this approach: one is that a “group mind” exists (McLeod & Kettner-Polley,
2004), and the other is that unconscious processes may shape behavior in
groups and the group mind (VanGunten & Martin, 2001). When identified,
verbalized, and made conscious, these processes may be conducive to the
work of the group.

Following these basic notions, it is assumed that the class-group be-
comes a “resonant box” for immigrants’ narratives. The conscious and es-
pecially unconscious reactions of the participants come together with the
narrative to create a “group sound” of the narrative (Mirsky, 2008). The
group resonant box can be conceptualized in Winnicott’s terms as a tran-
sitional space: the overlapping space between two (or more) individuals,
neither subjects nor objects but some of both; an imaginary space, in which
the child projects both real and fantasy elements into his play in an effort
to master and comprehend the world (Winnicott, 1953). Through the use
of verbal language (which in adulthood replaces the language of play), the
students, in an effort to comprehend the narrator’s experience, project into
the “group space” elements that derive from the narrative (“objective”) as
well as elements of their own inner world (“subjective”).

It was demonstrated in a previous publication how when properly iden-
tified, verbalized, and interpreted the group sound may become an important

Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 139

source of insight into the narrator’s experience (Mirsky, 2008). The present
article shows how group processes may become an invaluable source of
insight into the trainees’ unconscious emotional reactions, attitudes, and

Setting and Techniques

This model is put into practice in a course that I have been teaching for the
past 10 years to Social Work graduate students at the Department of Social
Work at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. It is an elective course
and consists of 48 to 50 academic hours offered over one or two semesters
with weekly sessions (double sessions, in the case of a semester-long course).
Annually, between 24 and 26 students participate in the course.

The course combines two interweaving elements; one is the presentation
and discussion of scientific articles on psychological aspects of migration
and the other is the analysis of immigrants’ narratives. The readings include
state-of-the-art theoretical and research publications on individual and family
processes in migration, stress, coping strategies, and psychopathology as
well as clinical papers on interventions with clients from diverse cultural
backgrounds and on countertransference with these clients.

The narratives are collected by students through in-depth, unstructured
interviews with people who had experienced migration or cultural transition.
With Israel being an immigrant society with more than one-third of its pop-
ulation foreign born, students have no difficulty finding interviewees in their
immediate environment. Typically they interview their friends, neighbors,
coworkers, and, sometimes, relatives. Interviews are tape-recorded and tran-
scribed. Each student submits a paper based on the analysis of the interview
material and the relevant literature.

Students may choose to present their interviews in class and typically
10 to 12 students opt to do so. The interviewer presents the narrative from
transcripts and almost verbatim for 40 to 45 minutes. Then the class is in-
vited to comment and share their emotional reactions and thoughts that the
narrative evoked. I facilitate the discussion. My comments may have to do
with cultural information or relate to contents or processes that come up in
class and integrate them with relevant literature.


The vignettes below demonstrate how the training model works. The descrip-
tions are based on notes I take after each meeting. The names of students
and interviewees are concealed in order to protect their privacy.

140 J. Mirsky

A Parallel Group Sound

The first vignette demonstrates how a group experiences unconscious de-
fensive processes parallel to the ones that the narrator experiences and how
the working through of such process may bring about change. The title is
borrowed from Racker’s concept of “parallel counter-transference” in an in-
dividual setting, which is widened here to the helping practice in general.
This term denotes an unconscious communication process that occurs in
psychotherapy whereby via the countertransference the therapist can expe-
rience emotions or fantasies that the patient fails to contain and allow into his
or her consciousness (Racker, 1982). When unconscious to the practitioner,
such processes may obstruct the helping interaction. Their identification may
turn them into a source of insight about the client and render the helping
relationships more profound and containing.

Irena, whose narrative was presented in class, immigrated to Israel from
Poland in 1959 when she was in her twenties. About 70 at the time
of the interview, she tells her immigration story in an entertaining and
humoristic way. The class is amused and there is a lot of laughter. Irena
also speaks very positively of her homeland:

Irena: . . . Poland is my homeland. . . . Under the communists . . .

whoever wanted to study ballet or piano could do so, it was all
open and free, it didn’t cost anything. University, too—everything,
everything, everything . . .. Jews hadn’t had a bad life in Poland. . . .

In the discussion that follows students initially respond to the way the
story is told:

Student A: Irena is a very talented storyteller. This is the most inter-
esting and by far the funniest story we have heard.

Then they to try to make sense of this style:
Student B: I think this is an indication of inner strength. She is
optimistic, never despairs, and takes all the things that happen to her
with humor.
Student C : Maybe it is because she was very young. Everything is an
adventure to her.
Student D: And she came with her husband and her brother, who
were apparently very supportive of her.

Some relate to the fact that Irena did not genuinely choose to emigrate
from her homeland:

Student E: She is neither bitter nor angry although she encountered
difficulties in Israel and did not really want to leave Poland.

As more students relate to Irena’s strengths and coping abilities, and to
how she loved her homeland, the phrase “Jews hadn’t had a bad life in
Poland” disturbs me more and more. I calculate that Irena, being born
between 1935 and 1937, must have lived in Poland during World War II
and is in fact a Holocaust child-survivor. There is not one word about this
in her narrative. I am surprised how long it took me to become aware of

Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 141

the omission, and that none of the students noticed it either. Only three
weeks previously a Holocaust survivor’s narrative was presented in class
and we addressed the issue at length. I verbalize my insight:

JM: None of us noticed that Irena omits from her narrative the Holo-
caust, which, living in Poland, she must have gone through.

The students now become aware of other painful experiences against
which Irena activates unconscious defense mechanisms:

Student F : Now that I think of it, the incident with the ship almost
sinking is not funny at all. The way she told it we all laughed, but in
fact she was in mortal danger.

Student D: Also when she finds out that the house where she is
supposed to live does not have running water. I would have been in
shock and furious for being cheated, and she tells it as a funny story.

I summarize the discussion and generalize what we have learned.

JM: What we may be experiencing is an unconscious collusion with
Irena’s denial of her traumas. Denial is often an adaptive mecha-
nism vis-à-vis a trauma, and Irena appears, indeed, to be an adjusted
individual. But, in our practice we encounter clients who have ad-
justment difficulties. When we are in an unconscious collusion with
their denial, our ability to help them may become restricted. There-
fore, it is part of our responsibility to constantly explore our own
unconscious resistances.

For further working through, I refer the students to a paper on counter-
transference with immigrant clients.

A Group Mirror to an Individual Member

The next vignette also demonstrates an unconscious resistance to painful
experiences of immigration, but on an individual level. The group mir-
rors to one of its member’s emotions, which she unconsciously defends
against. Thus the group-work initiates a learning process, which may lead to
greater self-awareness, provided the trainee continues working through the

Dina chose to interview her 60-year-old aunt, who as a child immigrated
to Israel from Morocco. Typically, I discourage students from interviewing
close relatives and warn them that the interview may complicate their
relationships. However, Dina convinced me that the interview was very
important to her and that she was aware of the pitfalls and able to
deal with them. When the narrative is presented in class, it is obvious
to everybody that the aunt has been traumatized by her immigration
and especially by the fact that her parents, stressed by the challenges
of adjustment, were not adequately available and attuned to her. The
narrator describes various traumatic events and the group analysis very

142 J. Mirsky

quickly reveals almost overt and not entirely unconscious bitterness and
grudge the interviewee bears since then.
Dina disagrees with this interpretation and during the group discussion
occasionally protests: “this is an exaggeration” or “you don’t know her,
she is not like that,” etc. I tell her that she does not have to agree
with what is being said (recalling another reason for not encouraging
interviews with close relatives—the constraints this puts on the group
work). When the class ends, Dina tells me that we “totally misunderstood
the narrative,” that her aunt is “a central figure in the family and a very
competent woman.” I repeat that what we interpreted is not the objective
truth and that in her final paper she is free to offer a different view on
the narrative.
Six months later Dina submits an excellent paper, where she is able
to be in touch with her aunt’s vulnerabilities, integrate them with other
aspects of the aunt’s personality, and embed the understanding of her
experiences in relevant literature. Here is what Dina writes about the
process she went through:

Dina: My aunt’s story forced me to deal with painful parts of my
family’s past of which I was not aware. Following the interview,
my initial reaction was that my aunt tends to exaggerate and over-
dramatize. The consensus in class as to her being traumatized by
immigration, helped me to connect to her differently, listen to her
more bravely, not to underestimate the intensity of her experiences
and be less judgmental and defensive. . . . My mother is angry with
her for being preoccupied with the past, for not letting go of it. . . .

After the interview I talked to my mother trying to get her to see her
sister’s perspective. . . . I suggested to my mother that she reads my
paper, but she never got to it, under various excuses. It is not easy
for my mother too, to cope with the past and she, unlike her sister,
chooses simply not to deal with it. . . .

It was interesting and painful to write the paper remembering that
my mother immigrated to Israel when she was the age of my baby
daughter. I realize how lucky I and my daughter are, that I can lend
myself fully to being a mother and allow my daughter to be what she
needs to be—my daughter.

An Individual as a Mirror to the Group

While the previous vignette highlights the potential contribution of the group
to an individual member, the next one is an example of how an individual
may contribute to a group. Naturally these processes are not mutually exclu-
sive and can complement each other.

Olga, about 30 at the time of the interview, immigrated to Israel from
the former Soviet Union when she was 12. Her narrative centers on her
adolescence, which was typified by endless fights with her parents. They

Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 143

fought over everything: what clothes she was to wear, what friends she
was to spend her time with, curfew, homework, etc. The parents were
working very hard to establish the family in the new country and were
faithful to the more conservative cultural norms of their homeland. Olga,
in touch with native peers and wanting to become like them, rebelled.
At the time of the interview Olga’s relationship with her parents was
The group discussion of Olga’s narrative very quickly drifts to a dispute
over the acculturation stance of immigrant parents. Some of the students
think that Olga’s parents were wrong to try to impose on her norms
that were irrelevant in the new society. Some argue that it was the re-
sponsibility of the educational system to help immigrant parents become
more flexible and accept local norms. In contrast, other students hold
that immigrant parents, stressed as it is by the tasks of adjustment in a
new country, should not be pressured to change but rather supported
to provide the sort of parenting they can best provide—that based on
values and norms they internalized in their home culture.
Judging by the emotional intensity of the dispute, I realize that the
group is having trouble integrating the conflicting aspects of parent-
ing in migration. My attempt at integration with reference to research
and clinical material—which suggests a more complex approach than
either/or—does not bring the dispute to closure. When one of the stu-
dents, herself an immigrant from the former Soviet Union, tells the class
that she sent her three-year-old son, born in Israel, to a Russian-speaking
kindergarten, the dispute becomes even more heated. Most of the native-
born students think this could harm the child’s integration into the soci-
ety. However, upon hearing about the advantages of Russian-speaking
kindergartens—lower fees, longer hours, smaller groups, English and
French as well as physics and chess classes—a number of students be-
come rather tempted to send their children there.
At this point, Dunia joins the discussion. She is an Arab-Christian woman
who was born and raised in a small village with an exclusively Arab
population. In order to pursue her graduate studies she moved with her
husband and son to a Jewish city:

Dunia: We decided to take advantage of the possibilities that the
city offers and send our four-year-old son to a Jewish kindergarten.
He is getting an excellent education and is developing wonderfully.
But, there are complications. One day he asked me to light Shabbat
candles, like they did in the kindergarten. It was difficult to explain
to him why we don’t light Shabbat candles. Then, there are problems
with our parents every time we go visiting to our home village. His
Arabic is not very good, so they have communication problems. But,
moreover, he is behaving like a Jewish child and they expect of a
child a more restrained behavior. So they constantly tell him “don’t
do this” and “don’t do that” and he does not like going there. They
also criticize us for the way we are bringing him up. It is very difficult.
The sad fact is that we go visiting less and less often.

144 J. Mirsky

This intervention brings the dispute to an end and opens a discussion of
the complexities of cultural transitions for parents as well as children. In
addition, it becomes possible now to explore the reasons for the dispute.
The difficulty students have not “to take sides” seems to have to do
with the fact that all group participants, except Dunia, are either children
of immigrants, or immigrant parents themselves. It is noteworthy how
only Dunia, more “neutral” vis-à-vis migration, could offer an integrated
position that allowed the group to overcome the impasse and advance.
My verbalization of this understanding makes sense to the group. I use
this opportunity to suggest the idea of peer supervision as an important
tool in practice with immigrants.

A Complementary Group Sound

Borrowing again from Racker the term complementary countertransference
(Racker, 1982), the next vignette shows how partly unconscious reactions
evoked by covert messages in the narrative may paralyze the group. While in
parallel countertransference the practitioner’s experiences parallel those of
the client, in this sort of unconscious communication, the practitioner’s ex-
periences complement those of the client. The exploration of such reactions
and their verbalization is modeled.

Rita, in her late twenties at the time of the interview, centers on the very
bad welcome she received from local peers when she immigrated to Israel
at the age of nine. She was ridiculed and rejected by her classmates. They
called her “stinky” and bullied her. Her teachers, unaware and, in her
view, uninterested in her, did nothing to help. Back in her homeland,
Rita also had some problems with peers, and her parents came to Israel
in the hope to better her situation. They did not expect this would be the
welcome she’d receive. She told them little of her experiences at school
so as not to worry them and they did not feel there was anything they
could do. At the age of 30, Rita is still very bitter and angry with Israeli
society. She is socially isolated and ill adjusted.
After Rita’s narrative is presented in class, the atmosphere becomes very

Student A: I feel like crying.
Student B: I cannot believe it. I listen and cannot believe it.
JM: Rita tells us the “dirty” details. As if saying: “This is the true story,
not what you want to believe.”
Student C : This is indeed a genuine immigration story, with all the
resentment and anger. Not like the ones we heard so far. I could not
treat her—too close to home, too painful.
Student D: I thought how when I was a child we had immigrant kids
in class and we were nasty to them.

Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 145

Student A: I took in two immigrant children to host in my house. I
was in touch with their parents who were both physicians and were
too busy to take care of them. When I moved to a different city, the
older boy did not want to speak to me.
JM: Rita’s story makes us feel guilty. Some of us feel guilty for what
we did as children. Those of us who are older feel guilty we did not
do enough as parental figures.
Student E: I was 16 when I came and encountered similar reactions.
How a child of 9 deals with this!
Student A: The child really believed she stank!
Student E: She did not integrate into the society, does not feel at
home. My fantasy is to save her.
Student F : Would she have been better off, had she not migrated?
Student G: Were she to remain in her homeland, maybe this would
have not happened to her?

I understand that the guilt the class is feeling paralyzes the students and
pushes them away from Rita’s reality into attempts to undo the harm in
fantasy. My initial refection of the guilt sufficed to open the discussion
for students who were immigrants themselves and identify with Rita. But,
it did not suffice to alleviate the guilt and allow a more integrated view
of Rita. Therefore I intervene:

JM: We take all the guilt upon ourselves. There was nothing “dra-
matic” in Rita’s life: no Holocaust, no illness, no abandoning parents.
She comes from a normative family. We feel that we did it to her. We
are to blame. The feeling is so hard to contain, that we flee to fantasy
and then we cannot help much. By failing to contain these feelings,
we confirm our clients’ own experience that what they went through
is indeed unbearable and cannot be worked through. And we are
busy coping with our own inner world instead of being available to
our clients. When we can tolerate some guilt, we may be able to help
our clients work through their painful experiences and move on with
their lives. We may also be able to change attitudes in the receiving

The group is now able to resume work: the discussion moves to profes-
sional issues such as identifying immigrant adolescents in risk, helping
immigrant children integrate with their local peers, etc.


This article shows how cultural-competence training can address practition-
ers’ emotional reactions, which may interfere with the provision of appro-
priate service to clients from diverse cultural backgrounds. The encounter
with the “other” may awaken in the practitioner aspects of the inner world
that have been disclaimed in order to protect the self: weakness, vulnerabil-
ity, or feelings of “otherness” (Lijtmaer, 2001). The psychic pain of clients,

146 J. Mirsky

which they experience in the encounter with the majority culture, may evoke
intense identification, guilt, or aggression in the practitioner. Unconscious re-
sistances against the awareness of such experiences may block empathy and
sabotage interventions. When such reactions are uncovered and made con-
scious, as was demonstrated above, the way is opened for empathy and
further learning. The term cross-cultural empathy (Dyche & Zayas, 2001), or
cultural empathy (Ridley & Udipi, 2002), developed in the psychotherapeu-
tic context helps conceptualize the process further. Cultural empathy focuses
first and foremost on the practitioner’s receptivity, emotional resonance with
the other, the ability to see and experience the world through another’s eyes.
The second component of cross-cultural empathy, which complements re-
ceptivity, is knowledge, the intellectual understanding of the other’s feeling
in order to grasp that person’s experience. And finally, collaborative skills
make it possible to translate the emotional resonance and intellectual under-
standing into helpful culturally attuned interventions (Dyche & Zayas, 2001;
Ridley & Udipi, 2002).

This article demonstrates how it is possible in group training to iden-
tify, explore, and resolve failures in receptivity. This work appears to have
opened the way for the acquisition of knowledge and skills. A qualitative
evaluation study was performed over three years, two months after the
completion of each training course. The analysis of personal accounts by
51 trainees (76% of all trainees) revealed that they acquired insight into
the centrality of immigration in the lives of immigrants, the psychological
processes typical to migration, and the unique nature of immigrants’ ex-
periences. The trainees also reported that in their practice they became
more attentive to their clients’ experience of migration as well as more
empathetic and respectful toward their clients’ cultural diversity (Mirsky,
in press).

Although the short-term subjective evaluation provides encouraging re-
sults, it needs to be complemented by a long-term follow-up with additional
independent measures. It is important to emphasize that a one-time training
does not suffice to make a culturally competent practitioner. Dina’s case
demonstrates how the group work was an incentive, but it was thanks to
her personal choice that Dina embarked upon the journey of self-reflection
and self-exploration. Working through the emotional reactions that arise in
cross-cultural encounters and developing cultural knowledge and skills is a
constant challenge in culturally competent practice.


Arbour, M. P., Bain, B., & Rubio, R. (2004). An evaluation study of diversity training
for field instructors: A collaborative approach to enhancing cultural competence.
Journal of Social Work Education, 40(1), 27–38.

Countertransference Blocks in Cultural-Competence Training 147

Chamorro, R. (2003). From the other side: Countertransference in Spanish-speaking
dyads. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture & Society, 8(1), 84–87.

Comas-Diaz, L., & Jacobsen, F. (1991). Ethnocultural transference and counter-
transference in the therapeutic dyad. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61,

Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. H. (2001). Cross cultural empathy and training the contem-
porary psychotherapist. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29(3), 245–258.

Glanz, L. (2003). Expatriate stories: A vehicle of professional development abroad?
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(3), 259–274.

Holland, T. P., & Kilpatrick, A. C. (1993). Using narrative techniques to enhance
multicultural practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(3), 302–308.

Kerl, S. B. (2002). Using narrative approaches to teach multicultural counseling.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30(2), 135–143.

Korhonen, K. (2004). Developing intercultural competence as part of professional
qualifications. A training experiment. Journal of Intercultural Communication.
Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural

Lee, M. Y., & Greene, G. J. (2003). A teaching framework for transformative mul-
ticultural social work. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work,
12(3), 1–28.

Lieblich, A. (1998). The holistic-content perspective. In A. Lieblich, R. Tuval-
Mashiach, & T. Zilber (Eds.), Narrative research: Reading analysis and interpre-
tation (pp. 62–87). (Applied Social Research Methods series, vol. 47). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lijtmaer, R. (2001). Countertransference and ethnicity: The analyst’s psychic changes.
Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 29(1), 73–83.

Lijtmaer, R. (2004, April–May). Strategies for coping with resistances in teaching
multicultural courses. Paper presented at the 48th American Academy of Psy-
choanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry Conference in New York City, NY.

Lough, B. J. (2009). The principles of effective practice in international social work
field placement. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(3), 467–480.

Lu, Y. E., Lum, D., & Chen, S. (2001). Cultural competency and achieving styles in
clinical social work: A conceptual and empirical exploration. Journal of Ethnic
& Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 9(3/4), 1–32.

McAdams, D. P., Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (2001). The narrative study of lives:
Introduction to the series. In D. P. McAdams, R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich
(Eds.), Turns in the Road: Narrative Studies of Lives in Transition (pp. 20–26).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McCreary, M. L., & Walker, T. D. (2001). Teaching multicultural counseling pre-
practicum. Teaching of Psychology, 28(3), 195–198.

McLeod, P. L. & Kettner-Polley, R. B. (2004). Contributions of psychodynamic
theories to understanding small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 333–

Mirsky, J. (2008). The use of narrative analysis and psychoanalytic exploration of
group processes in multicultural training. Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic
Studies, 5(1), 2–15.

Mirsky, J. (in press). In praise of cultural-competence training for mental health
professionals. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines.

148 J. Mirsky

National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2001). NASW Standards for Cultural
Competence in Social Work Practice. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Perez-Foster, R. (1998). The clinician’s cultural countertransference: The psychody-
namics of culturally competent practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 26(3),

Peterson, J. A., & Van Meir, E. (1996). Using patient narratives to teach psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 59–68.

Racker, H. (1982). Transference and counter-transference. London, UK: Karnac.
Ridley, C. R., & Udipi, S. (2002). Putting cultural empathy in practice. In P. Peersen

(Ed.), Counseling across cultures (pp. 317–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schulte, P. (2000). Holding in mind: Intersubjectivity, subject relations and the group.

Group Analysis, 33(4), 531–544.
Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling

Psychologist, 29, 790–781.
VanGunten, D. M., & Martin, R. J. (2001). Complexities and contradictions: A study

of teacher education courses that address multicultural issues. Journal of Inter-
group Relations, 28(1), 31–42.

Weaver, H. N. (1998). Teaching cultural competence: Application of experiential
learning techniques. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 17(1/2), 65–79.

Winnicott, D. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 34, 89–97.

Yedidia, T. (2005). Immigrant therapists’ unresolved identity problems and counter-
transference. Clinical Social Work Journal, 33(2), 159–171.

Copyright of Psychoanalytic Social Work is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care

ISSN: 1552-4256 (Print) 1552-4264 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswe20

Counter Transference in the Face of
Compassionate Care

Kimberly E. Giamportone

To cite this article: Kimberly E. Giamportone (2015) Counter Transference in the Face of
Compassionate Care, Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 11:3-4, 220-223, DOI:

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15524256.2015.1107804

Published online: 14 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2322

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Counter Transference in the Face
of Compassionate Care

St. Luke’s University Health Network, Palliative Care, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA

As the social worker on the palliative team, maintaining professional
boundaries goes beyond being mindful of ethical practice; it is an essential
component to psychological well-being. Being cognizant of countertransfer-
ence potential and assisting staff who are not trained in the strengths model
of care is part of my everyday role. However, even those of us mindful of
boundaries and limitations can be tested and challenged.

I first met C.A. on a cold winter afternoon. He was alone in his hospital
room on the adult oncology floor of the hospital. The room was dark and his
head was hidden under the covers. C.A. was 17 years old; his birthday was
one day away when he would officially become an adult. His emotional
age was closer to that of a 12 year old. The mother of two teenage boys, I
recognized the potential trigger and tried not to imagine my own children
in his place. I took a moment to recall the social work boundary lectures I
had ever delivered or received before proceeding with the introductions.

There was little in the medical chart regarding his background and
family contacts; the information listed was incomplete or needed correcting.
C.A.’s mother was documented as the primary contact; unfortunately, she
had died 2 years prior from breast cancer. The case management team shared
that the patient’s biological father had attempted to visit on admission but
was intoxicated and escorted out. No other visitors were noted. C.A. was a
scared boy, diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), currently
in a blast crisis, with no one to advocate or comfort him. My motherly self
wanted to scoop him up and protect him; my professional self of course said,
‘‘This is not your child; this is his journey.’’ I took solace in the fact that I was
well within my purview as the palliative care social worker to advocate for
his needs and well-being.

The next day, C.A.’s room had a few birthday balloons and stuffed bears
from the nursing staff. He was quick to state that he asked his family not to

Address correspondence to Kimberly E. Giamportone, MSW, LSW, St. Luke’s University
Health Network, Palliative Care, 801 Ostrum Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]

Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 11:220–223, 2015

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1552-4256 print=1552-4264 online

DOI: 10.1080/15524256.2015.1107804


come because he was concerned about germs. C.A. explained that he has
lived with his aunt, a family friend, since his mother’s death. He had two
half-siblings, an older deceased brother, and a younger brother, aged 5,
living with his grandmother. He had school friends that he would text, but
they did not have transportation to visit. As he explained his history to me,
C.A. took pride in his racial mixture; his mother was African American,
his father was Hispanic, and his maternal grandmother was Caucasian.
Unfortunately, finding a bone marrow match with these unique genetic
features would prove to be unachievable.

I knew the palliative care physicians would address the physical
symptoms; his pain was real as was his lack of ability to regulate his anxiety
and fear. I was privileged that C.A. learned to trust me as an advocate.

Pt was listening to music on his headphones, but did agree to sit and talk
with MSW. Pt expressed frustration that nobody listens to him. He feels
that staff ‘‘talk at him’’ and not ‘‘with him.’’ Pt noted that he is made to
feel like a child; states he does not want to share concerns or ask ques-
tions of the physicians because they just ignore his concerns anyway. Pt
was asked if he would share his concerns with MSW and he agreed . . . . Pt
asked MSW several times if she really intended to help him. MSW agreed
to help pt find answers to his medical questions. MSW returned with the
palliative care physician having arranged for a conversation together. Pt
shared that he felt palliative care attending understood his concerns and
thanked the team for listening to him. (MSW personal notes)

Complicating the management of his physical needs, was the issue of
behavioral outbursts. Although he exhibited age appropriate behaviors, staff
quickly became irritated and wanted him to act like the patients who were
older. Nurses were frustrated that C.A. would manipulate the I.V. machine
regulating the flow of fluids, especially when he was lonely. He discovered
which alarms needed to sound in order to make the nurses run into his room.
I thought this was quite clever; the nursing staff was not amused. Eventually,
the floor manager provided C.A. with a VCR, not standard in most rooms, so
that he could watch movies in an effort to self-pacify.

One week later, I was notified that C.A. had been placed on a 1-to-1
watch due to a suicide attempt. My heart sank as I rushed to his room.
C.A. looked at me sheepishly and explained that the event was being ‘‘blown
out of proportion.’’ C.A. discovered that if he pushes on his carotid artery
long enough, it makes him ‘‘pass out.’’ He used this technique in the past
when trying to fall asleep during difficult times. We were able to talk about
the emotions behind his behaviors, and I was struck at the raw vulnerability
this child was sharing with me. C.A. asked me to stay with him for the day. I
explained the difficulty of C.A.’s request as I needed to visit other patients. It
was a simple request that I could not grant; I felt like a horrible ogre saying

Reflections 221

no to him. I was cognizant of the countertransference and kept pushing away
the image of my own sons, wondering how I would act if they were in his
place. I was angry and judgmental toward his family for not being there to
comfort him through this scary life event.

My attempts to advocate with the primary team for C.A. to be transferred
to a children’s hospital more capable of meeting his physical and emotional
needs was met with physician ego, judgment, and dismissive remarks. I was
infuriated and keenly aware of my limitations within the scope of my role.
C.A. again shared some of his concerns with me.

Pt was concerned that MSW might be a therapist. Pt said he does not like
therapists because they label people . . . . MSW reassured pt that her role
was to assist pt with communicating his needs and to help advocate for
those needs. Pt expressed that he was scared about the discharge plan-
ning and fears that he will be alone to deal with his illness if he has
another event related to the AML. Pt is fearful of teasing and status among
his school friends if his hair falls out from the chemo treatments. He is
concerned that the nurses avoid him because he is difficult to deal with
sometimes. MSW provided emotional counseling around behavioral
issues. Pt stated he will try to behave so the nurses will visit more fre-
quently. (MSW personal notes)

One month after his admission date, C.A. was deemed medically stable
for discharge. Emotionally, however, he had become used to the support of
the team. C.A. reverted to tantrum behaviors (i.e., throwing books and VHS
tapes, yelling at the staff), and eventually curled into a ball sobbing under the
covers. His aunt was no longer willing to house him based on her belief that
once he became 18 she would no longer receive monetary compensation for
him. C.A. talked to me about the physical and sexual abuse he suffered under
his father’s care and returning to that home was not an option; his grand-
mother had enough on her plate caring for his younger sibling and could
not take him in either. C.A. screamed,

What is the point of undergoing all this treatment, if I don’t have anyone
to care for me when I leave? It’s a death sentence, and I may as well jump
off the bridge when you people kick me out of the hospital.

He was right; tears filled my eyes as we sat together in contemplating next
steps. The hospital administration was tired of dealing with his behaviors.
His oncology team, still refusing to transfer him to a children’s hospital, stated
he needed to learn how to cope on his own. We discussed available options
with the assistance of the case management social worker on the floor.
Without a home, the hospital would have to connect him with a shelter for
the night. We decided to reach out to his aunt one more time. His aunt

222 K. E. Giamportone

was willing to take C.A. back into her home, and added that she was just
trying to scare him into behaving.

C.A. left the hospital that day, but returned four additional times during
the year. Eventually, he was admitted to a university hospital in the city due
to an eye infection and for assessment of bone marrow transplant candidacy.
C.A. spent 3 months there; his only comment about the experience was that
he was glad to be out.

Nearly one year to the date of our first meeting, C.A. was back in our
hospital. Here he was at 18, dying afraid and alone. He asked me to gently
rub his back, as my children often do, while he fell asleep. I had felt like a
complete failure.

The next morning I learned that he was moved to the MICU; he was
intubated and restrained. As I neared his room, I was greeted by cousins,
his step-mother, and two clergy members from his church. I wanted to
scream, ‘‘Where have you been?! What gives you the right to show up,
NOW, and direct who is allowed to be in the room holding this child’s hand?’’
It hurt to be reminded by their presence that I was not the one to companion
him any further on this journey. He was not my child to comfort; his family
had assumed their rightful place, albeit late, as C.A. has always wanted.

In the end, I was never able to facilitate the care that I would have
wanted for him. However, C.A. did finally get his wish — his family,
friends, and clergy surrounding his bedside with expressions of love for
him as he took his final breath.

Reflections 223

Drug use in america research

see attached


Drug Use in America


The purpose of this paper is to create a survey using the knowledge that you have obtained throughout the class.

Directions and Grading:

In this assignment you will design your own survey with 10 items/questions. You will go through each step listed below and create a paper that is at least 4-6 pages in length – not including your title page.

Step 1: Choose your topic

In this section of the paper, you will outline your topic choice. You can pick any topic that interests you and this topic can come from any field. For example, you could pick a topic about political attitudes, which type of entertainment people enjoy, attitudes about crime and punishment, opinions about the federal government, or any other issue you choose. Just be sure that you can create a 10 item/question survey using your topic.

You will need to outline your topic choice and why you picked this topic for your survey. This section should be at least one strong paragraph in your paper.

Step 2: Data

This section of the paper has three parts. First, you will decide whether or not you want to conduct a research project using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. This answer will determine the type of items/questions you include in your survey. Explain your reasoning behind your choice. What are the advantages and disadvantages behind your selection?

Second, you will decide if your items/questions will be closed, open-ended, or a mixture of both. Remember, your choice of quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods will determine the type of items/questions that you choose for your survey.

Finally, what will be your method of data collection? Would you conduct the survey through personal interviews, over the telephone or computer, through the mail, or through email? Why did you choose this method of data collection and what are the advantages and disadvantages of your chosen method?

Step 3: Research question and variables

Once again, this section of the paper consists of multiple parts. First, you will need to first come up with your overall research questions. For example, if you picked attitudes toward crime and punishment, then you would need to think of a research question that will address this topic. So, you could create a research question such as “how do college students view crime and punishment in our society?”

Second, you will determine the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV) in your research question. Clearly state your variables in this section of the paper. Explain why you picked your independent variable and dependent variable. Start by defining independent and dependent variables and show that you understand why your independent variable is in fact your independent variable and not your dependent variable. Do the same for the dependent variable.

Step 4: Hypothesis

In this section of the paper, write a hypothesis about what you think is the likely answer to this research question. Remember, your hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. Explain the reasoning behind your hypothesis and how it is both testable and falsifiable.

Step 5: Survey items/questions

For this section, you will create the actual items/questions that will go in your survey. You have to create at least 10 items/questions for this assignment. You can create more if needed for your topic. These survey items/questions can be laid out in bullet form in the paper. You will be graded based on validity of the items/questions and whether or not the items/questions follow the design requirements mentioned in the contents this week.

Step 6: Explain the validity and reliability of the survey

In this final section, you will explain why your survey is valid and reliable. How does the survey address your original topic? Would participants be likely to give the same answers if they took your survey over again?

Also, you can watch the following video to learn about important pitfalls to avoid when designing questions for your survey.

Security assessment & testing

BUSINESS CASE: The Blue Skies Airport management company purchased three more airports. New established Blue Skies Airport System consists of four airports in the USA. Each airport has its own data center.


Airport 1: Washington DC                           Airport 2: Chicago, IL                       

Airport 3: Los Angeles, Ca                            Airport 4: Dallas, TX 

QUESTION 1:  What is SCADA Cybersecurity for Blue Skies Airport System?  Explain the differences between SCADA Cybersecurity vs. Traditional Security.




QUESTION 2:   List the Pros and cons of the Black box, Grey box, and White box pen-testing for the data center at Airport 1 in Washington DC. And explain which one you would prefer for the given business case.

Resource: https://thecyphere.com/blog/types-penetration-testing/

QUESTION 3:   List the Pillars of Security of the Data Center of the Blue Skies Airport data center

QUESTION 4:   Complete the  Potential Threats table based on the given Blue Skies Airport case 

Potential Threats Table.docx Download Potential Threats Table.docx 

Discussion – how to spot bad science



In chapters 1 and 2 you have learned about pseudoscience, folk psychology, skepticism, and the scientific method. In the age of social media, being skeptical of scientific claims and being able to evaluate their credibility are important skills. Before completing this discussion, please prepare by reading the two articles below. These articles discuss things to consider when evaluating the credibility of science.

Main Discussion Post – Due Wednesday by 11:59pm

  • Using the articles above, identify and discuss three ways to spot bad science.

Your responses should be thorough and thoughtful. Each description should be at least four sentences each, for a  total of 12 sentences minimum.

Response Posts – Due Friday by 11:59pm

Respond to at least two of your classmates. Please include the following in your responses:

  • Identify and describe at least one additional way to spot bad science. 

Your response should add to your classmates’ discussion in a meaningful and substantive manner. Each response should be at least 4 sentences.


  • Your posts must be in your own words. Work that is not original will not receive credit. 
  • Your responses must be in college-level English.
  • Please refer to the rubric for full scoring criteria.

Measures of central tendency and standard deviation


By successfully completing this assignment, you demonstrate your proficiency in the following competency and specialized behaviors:

  • Competency 4: Engage in practice-informed research and research-informed practice.
    • C4.SP.A: Apply leadership skills, decision making, and the use of technology to inform evidence-based research practice to develop, implement, evaluate, and communicate interventions across the specialization of advanced generalist practice settings.
      • Related Assignment Criteria:
        • 1: Devise accurate datasets.
        • 3: Describe and report the statistical method or test outcomes using the appropriate statistical method or test.
    • C4.SP.B: Apply leadership skills, decision making, and the use of technology to inform program evaluation to develop, implement, evaluate, and communicate interventions across the specialization of advanced generalist practice settings.
      • Related Assignment Criteria:
        • 2: Develop appropriate statistical tests and reports that assist in program evaluation.
        • 4: Apply critical thinking in verbal and written communication through the use of leadership and technology.

An organization called The Durante Foundation values education and wants to fund an educational community grant to enhance graduation rates. The foundation needs to understand the central tendencies for education levels of individuals within the community. A survey was taken of individuals, ages 24–35, to determine years of completed formal education. The foundation is requesting the mean, median, and mode values for grades of educational attainment within the community. Use the Unit 3 Dataset, given in the resources, to complete this assignment. (13–20 equates to years in college.)

Assignment Instructions

Respond to the following prompts in a one-page, APA-formatted paper:

  1. State the following values (from the JASP output table):
    • Mean.
    • Median.
    • Mode (or modes).
    • Standard deviation.
  2. Interpret the data displayed in the output table. Which measure of central tendency is the most appropriate statistic to summarize these data and why?
  3. Provide a narrative summary to the Durante Foundation that would include the mean, mode, and median values and your interpretation of that data. Include implications of the findings for the foundation’s future funding priorities.

Additional Requirements

Your assignment should meet the following requirements:

  • Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
  • APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to current APA style and formatting standards.
  • Length of paper: One double-spaced page.
  • Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.



Manifest-Version: 1.0
Created-By: JASP 0.16.3
Data-Archive-Version: 1.0.2
JASP-Archive-Version: 3.1


“computedColumns” : [],
“dataFilePath” : “C:/Users/swowr/OneDrive/Desktop/SWK5015/SWK5015 unit 3 dataset.csv”,
“dataFileReadOnly” : false,
“dataFileTimestamp” : 1664375128,
“dataSet” :
“columnCount” : 1,
“emptyValuesMap” :
“Level of academic achievement” : {}
“fields” :
“measureType” : “Continuous”,
“name” : “Level of academic achievement”,
“type” : “number”
“filterVector” :
“rowCount” : 90
“emptyValues” :
“filterConstructorJSON” : “{“formulas””:[]}””

Child labour problem


  • Academic level: College
  • Type: Coursework
  • Subject: Other / Action Research Project
  • Topic: Writer’s choice
  • Style: APA
  • Number of pages: 1 pages/double spaced (275 words)
  • PowerPoint slides: 0
  • Number of source/references: 2
  • Extra features:

Order instructions: 

Nike was able to eventually solve various large challenges. But some large moral/ethical issues we face in the business world continue to evade a complete solution. This includes in the chocolate industry.

Please read this article by Whoriskey and Siegel concerning the child labor problems with the chocolate industry in Africa. (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)


Are there any lessons from the Nike case study that help with this extremely complex issue?

What insights can you think of to help with the child labor problem?

Make your initial post of 250-400 words


R E V : S E P T E M B E R 3 0 , 2 0 1 6


Professor Lynn S. Paine, Visiting Scholar Nien-hê Hsieh, and Research Associate Lara Adamsons prepared this case. It was reviewed and
approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School, and
not by the company. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of
primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.

Copyright © 2013, 2016 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-
7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators. This publication may not be
digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.

L Y N N S . P A I N E

N I E N – H Ê H S I E H


Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)

Nike is not here to create a new world order. We are not here to eliminate poverty and famine or lead the war
against violence and crime. Our critics say that the world is going to hell in a Nike sports bag. Then, again, our
critics, for the most part, aren’t athletes.

— Nike Annual Report, 1997

I believe that any company doing business today has two simple options: embrace sustainability as a core
part of your growth strategy, or eventually stop growing.

— Nike Annual Report, 2011

Hannah Jones and Eric Sprunk had little time to spare. With the next meeting of the Nike board’s
corporate responsibility committee just weeks away, they had taken over a corner conference room in
the John McEnroe building at Nike’s world headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon, to review the
preliminary sustainability goals for 2015–2020 that they had presented to the committee at its
previous meeting in February 2012. The two members of Nike’s 12-person executive team quickly
focused in on the proposed target for eliminating toxic discharges from the supply chain. Although
their presentation had been based on extensive work done over the previous year, further research
and analysis after the February meeting revealed that reaching the target—zero discharge of
hazardous chemicals by 2020—would be more difficult and costly than previously estimated, since it
would require innovations in chemistry, systemic changes throughout the supply chain, and
collaboration across the industry. Finding the necessary resources and people to develop scalable
solutions would be challenging, particularly within the proposed time frame.

The conversation was intense. Jones, Nike’s vice president of sustainable business and innovation,
brought to the table more than 16 years of experience on the front lines of the corporate responsibility
debate, close to 14 of them at Nike. Sprunk, a college basketball player, former accountant, and nearly
20-year veteran of Nike, was responsible for all Nike brand products worldwide as vice president of
merchandising and product. Since 2009, the two had served as executive representatives to the
board’s corporate responsibility (CR) committee. They and their teams had worked closely together
in designing Nike’s sustainability goal-setting process as well as the preliminary goals themselves.
Together they would have to find a solution to present to Nike CEO Mark Parker and, with his buy-
in, to the board CR committee at its next meeting in mid-April. As Sprunk explained, “Hannah and I
are asked to propose the goals jointly. Not Hannah alone. And not Eric alone. Mark will be
comfortable if he looks at Hannah and me across the table and says, ‘Are you two in agreement and
are you comfortable?’ and we say, ‘Yes, we are.’”

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Company Background

With over $20 billion in revenues for FY 2011, Nike, Inc. was the world’s largest athletic footwear
and apparel company and owner of one of the world’s best-known brands. The Nike swoosh
adorned the gear of athletes around the globe, weekend warriors and Olympians alike. LeBron James
won his first NBA championship, with the Miami Heat, in Nikes; Manny Pacquiao was the first boxer
to win world titles, in eight different weight divisions, in Nikes; and the U.S. Olympic team was
heading to London for the 2012 Summer Olympics in high-tech Nike uniforms. Nike served even the
youngest of athletes-to-be, offering an infant/toddler version of its iconic Air Force 1 shoe and three-
packs of Jordan onesies for newborns. In addition to the Nike brand business, which accounted for
some 87% of sales, Nike, Inc. included affiliates such as shoe and apparel maker Converse, action
sports brand Hurley, Jordan Brand premium athletic products, and Nike Golf. (See Exhibit 1 for
Nike, Inc. financials 2001–2011. See Exhibit 2 for revenues by region and product type.)

The athletic footwear and apparel industries were both fiercely competitive. Globally, Nike
ranked first or second in market share in most major product categories. In its core athletic footwear
segment, Nike’s share ranged from 25% in Asia to 44% in the U.S. Its closest competitor in this
segment, with 21% globally, was adidas Group; smaller rivals included Puma, Fila, New Balance, and
Asics. Competitors in the more broadly defined athletic and leisure category also included VF Corp.,
with brands such as The North Face, Vans, and Nautica; Columbia Sportswear; Under Armour; and
Skechers. In emerging markets, Nike was facing a bevy of ambitious rivals such as Li Ning in China
and Olympikus in Brazil.1 (See Exhibit 3 for competitors’ market shares.)

Origins and Growth

Nike traced its origins to 1964 when Oregon track coach Bill Bowerman and runner Phil Knight
founded Blue Ribbon Sports to import and sell Onitsuka Tiger running shoes manufactured in Japan,
then a low-cost labor market. Knight, who had earned a degree in accounting from the University of
Oregon before getting his MBA at Stanford, worked as a certified public accountant while getting the
business off the ground. Selling shoes from the trunk of Knight’s Plymouth Valiant at local track
meets, Knight and Bowerman worked closely with their athlete customers and experimented with
improvements, such as the wedge heel, to enhance runners’ experiences. As revenues grew, the
relationship with Onitsuka deteriorated and eventually ended. Meanwhile, Bowerman and Knight
began developing their own shoe, and the first running shoe bearing the Nike name arrived in time
for the 1972 Olympic trials. Eight years later, with revenues of $270 million, Nike went public with a
listing on the Nasdaq and a dual-class share structure under which Knight, as chairman and CEO,
owned 42% of the company—all in Class A stock, which was not publicly traded—and elected the
majority of the board.2 In October 1990 Nike moved its listing to the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) and the Pacific Stock Exchange. (See Exhibit 4 for major shareholders and Exhibit 5 for stock

Knight stepped down as CEO in 2004 but remained a strong presence on the board as chairman
and 15% owner in 2012. “One of the great things about having Phil in the room is that we’re in touch
with our entrepreneurial past,” commented CFO Don Blair, who had joined Nike in 1999 after a 15-
year career in finance at PepsiCo. “His view of what the board contributes, and what he looks for
from the board, is really colored by that experience.” Knight saw the board’s purpose as helping the
company and the management team by sharing experiences and expertise and asking questions.
Beginning in the late 1980s, Knight had sought to bring new thinking to the then largely “friends and
family” board by adding directors with a wide range of backgrounds—from industry, finance, law,
athletics, and academia. In 2012, nine of the twelve directors were classified as independent,
including six of the nine elected at the 2011 annual meeting by holders of Class A shares and the three
elected by holders of the publicly traded Class B shares. The board committee structure included the

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


three NYSE-required committees (audit, compensation, and nominating and governance) plus three
others—executive, finance, and corporate responsibility. (See Exhibit 6 for board members.)

Business Model

From its earliest days, Nike’s business model combined innovative shoe design with low-cost
manufacturing by independent contractors in low-wage countries. Inspired by Bowerman, who had
famously invented the “waffle sole” one morning by mixing up a batch of urethane and cooking it on
a waffle maker, the Nike team was determined to reimagine the running shoe for better performance.
Ever the coach, Bowerman constantly reminded everyone that the limits of human performance were
unknown. His “just do it” attitude became a defining element of the young company’s culture. At
Nike’s R&D center, set up in Exeter, New Hampshire, in 1978, scientists and designers worked
together with elite athletes to create and test innovative prototypes. With a research budget roughly
equivalent to its advertising budget in the early 1980s, Nike spent significantly more on research than
most of its competitors.3 Shoe production was outsourced—initially to contractors in Japan, then to
Korea and Taiwan in the 1970s, then to China, Malaysia, and Indonesia in the 1980s, and so on as
wages and costs rose in one source country after another. In 2012, Nike, Inc.’s 500,000 different
products were made at more than 900 contract factories employing over a million workers in some 45
countries. China accounted for about a third of factories and workers. Employees of Nike itself
numbered over 40,000, including almost 7,000 in Beaverton.

In early 2012, Nike was on track to achieve its revenue target of $28 billion to $30 billion by 2015
through a strategy of expanding globally and getting closer to the customer. Organized by
geographic regions and categories of sport—action sports, running, basketball, football (soccer),
men’s training, women’s training, and sportswear—the company was investing heavily in China and
other emerging markets regions and seeking to grow its direct-to-consumer business across all
brands in both online and brick-and-mortar environments. As part of this effort, Nike was investing
some $500–$600 million to strengthen its retail presence and expected to have more than 970 retail
outlets globally by 2015, up from 515 in 2010.4 Plans for the continued expansion of Nike’s digital
business were no less important. A new division of digital sport had been established in 2010 to build
on the company’s success with Nike+, a line of offerings developed in collaboration with Apple that
allowed runners and other athletes to track and share their activity using their iPods and iPhones.
The core of Nike’s strategy for growth, however, lay in innovation. As Parker wrote in his 2011 letter
to shareholders, “The key for Nike, Inc. in any market is to drive innovation at every level—brand,
product, retail, operations, events, and communications.” Parker was optimistic: “I started here as a
designer in 1979 and I’ve never seen so much opportunity to innovate as I do today. It’s just amazing.
It’s exciting.”

Innovation and Sustainability

Parker had joined Nike as a footwear designer and product engineer in the Exeter R&D center
shortly after graduating from Penn State in 1977. A college runner, Parker had established the
product testing team and was the designer behind some of Nike’s most successful innovations,
including the Nike Air Max technology, which was credited with relaunching the Nike brand in 1987
after several years of sluggish sales. By the time he was named CEO in 2006, following a one-year
stint by William Perez, who had been hired from the outside to replace Phil Knight as CEO, Parker
had held positions in design, research, engineering, marketing, and general management at all levels
of the organization, including five years (2001–2006) as copresident (with Charlie Denson) of Nike
brand. Nonetheless, Parker remained at heart very much a designer who liked nothing better than
spending time in Nike’s “innovation kitchen,” where employees worked on secret new ideas.5

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Parker and other members of the Nike, Inc. executive team (NET) were particularly bullish on the
potential for innovations borne of environmental and social concerns to drive future growth and
profitability. “What’s new in the last few years,” commented Blair using Nike sports parlance, “is this
‘offensive’ [as in ‘playing offense rather than defense’] element of sustainability and corporate
responsibility that we see as a growth driver . . . We’re not just managing risk. We’re putting down
investments around long-term growth and innovation.” The leadership team envisioned a day when
every product would represent a closed-loop system that generated no waste, and sustainability
would be synonymous with performance. (See Exhibit 7 for NET membership, calendar year 2012.)

The company’s new Flyknit running shoe, introduced in the run-up to the London Summer
Olympics and given star billing at a Nike “innovation summit” for media, retailers, and investors in
February 2012, was a physical embodiment of this vision. Inspired by the textile knitting process and
by runners’ desire for a lightweight shoe that combined the comfort of a sock with the performance
attributes of a running shoe, each shoe was made from strands of high-tech yarn. Through Nike’s
proprietary technology, desired attributes such as support, stretch, and breathability could be
engineered into the design at the thread level. Compared to traditional methods for making shoe
uppers used in performance running footwear, which involved the meticulous cutting and sewing of
layer upon layer of multiple materials and generated massive amounts of waste, the production of
Flyknit was virtually waste-free. Nike Flyknit was also almost 20% lighter than the Nike Zoom Streak 3,
worn by the top three marathoners at the 2011 World Championships. Like other members of the
leadership team, Blair deemed Nike Flyknit “a home run on all fronts—visually iconic, high
performance, and very little waste.” What’s more, the technology had potential to revolutionize the
footwear production process and, indeed, to transform Nike’s entire business model, given the
possible implications for labor costs and capital deployment.

With a long-term vision of “decoupling profitable growth from scarce resources,” Nike was
banking heavily on innovation in consumer-facing areas such as digital sport. But even in less visible
areas such as auditing and monitoring compliance in contract factories, Parker saw opportunities not
just for incremental improvement but for game-changing innovation that could drive sustainable
growth. “[By] actually changing the way factories work, how they incentivize workers, how they build
skills . . . we think we can transform how the product is made and how our business model works,” he
commented. Parker’s vision extended well beyond the confines of Nike: “What we’ve realized is that
we are a successful brand that can create change. And we can do that in a way that not only improves
athletic performance and creates products that are more sustainable, but that also contributes to a
better world . . . One of the things I want to leave as a legacy in my role at Nike is to make sure that
we’re innovating in every aspect of our business, where it really matters, where we use our brand
strength and success to create positive change on a larger scale.” In this spirit, Nike was seeking to
hardwire sustainability principles into innovation and decision making throughout the organization.

The Origins of Corporate Responsibility at Nike

The leadership team dated Nike’s sustainability journey to the 1990s when a groundswell of
criticism over labor practices at contract factories making Nike products threatened the company’s
brand with its core consumers, particularly college students. Nike’s critics alleged that workers in the
contract factories were subjected to inhumane treatment and grossly underpaid. At first, Nike
responded defensively, arguing that it was not responsible for the actions of its suppliers and that
wages and working conditions should be seen in the context of the manufacturing countries, not
measured against U.S. standards. Internally, executives at the time thought the critics were just
radical activists and troublemakers who didn’t understand how good the contract factories really

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


In 1998, however, Nike’s approach shifted. In January, the company hired Maria Eitel from
Microsoft as Nike’s first vice president of corporate responsibility. Eitel set about consolidating the
community affairs department, environmental action team, and labor practices team to create a new
corporate responsibility department, and began work on a strategic framework to address the issues
facing the company. That same year, in a speech to the National Press Club, Knight acknowledged
that “the Nike name has become synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and arbitrary
abuse” and vowed to change that equation. He affirmed Nike’s commitment to improving working
conditions at its contract factories and announced initiatives to expand independent monitoring; raise
minimum age requirements; strengthen environmental, health, and safety standards; expand worker
education programs; increase support of Nike’s micro-enterprise loan program for workers; and
build understanding of corporate responsibility in the larger community.

On assuming her new position, Eitel had taken the unprecedented step of sitting down with the
head of Global Exchange, one of Nike’s most outspoken critics. Widely praised internally as a
charismatic communicator, Eitel introduced a section on corporate responsibility into Nike’s annual
report to shareholders and, along with the environmental action team, played a key role in the
company’s decision to phase out PVC (polyvinyl chloride). Shortly after Eitel arrived, she hired Jones,
her former colleague, for the new Brussels-based role of director of community and government
affairs for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Jones, who had started her career at Britain’s BBC
working on social action campaigns, took up the post just as Nike announced its new policy to
eliminate PVC—and just in time to receive a call from Europe’s chemical employees’ union
threatening to burn shoes in front of her home for destroying workers’ jobs.

As Eitel forged Nike’s approach to corporate responsibility, she frequently turned to Nike board
member Jill Ker Conway for counsel. Conway, a former president of Smith College and a historian of
women’s participation in the paid workforce, had been recruited to the board in 1987 for her
expertise on women’s issues and understanding of student perspectives. A self-described “jock from
way back and ardent feminist,” she agreed to join the board, in large part due to her interest in
promoting physical fitness for girls and women. At the time, recalled Conway, Nike’s revenues were
under $1 billion and the board, still in start-up mode, was racing to keep up with the company’s
rapid growth. The board had never before included a woman, let alone an Australian-born, East
Coast academic. As criticisms of Nike heated up in the mid-1990s, Knight sought Conway’s counsel
on dealing with student protests. At one annual shareholders’ meeting, he called on her, without
warning, to preside when activists took to the floor. In the face of growing criticism, Conway offered
to visit some of Nike’s contract factories in Southeast Asia in connection with a trip to her native
Australia. With Knight’s blessing, she embarked on what became an extensive series of visits where
she spoke, through interpreters, with factory owners, managers, and workers on the front lines.

In the factories she visited, Conway was struck by the poor communication between managers,
many from Korea and Taiwan, and workers, mostly young women who did not share their
supervisors’ language. To learn what these young women were experiencing, she proposed a project
to survey them in their own languages. Tapping into her network of feminist organizations and
university faculty around the world, Conway and Eitel brokered a partnership with the International
Youth Foundation to help create a nonprofit organization that would conduct some 67,000 face-to-
face interviews. Based on findings from the project, one of Nike’s first NGO collaborations, the
corporate responsibility group set up training programs for factory supervisors, sought protections
for workers’ health, and offered workers classes in financial literacy. After much deliberation and
with board input, Nike’s leadership team decided to disclose the project’s results to the public in the
hope that transparency would help effect change.

Throughout this period, Conway spoke frequently with Knight. “Once Phil grasped that there
were real problems,” she recalled, “he just said ‘we’re going to fix them and we’re going to raise the

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


standards of the whole industry,’ and that was the goal.” Looking back on that time period, Conway
felt that “Phil’s ownership in the company meant that when he made CR a priority, the board began
to ask questions about CR issues and plans, not just about the budget. It gave the CR team the
mandate to pursue its strategic priorities aggressively.”

Creating a Board-Level Corporate Responsibility Committee

In the late 1990s, environmental concerns moved into the mainstream, and the CR group’s work
expanded as Nike launched programs around product recycling, water use in the supply chain, and
toxic substances in the manufacturing process. In an effort to engage the board with the CR issues the
company was facing, Conway suggested creating a board-level committee on corporate
responsibility. Knight embraced the idea and asked Conway if she would chair the committee. Her
response: “I will, if you will be there at every meeting.” Conway saw Knight’s attendance as
insurance that the committee would not be marginalized. Indeed, “everybody wanted to come before
that committee,” knowing that it would put them in front of Knight, she recalled. With the full
board’s vote, the CR committee was established in 2001. Besides Conway, other members included
Michael Spence, the former dean of Stanford University’s business school, and Richard Donahue, vice
chairman of the board and former president and COO of Nike. One of the committee’s initial tasks
was working with Eitel on Nike’s first stand-alone CR report. Published that year, the report
discussed Nike’s activities concerning the environment, labor practices, community affairs, Nike
employees, and engagement with NGOs and other stakeholders. It also set out Nike’s first public
targets for improving labor conditions and reducing its environmental impact. (See Exhibit 8 for a
history of public Nike targets in environmental and other areas.)

At the time, few companies had board-level CR committees, so Conway and her colleagues were
operating in largely uncharted waters. In the early years, the committee focused primarily on labor
issues and, to a lesser extent, on environmental issues and philanthropy. Much of the work centered
on “putting out fires”—addressing code-of-conduct violations or labor issues in contract factories.
Discussions often revolved around how an incident had been handled or, if it was still pending, what
could or should be done. Over time, the committee began to differentiate between truly isolated
incidents and those that were part of a larger pattern. The “overtime task force,” formed in 2005 to
examine why excessive overtime was such a recurring problem, helped catalyze this shift. Chaired by
Parker, then co-president of the Nike brand, the task force worked with systems experts to get to the
root of the issue. When analysis revealed that the problem’s origins lay largely at the front end of the
supply chain, in sudden changes in demand or materials rather than in the factories, it was a big
“aha” for management and the committee. (See Exhibit 9 for Nike CR committee members, 2001–

Integrating Corporate Responsibility into Operations

In 2004, Eitel was tapped to head the Nike Foundation, and Jones, by then CR director for Europe,
the Middle East, and Africa, was invited to Beaverton to interview for the job of vice president of CR
for the Nike brand. Jones recalled her interview with Parker, then co-head of the Nike brand, as
“galvanizing.” “The conversation that Mark and I have is usually about potential and opportunity,”
she continued. “He is extremely knowledgeable and understands the complexity of the issues, but he
comes at it from the viewpoint of a designer and someone who has nurtured innovation. And that, to
me, was the magic.” Jones took on this role in 2004, and at the end of 2005, with two small children
and a husband who didn’t speak a word of English, moved from Brussels to Oregon. In her new
position, Jones reported directly to Parker. She was also the executive responsible for reporting to the
CR committee of the board. In that capacity, she worked with Parker and Conway to set the
committee’s agenda and prepare materials for its meetings, all of which she attended. Her first task,

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


however, was completing Nike’s CR report for FY 2004. In reviewing the data for the report, she “hit
the pause button” to take stock of her team and the group’s strategy.

A Systems Perspective

At the time, the department had about 150 members spread across three main subgroups: labor,
environment, and community investment. Much of the department’s work focused on monitoring
and remediation. “We were doing excellent work,” recalled Jones, “but we were also caught in this
policing game where you’re at the end of the process and looking into the rearview mirror.” Jones
saw the need for a more positive and forward-looking vision, and she was convinced by her
experiences in Europe that insights would come from combining the labor, environment, and
community groups with each other and with the business, and taking a systems-oriented perspective
on challenges facing the company. A visit to a contract factory prompted one of Jones’s “epiphanies”:
“I realized that you can either solve a worker’s rights issue by monitoring every single factory 24
hours a day for whether they’re wearing personal protective equipment. Or you can innovate a new
glue that removes all the toxics so you don’t have to have the personal protective equipment.” Jones
acknowledged that innovation would not solve everything, “but if we can make a lot of the stages
grow obsolete by innovation,” she continued, “then you can go much faster, at much greater scale,
with much greater ease.’”

Jones began efforts to bring the group together and to formulate a strategy around a few core
goals: moving beyond the policing stage, increasing transparency and cooperation with the outside
world, integrating corporate responsibility into the fabric of the business, and establishing the
corporate responsibility group as a “hotbed of talent and innovation.” “I mapped out my 30-day, 60-
day, 90-day, and 180-day plan, and I stuck to it,” said Jones.

Not long after taking on her new role, Jones proposed that Nike publish the names and locations
of its contract factories. At the time, Nike and other companies kept a tight grip on this information
fearing that, otherwise, competitors would poach their capacity and relationships. Jones, however,
reasoned that transparency would be good for the company because critics could go out and see for
themselves what conditions were like, and NGOs could monitor and thereby help address the issues.
Nike, moreover, could collaborate with other companies that used the same factories to coordinate
inspections, share costs, adopt common standards, and speed up the process of factory improvement.
Jones set out her case to Jerry Karver, then head of manufacturing, and she “nearly fell down the
stairs” when he said, “Let’s do it.” With the support of Karver, who phoned in to a board CR
committee meeting from a football match in Istanbul, Jones was authorized to publish a complete list
of factories contracted to produce Nike brand products, along with their locations.

Charting a Path Forward

The CR group was similarly receptive to Jones’s outlook, as many of its members had also begun
to recognize that monitoring was only part of the answer. The environmental team was already at
work on tools for designing footwear with environmental considerations in mind at the beginning—
rather than the end—of the supply chain. To help the company chart a path forward, Jones initiated a
scenario-planning effort. “We were very conscious that we had missed the weak signal of the labor
issue,” she explained, referring to the mid-1990s, “so we went out and involved others in asking what
are the big, big trends that maybe today are weak signals, but may become strong signals and may
fundamentally impact business.” Jones set aside resources for a new full-time position for scenario
planning and trend analysis. Over the next three years, the new “horizons director” worked with
outside consultants on scenario-planning workshops for key executives across the company. Held in
Nike’s Tiger Woods Center, the workshops explored implications of major global trends—population

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


growth, water scarcity, energy shortages, climate change, the Internet, health issues, governance—for
the world and for Nike’s business model.

Although many of the themes were familiar to Nike executives, the workshops provided an
opportunity to examine the underlying facts and probe the potential impacts on Nike’s businesses.
Models of projected water shortages, for example, revealed the potential for disruptions and cost
increases at multiple points in Nike’s value chain—from the production of cotton to the generation of
power for contract factories to the dyeing and processing of fabric by material vendors to the routine
laundering of a Nike T-shirt by the end user. The U.N. estimated that about 1.8 billion people were
expected to be living in areas of water scarcity by 2025, with two-thirds of the world’s population
experiencing water stress.6 Some of the greatest shortages were expected in the Asia Pacific region,
where 36% of the global water supply would have to meet the needs of 60% of the world’s
population—and where much of Nike’s manufacturing capacity was located. Global demand for
water, moreover, was expected to double every 20 years, with about 70% of that demand coming
from agricultural uses—like growing cotton for apparel. Nike had been attentive to water issues in
the supply chain for some time—for instance, the Nike Water Program launched in 2001 provided
suppliers with tools to track their water usage—but the scenario-planning exercise brought home the
risks to Nike’s business model and gave the executive team for the first time a shared understanding
of the issues. (See Exhibit 10 for Nike’s efforts to manage water use in its supply chain.)

Coming out of the scenario-planning exercises, Jones, Parker—now CEO—and other members of
Nike’s leadership, including the board CR committee, were more convinced than ever that natural
resource scarcity would increasingly define the business landscape, and that “doing less of something
wasn’t going to cut it.” Eventually, business would hit a wall of intractable constraints. How to
transition to the future was less clear, but Jones knew “we were going to need to build the plane as it
was flying. We were going to have to optimize today, while we seeded and built and scaled the
innovation that would enable us to transition to the models of the future.” (The scenario-planning
exercises later evolved into an employee-engagement program in the form of a simulation designed
to show how macro-trends could affect Nike’s business and to build shared accountability for
creating a sustainable business.)

Building New Capabilities

Jones continued to strengthen her department’s capabilities, recruiting people from other
functions who could run strategic planning and financial analysis and create models to integrate
what were by then being called “sustainability” factors into business decisions. Jones immersed
herself in understanding design. With leadership support from Parker, she teamed up with the head
of footwear design, John Hoke, to get the environmental team engaged at the front end of the process.
A result was Nike’s Considered Design ethos. Spearheaded by Parker, Jones, and Hoke, Considered
was described as the “first step” toward the long-term goal of closed-loop manufacturing—a system
that minimized waste by using outputs as inputs. With the Considered materials sustainability
indexes, designers could quickly and easily evaluate the environmental impact of prospective
designs. Confident that the new tools would help spawn yet unimagined innovations in shoe design,
Jones and her team put in place a timeline for applying Considered to all footwear.

With the publication of the FY 2005–2006 CR report in May 2007, a shift in thinking was evident.
The report described corporate responsibility as “a catalyst for growth and innovation” and set out
targets, not only for implementing the Considered Design ethos, but also for improving working
conditions in the supply chain, minimizing Nike’s environmental footprint, and increasing access to
sport for disadvantaged youth. In the report, Parker emphasized the limits of incremental progress:
“If real change is to occur in our supply chain and contract factories, in the communities in which we
operate and in the broader world we influence, then small steps will always fall short of our

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


potential. Big goals are needed to realize big achievements. So we’ve set a series of strategic business
targets for ourselves that are aggressive but achievable by FY11.” (These targets are shown in Exhibit
8.) (In 2008, Nike issued a China-focused supplement to the FY 2005–2006 CR report.)

Toward Sustainable Business & Innovation

As the corporate responsibility agenda evolved, Jones began to explore a new name for the group.
“Some of these things can feel cosmetic, but actually symbols and narrative are profoundly important
in how you shift paradigms and mental models,” she noted. Over the course of a year, Jones and
Parker discussed various possibilities, eventually settling on the language of “sustainability and
innovation.” For both Jones and Parker, who had publicly declared sustainability to be “our
generation’s defining issue,” the phrase conveyed inspiration and challenge while capturing the
essence of how they thought about Nike. They began using the narrative of “innovation and
creativity for a better world,” a message that Parker included in his 2007 letter to shareholders.

Project Rewire

Even with extensive monitoring and oversight, labor issues, particularly excessive overtime and
code of conduct violations at contract factories, continued to arise. What Jones called “a searing
experience” in the late summer of 2008 brought the matter to a head and caused the CR group to
rethink its approach to embedding corporate responsibility in the business. Through news reports out
of Australia, Nike learned that one of its long-time contract factories in Malaysia was housing its
workers, largely migrants from China, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, and Vietnam,
in deplorable facilities, garnishing their wages to pay for work permits and “recruitment fees,” and
withholding their passports to prevent them from leaving. Within days, Nike representatives met
with factory management and demanded redress for the workers, including reimbursement of
withheld wages and transfer to new dormitories within 30 days.

In addition to seeking redress for the workers and instituting a global policy on migrant workers,
Nike also launched an effort to unearth the root causes of the incident, including reviews of all 34 of
its contract factories in Malaysia and its own internal business practices. The investigation revealed
that some root causes lay in societal factors such as weak law enforcement and poor education, and
some lay in the industry. The probe also found that Nike’s own systems were a contributing factor.
The leadership team decided that it was time to build greater accountability for adherence to Nike’s
manufacturing and sourcing standards into the company’s core business processes. A cross-
functional team overseen by Parker, Blair, Sprunk, Jones, and others initiated a project to “rewire” the
organization accordingly, in part by adding sustainability factors to the metrics used to evaluate the
performance of executives responsible for sourcing decisions. Sprunk elaborated: “The idea [of
Project Rewire] was to tie the impact of the decision making with the decision makers so that we
weren’t having kind of a compliance arm versus a business arm; we just have a business arm doing
the best thing for our profits, for our shareholders, for our consumers, for the world.”


While the team was working on Project Rewire, the world was hit by the financial crisis of 2008,
and consumers clamped down on spending. With Nike’s revenues, profits, and futures orders all
slowing in early 2009, the leadership team decided to launch a full review of the business. Project
Rewire was soon folded into the much larger business review. The result of the review was a $195
million restructuring aimed at getting closer to the consumer, driving innovation more quickly to
market, capitalizing on expected growth in emerging markets, and establishing a more scalable cost
structure. Nike reduced management layers, cut its workforce by 5%, consolidated the supply chain,
and reorganized from a matrix defined by product type (footwear, apparel, and equipment) and

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


geographic regions to one defined by sports categories (running, training, basketball, and so on) and
revised geographies. The new structure, part of what Nike called its “category offense,” enabled a
much closer relationship with key consumer groups and recognized emerging markets and greater
China as their own regions.

The restructuring provided an opportunity to wire sustainability into the business in a new way.
The 130-person CR group, reorganized and rechristened “Sustainable Business & Innovation (SB&I),”
set about building an expanded set of capabilities. Dual reporting lines were established between
SB&I and the business functions as well as between SB&I and operating activities such as product
development and the supply chain. For example, the SB&I team under Jones included finance
personnel, while the finance function under Blair also included personnel with “dotted line”
reporting into SB&I. Similarly, the head of Considered within SB&I reported both to Jones and to the
vice president for innovation. Jones, as head of SB&I, was brought into the NET, and Sprunk, as head
of Nike’s “product engine,” began attending meetings of the board CR committee. Sprunk had held
various positions in finance and general management, including an eight-year stint as head of global
footwear, before being named vice president of merchandising and product in 2009. In this role, he
oversaw a wide range of functions—from product innovation and design to manufacturing and
sourcing. Sprunk’s heightened involvement with the SB&I function meant that he could not only help
implement the sustainability agenda but could also help provide the finance function with better cost
projections as a result. (See Exhibit 11 for an organization chart showing the SB&I structure.)

The restructuring also established an internal audit program to provide independent oversight of
the system of contract factory audits against Nike’s health, safety, and environmental standards. This
shift in oversight from the CR group to the audit department within the finance function allowed the
SB&I group to focus more on forward-looking activities—”playing offense,” in Nike lingo—such as
planning, driving improved sustainability performance, and spurring innovation. It also brought the
rigor of traditional auditing and control to bear on sustainability auditing—thus also strengthening
the “defense”—and put the audit and finance teams more in touch with the sustainability discussion.
Sustainable audit began reporting directly to the CFO and the board’s audit committee rather than to
the CR committee, though key results were shared with the CR committee as well. According to Blair,
restructuring brought sustainability issues “directly into my space of strategy and finance as we’re
looking at new investments, new business models, that we need to be setting up.”

To build new innovation capabilities, the SB&I group set up the Sustainable Business & Innovation
Lab, an internal strategic partnerships group charged with hunting externally for technologies and
collaborations with potential to drive sustainable value. A complement to the core R&D functions and
the “innovation kitchen,” the SB&I Lab brought private equity and venture capital expertise inside the
company for the first time. The lab focused on two key areas: closed loop materials and
manufacturing; and revenue sources decoupled from scarce resources, primarily digital services.
Jones’s brainchild, the lab was part of SB&I, but was also “sponsored” by Blair as CFO, with a dotted
line reporting relationship to the vice president of strategy. “I view the [sponsorship] role as keeping
the organization focused on some of these longer-term opportunities that might not hit the priority list
for someone in the day-to-day firefight,” said Blair, noting that the small, early-stage type of projects
pursued by the lab could easily get squeezed out of the process in a large-scale enterprise deploying a
public company financial model. A senior management group including the heads of innovation,
logistics, IT, and other functional areas helped define the lab’s strategy, but approval of strategic
investments was by Nike’s sustainable investment management committee, made up of Blair, Jones,
and the heads of corporate strategy and development, with ultimate oversight by Parker.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


Evolving Role of the Board CR Committee

Although the reorganization touched all of the board’s committees, it affected the CR committee
directly. With both Sprunk and Jones attending all meetings, the committee became more engaged
with sustainability developments in the core business functions and also with the company’s
innovation efforts. Jones worked with Sprunk as well as with Parker and Conway in developing
meeting agendas. At each of the committee’s two-hour meetings, the first hour was devoted to a
review of the company’s progress toward its sustainability targets, a review of the contract factories’
performance against standards, and a discussion of any problematic labor or environmental incidents
in the supply chain. The second hour typically examined some particular SB&I strategy or activity as
well as some particular business strategy or function. Under the new structure, top executives
typically appeared before the committee at least once every 18 months. They were expected to
explain how their business strategies aligned with SB&I strategies and to show how that alignment
was reflected in the accountability metrics of the teams they led. “Having board members sitting
across from a business leader and talking about what the business leader is undertaking to do—that
puts a little backbone into the conversation,” observed Blair.

With Conway’s retirement scheduled for September 2011, Knight and Parker asked Phyllis Wise, a
member of the CR committee since joining the Nike board in late 2009, to take on the role of
committee chair. At the time of her appointment to the board, Wise was interim president of the
University of Washington where she had led the establishment of the College of the Environment. A
biologist by training, Wise described her first CR committee meeting as “a great christening by fire.”
Two Nike subcontractors in Honduras had closed their doors and dismissed some 1,800 workers
without notice and without paying $2 million in severance owed. Nike had no legal responsibility for
contractors’ financial obligations to their workers, and had stated publicly it would not cover the
severance payments. But pressure was mounting from universities and student groups across the
U.S. for Nike to make good on the contractors’ obligations. The discussion, led by Conway, was
intense, and the group brainstormed ways to assist the workers without setting a precedent for Nike
to pay every time a contractor defaulted on its obligations. After the meeting, recalled Sprunk, he and
Jones decided to look for a new approach. The upshot was an innovative arrangement whereby the
Honduran government made the severance payments and Nike created a $1.5 million Workers’ Relief
Fund to provide vocational training and finance health coverage for the laid-off workers.

DyeCoo Investment

As a newcomer, Wise had been surprised by Nike’s definition of corporate responsibility. She had
assumed the committee would focus mostly on labor conditions in the factories—the issues most
talked about on university campuses—and was struck by the amount of time spent on innovation,
product development, materials, and sustainability issues more generally. As a case in point, she
cited the committee’s discussion of Nike’s minority investment in DyeCoo Textile Systems, a small
Netherlands-based start-up that had developed a waterless process for dyeing polyester. (The process
used recycled carbon dioxide (CO2)—hence the name DyeCoo.)

Brought to the sustainable investment management committee by the innovation team and the
SB&I lab, the opportunity was viewed as attractive on several dimensions. Although the technology
was not yet cost-competitive with traditional dyeing methods, it was seen as having huge potential
for saving on water, energy, and chemical effluent discharges into the water supply (since the process
eliminated the need to heat water or dry the fabric). In contrast to conventional dyeing techniques,
which used 12 to 18 gallons of water per pound of fabric, DyeCoo’s technology used no water at all.
Rough calculations suggested that waterless dyeing across the entire polyester industry could save a
trillion gallons per year—the annual water usage of Los Angeles, Miami, and Chicago combined.7 In –
addition, the technology cut dyeing times in half and yielded a better-quality product. With plans to

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


sell machines to textile mills and dye houses, DyeCoo was researching use of the technology on other
fabrics such as cotton and other natural fibers.

The sustainable investment management committee, recalled Sprunk, considered the possibility of
a wholesale acquisition that would allow Nike to develop the technology as a proprietary asset (like
Flyknit) versus treating it as “pre-competitive,” a term used at Nike to refer to innovations it shared
with the industry such as its technology for water-based adhesives, created to eliminate the need for
workers to wear protective masks. As soon as Nike knew the adhesive worked, Sprunk explained,
“we shared it with the industry because our competitive advantage isn’t in how the shoes are
bonded. [It] is in how they’re engineered, how they’re designed, how they perform. So [sharing] that,
to me, was good for the workers . . . good for everybody.”

The sustainable investment management committee decided to make a strategic minority
investment in DyeCoo with the aim of helping the young company develop and commercialize the
technology for widespread use across the industry. How much Nike would pay to accelerate the
purchase of the machines by its dye houses, over what time frame, and with which partners,
remained open questions. On learning about the proposed investment at its meeting in November
2011, the CR committee was enthusiastic and encouraging—but only after understanding the pros
and cons of the deal, including the decision to take a minority stake. Nike announced its investment
in DyeCoo on February 7, 2012, the week before the February board meeting.

The Next Generation of Sustainability Targets

A new round of sustainability targets was a natural next step in wiring sustainability into the
business. For nearly a decade, Nike had been announcing targets and reporting on progress in areas
such as labor conditions in the supply chain, energy and the environment, and community
engagement. The most recent set of targets, set out in the FY 2007–2009 CR report, had primarily
covered the time period through FY 2011, and had largely been achieved. It was expected that the
next report, scheduled for release in early May 2012, would include an update on progress toward
those targets along with an announcement of the next round. What was new, however, was the effort
to translate those targets into specific measurable goals for business and functional units throughout
the organization so as to link Nike’s sustainability strategy explicitly with its business growth
strategy. Moreover, what the new targets should be—what areas, how ambitious, what metrics, what
time frame, what resources, how transparent—was an open question.

The Planning Process

The SB&I team shared its plans for developing the next round of targets with the board CR
committee in June 2011 and embarked on a planning process loosely modeled on the process for
setting financial targets. “We tend to run a top-down, bottom-up, and then final adjustment sort of
planning process,” explained Blair. “What that means is we set a top-down direction for our
organization . . . People then develop bottom-up plans where they make their various resource
allocations. And then we look at what comes out and make sure that we’re comfortable with where
we ultimately landed.” The overall starting point, Blair elaborated, was, “What do we think the world
will look like in a decade? What are the key issues that are going to affect us as a company?”

Under the leadership of SB&I director of business integration, Agata Ramallo Garcia, a six-person
team began an inventory of the company’s social and environmental impacts with an eye to the most
significant opportunities to create value. The team tapped subject matter experts from different business
and sustainability areas as they sought to identify key impacts, associated risks to the company, and
mitigation efforts already under way. Both energy and logistics experts examined the use of energy in
Nike’s distribution systems; similarly, both water and manufacturing experts reviewed the use of water

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


in the manufacturing processes. The SB&I team also reviewed Nike’s previous experience with targets
in the various sustainability areas, explored best practices and relevant research, and consulted with a
range of external stakeholders. Based on this work, the team concluded that, in the next round, there
should be fewer targets, no more than seven to nine, and that in many cases quantitative targets should
be expressed in per-unit rather than absolute amounts to better align with plans for business growth.
The team also decided that the targets should focus on areas with the greatest potential impact, where
Nike could effect and measure change, and take into account consumer and other stakeholder
audiences as well as sustainability ratings agencies.

Greenpeace Campaign

In July, the SB&I team’s work took an unexpected turn. Greenpeace launched a high-profile
campaign charging Nike, adidas, Puma, Li Ning, and other well-known apparel companies with not
doing enough to prevent their suppliers, particularly textile dye and finishing houses, from releasing
hazardous substances into the water supply via wastewater discharges. The NGO issued a report
titled “Dirty Laundry,” focusing on two textile facilities run by the Youngor Group in China, a
country where, according to the report, pollutants affected up to 70% of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
The textile industry, which accounted for over 7% of China’s trade volume and some 20% of its water
pollution, was said to be a significant contributor.8 Greenpeace alleged that wastewater from one of
the plants contained as many as 53 organic toxins as well as man-made chemicals, including
nonylphenol, a known hormone disruptor that was restricted in many countries but legal in China.
The report acknowledged that neither of the facilities was a dye house for Nike but nonetheless called
on Nike to help, given Nike’s connections with other Youngor facilities, its presence in China, and its
role as a leading brand. Arguing that wastewater treatment plants could not remove many toxic
chemicals, Greenpeace pitted Nike, adidas, and Puma against each other in a race to “detox our
sportswear, detox our water, and ultimately, detox our future.” As part of its “Detox Challenge,”
Greenpeace handed out custom-designed “detox” tattoos, orchestrated and posted videos of “detox
striptease” flash mobs in front of adidas and Nike stores, and placed naked, detox-tattooed
mannequins in strategic locations from Bangkok to Basel to Buenos Aires. Through these efforts and
more, Greenpeace called on brands to target zero discharge of toxic chemicals in the entire lifecycle
and supply chain of their products.

Before publishing its report, Greenpeace had written to Nike with a series of questions about its
products and factories. Practiced in such dialogues with NGOs, the Nike team responded, describing
Nike’s relationships with facilities in China and its long-standing efforts to address water and toxicity
issues in its supply chain. Less than a week after the report appeared, Nike issued a public response,
again outlining its existing efforts and offering to partner with Greenpeace, other NGOs, and other
companies to promote improved water management in China and to work toward improving
chemical inputs and processes in the footwear and apparel industry. A Nike working group flew to
Amsterdam to meet with Greenpeace and to share details of Nike’s water efforts in person. On
August 17, Nike became the second (after Puma) to announce its commitment to zero discharge of
hazardous chemicals by 2020, pledging to develop a detailed action plan within two months. Then in
November 2011, together with other targeted companies, Nike reaffirmed its commitment to the goal
of “zero discharge of hazardous chemicals for all products across all pathways in our supply chain by
2020” and put forth a “roadmap” outlining specific steps the companies would take to reach that
goal. Nike also announced its own set of near-term actions, internally dubbed “Road to Zero,”
including continued expansion of the Nike Water Program, which then covered 500 of Nike’s 900
suppliers; public release of the Nike Materials Sustainability Index; continued chemical management
training for vendors; and pilot studies on data exchange, materials traceability, and chemical
screening tools. (See Exhibit 12 for the Joint Roadmap.)

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Although Nike was already in the process of establishing new target areas, the Greenpeace
campaign kicked the effort into high gear, especially in the area of toxic discharges. A working group
of subject matter experts from business, manufacturing, and SB&I was assembled to determine what
resources would be needed to reach the goal of zero discharge of toxic chemicals. The group
prepared a comprehensive inventory of Nike’s activities to identify where in the supply chain and
manufacturing processes toxics were used, where the company might be at risk, and what was
already being done that might get the company closer to the goal. “We’ve been working on toxics for
a while,” noted Sprunk. “We know what’s bad for the earth, and we’ve been trying to get them out of
our product for a long time.” The Greenpeace campaign, however, had condensed the timetable
sharply. With the state of play clearly defined, the group began building a strategic model to weigh
different allocations of resources against various time horizons for realizing the goal.

New Sustainability Targets

Meanwhile, the SB&I business integration team was continuing its work on other potential target
areas. At the annual Corporate Strategy Review session in October 2011, the team shared with
executives from across the company the ultimate vision of “decoupling profitable growth from scarce
resources” and outlined the four “pillars” of the emerging sustainability strategy: creating sustainable
materials that enhance athletes’ performance, developing sustainable sourcing and manufacturing
models, catalyzing a market shift toward sustainable consumption, and developing revenues from
digital services. With buy-in from executives at the session, the team focused in on the areas most
amenable to measurable targets and, in December, presented a “first draft” to the members of the
Committee for Sustainable Innovation (CSI), an executive-level committee established in 2011 to
oversee Nike’s innovation agenda. Ten target areas were proposed: water, waste, toxics, climate
change and energy, labor, community investment, product design, materials, manufacturing, and
innovation. Although the categories were familiar, explained Ramallo Garcia, they were now
grounded in a deeper body of research, including the scenario-planning work. Moreover, while Nike
had previously undertaken a number of water-related efforts, it had not set specific targets for
reducing water use across the supply chain.

With input from the CSI, the SB&I team sharpened the distinction between targets aimed at
optimizing for today and those aimed at driving innovations for the future. “I see them as parallel
tracks that need to happen,” said Jones, “but the innovation work has a different taste to it; it has
different investment strategies, different capabilities; it needs a different way of coming to scale.”
Moving to the next stage of the process, the integration team set to work defining quantifiable sub-
targets for different parts of the organization. The team again tapped relevant experts as it sought to
chart a path from current to proposed levels, ensure fit with the business plan, anticipate changes in
law and regulation, gauge what resources would be needed, and make the business case for each
target. By February, the SB&I team had a pretty good idea of what it planned to take to the business
and functional heads across the company who would eventually have to sign off on the targets and
time frames for their own areas of responsibility.

At the February CR committee meeting, Sprunk and Jones presented the methodology for setting
the new round of targets and shared progress on defining the targets themselves. The preliminary
optimization targets included the elimination of hazardous discharges across the supply chain by
2020, as well as per-unit reductions of 10%–25% in water use, CO2 emissions, and waste by 2015.
Other targets focused on expanding the use of environmentally preferred materials in manufacturing
footwear and apparel, and requiring contractors to meet certain labor and environmental standards.
The CR committee, recalled Ramallo Garcia, “pressure tested the targets, the work, the process, and
the level of accountability.” The committee probed the choice of target areas and the rationale for the
proposed amounts; the trade-offs between targets, and between targets and other cost areas; whether
the targets were ambitious enough or realistic enough; the number of metrics; whether broader

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


statements of goals and intent would be preferable to specific metrics, particularly in the area of
innovation; and whether the process had taken into account all relevant factors. As chair, Wise
looked for balance between the targets and the business model and for assurance that the targets
were both innovative and financially sensible in the long term. Above all, she was interested in
knowing “the pros and cons” the team had discussed before making its decisions.

Final Adjustment

With the CR committee’s input, the SB&I team continued its consultations with business and
functional heads across the company to ensure that everyone was on board with the targets and had
a realistic plan for achieving them. Each target area had an executive-level sponsor who ultimately
had to sign off on the target dates and amounts. Before doing so, sponsors needed approvals from
key people on their teams. For example, Sprunk, as vice president of merchandising and product, had
to get an okay from the vice president of apparel and footwear for certain targets before signing off
himself. For sign-offs at the corporate level, explained Ramallo Garcia, “[It’s] basically going line by
line, understanding all of the implications of every target and making sure that we have the solutions,
people, systems, data, plans . . . and making sure that everything is in place that needs to be in place.”

The consultation process revealed that achieving zero discharge of hazardous chemicals globally
and across all brands by 2020 would be considerably more complex and challenging than previously
estimated, as there was no simple or readily available solution. It would require innovations that
would take time to test and prove. And innovation would require investment—not just of financial
resources, but of time, talent, and other resources as well. Theoretically, those resources could come
from anywhere—the marketing budget, research and development—but, cautioned Sprunk, “if you
were trying to wrestle trade-offs across the whole organization, you’d go crazy.” Sprunk saw little
room to maneuver on the obvious fronts: “I don’t think I can absorb all that cost in the cost of our
products; I can’t push it to the factories—their profit margins we’re pretty familiar with . . . Can we
ask the consumer for those dollars in the price of our product? What if they don’t care if harmful
chemicals have ended up in wastewater during production?”

One possibility was to contain the trade-off within the water-related target areas. Dialing back the
target for water use, however, was not particularly appealing in view of what had been learned from
the scenario-planning exercises. On the other hand, there was nothing sacred about the preliminary
targets, which were entirely voluntary. The problem, explained Sprunk, is that “We all want both. We
need both. They’re both important. We have constituencies where it’s very, very important to do
both. And longer term for the company we need to solve this problem because water is not going to
be free forever.” But, he continued, “Is spending [this amount of money] appropriate for the
shareholders to get to the goal of zero toxins? And if you don’t think it is, what do we say to
Greenpeace? Is the trade-off to say, ‘You know what? We’re going to do our best, and we’re going to
dedicate some money, but we think it’s only this much money, and we probably won’t make it, and
we know we’re open to criticism, so criticize us, but we owe our shareholders a fair return on their
investment in Nike stock’?” At the same time, the Road to Zero represented a very definite
commitment; it was not, as Sprunk pointed out, a “road to less” or a “road to a little.”

Sprunk recognized potential tensions between the business lens and the SB&I lens, but felt that
“those two lenses are pretty easily matched up in our company. Part of that’s because Hannah and I
talk all the time.” Still, he acknowledged that he and Jones brought different perspectives to the table:
“I expect that when I sit down with Hannah those targets are going to be as aspirational as possible.
She expects that I’m going to come in with a target I’m as confident as possible that I can deliver on.”

Both Jones and Sprunk knew it was their job to reconcile those perspectives and make sure that
“we’ve committed as a company [to] aspirational yet achievable goals that we can track and measure

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


progress towards.” At the February CR committee meeting they had jointly presented a set of
preliminary targets that they were no longer sure was feasible. The next board meeting, where they
were expected to present their final targets, was just a few weeks away. Before then, they would need
to come up with a resolution that they, Parker, Blair, and others on the Nike leadership team could
sign up for.

Jones and Sprunk considered the options. They were reluctant to modify their preliminary targets,
but they weren’t about to set targets without clear solutions and the resources to back them up.
“Whoa,” said Sprunk, leaning back in his chair, “How do you solve these problems? These are big
problems, and there’s no right answer.”

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -17-

Exhibit 1a Nike, Inc. Income Statement, FY 2001–2011

For the Fiscal Year Ended May 31,





2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

Revenues (in US$ millions) 8% 7% 20,862 19,014 19,176 18,627 16,326 14,955 13,740 12,253 10,697 9,893 9,489

Year-on-year change 10% -1% 3% 14% 9% 9% 12% 15% 8% 4% 5%

Cost of sales 7% 6% 11,354 10,214 10,572 10,240 9,165 8,368 7,624 7,001 6,314 6,005 5,785

Year-on-year change 11% -3% 3% 12% 10% 10% 9% 11% 5% 4% 7%

Gross margin 10% 8% 9,508 8,800 8,604 8,387 7,161 6,587 6,116 5,252 4,383 3,888 3,704

% of revenues 46% 46% 45% 45% 44% 44% 45% 43% 41% 39% 39%

Year-on-year change 8% 2% 3% 17% 9% 8% 16% 20% 13% 5% 3%

Total selling and administrative expense 10% 8% 6,693 6,326 6,150 5,954 5,029 4,478 4,222 3,702 3,154 2,836 2,690

% of revenues 32% 33% 32% 32% 31% 30% 31% 30% 29% 29% 28%

Year-on-year change 6% 3% 3% 18% 12% 6% 14% 17% 11% 5% 3%

Demand creation expense 9% 7% 2,448 2,356 2,352 2,308 1,912 1,740 1,601 1,378 1,167 1,028 998

Operating overhead expense 10% 9% 4,245 3,970 3,798 3,646 3,117 2,738 2,621 2,324 1,987 1,808 1,692

Restructuring charges 195

Goodwill impairment 199

Intangible and other asset impairment 202

Income before income taxesa 12% 6% 2,844 2,517 1,957 2,503 2,200 2,142 1,860 1,450 1,123 1,017 921

Year-on-year change 13% 29% -22% 14% 3% 15% 28% 29% 10% 10% 0%

Net income 14% 9% 2,133 1,907 1,487 1,883 1,492 1,392 1,212 946 474 663 590

Year-on-year change 12% 28% -21% 26% 7% 15% 28% 99% -29% 12% 2%

Diluted earnings per shareb $4.39 $3.86 $3.03 $3.74 $2.93 $2.64 $2.24 $1.75 $0.89 $1.22 $1.08

Return on equity 22% 21% 18% 25% 22% 23% 23% 22% 19% 18% 18%

Return on invested capital 22% 21% 18% 25% 22% 23% 23% 22% 18% 15% 14%

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike website, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial-Reports-and-Filings/Investor-Tool-Kit/default.aspx; and Nike FY07-09 CR Report,
http://nikeinc.com/pages/reporting-governance, both accessed January 2013; and Nike, Inc. regulatory filings. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to fiscal year 2012
presentation, and adjusted to reflect changes in rounding conventions and 2007 stock split.

a For the years 2002–2004, reflects income before income taxes and cumulative effect of accounting change.

b For the years 2002–2004, reflects diluted earnings per share after accounting change.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -18-

Exhibit 1b Nike, Inc. Balance Sheet Data, FY 2001–2011

For the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

ASSETS (in US$ millions)a
Current Assets

Cash and equivalents 1,955 3,079 2,291 2,134 1,857 954 1,388 828 634 576 304

Short-term investments 2,583 2,067 1,164 642 990 1,349 437 401 – – –

Accounts receivable 3,138 2,650 2,884 2,795 2,495 2,383 2,262 2,120 2,084 1,804 1,621

Inventories 2,715 2,041 2,357 2,438 2,122 2,077 1,811 1,650 1,515 1,374 1,424

Deferred income taxes 312 249 272 227 220 203 110 165 222 141 113

Prepaid expenses and other current assets 594 873 766 603 393 380 343 365 332 260 163

Total current assets 11,297 10,959 9,734 8,839 8,077 7,346 6,351 5,529 4,787 4,155 3,625

Property, plant and equipment, net 2,115 1,932 1,958 1,891 1,678 1,658 1,606 1,612 1,621 1,615 1,619

Identifiable intangible assets and goodwill, net 487 467 467 743 410 406 406 366 118 206 397

Goodwill 205 188 194 449 131 131 135 135 66 233 –

Deferred income taxes and other assets 894 873 897 521 392 329 296 267 229 231 179

Total assets 14,998 14,419 13,250 12,443 10,688 9,870 8,794 7,909 6,821 6,440 5,820


Current Liabilities

Current portion of long-term debt 200 7 32 6 31 255 6 7 206 55 5

Notes payable 187 139 343 178 101 43 70 146 75 425 855

Accounts payable 1,469 1,255 1,032 1,288 1,040 952 775 781 573 505 433

Accrued liabilities 1,985 1,904 1,784 1,762 1,303 1,276 1,053 979 1,036 765 472

Income taxes payable 117 59 86 88 109 86 95 118 131 83 22

Total current liabilities 3,958 3,364 3,277 3,322 2,584 2,612 1,999 2,031 2,021 1,833 1,787

Long-term debt 276 446 437 441 410 411 687 682 552 626 436

Deferred income taxes and other liabilities 921 855 843 855 669 562 463 413 256 142 102

Redeemable preferred stock 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Shareholders’ Equity

Common stock at stated value

Class A convertible – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Class B 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6

Capital in excess of stated value 3,944 3,441 2,871 2,498 1,960 1,447 1,183 888 589 539 459

Unearned stock compensation – – – – – – (11.4) (5.5) (0.6) (5.1) (9.9)

Accumulated other comprehensive income 95 215 368 251 177 122 73 (86) (240) (192) (152)

Retained earnings 5,801 6,095 5,451 5,073 4,885 4,713 4,397 3,983 3,640 3,494 3,195

Total shareholders’ equity 9,843 9,754 8,693 7,825 7,025 6,285 5,644 4,782 3,991 3,839 3,495
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity 14,998 14,419 13,250 12,443 10,688 9,870 8,794 7,909 6,821 6,440 5,820

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike website, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial-Reports-and-Filings/Investor-Tool-Kit/default.aspx, accessed August 2012; and Nike, Inc.
regulatory filings. Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to fiscal year 2012 presentation, and adjusted to reflect changes in rounding conventions and 2007 stock split.

a Except for share data.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


Exhibit 2a Nike, Inc. Revenues by Product Category within Geographic Region, FY 2009–2011

Exhibit 2b Nike, Inc. Revenues by Geographic Region within Product Category, FY 2009–2011

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike, Inc. regulatory filings, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial Reports-
and-Filings/SEC-Filings/default.aspx, accessed January 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -20-

Exhibit 3 Global Footwear and Apparel Industry Market Share Data

Global Market Share
Athletic Footweara (2011)

Global Market Share

Athletic Apparelb (2011)
Worldwide Revenuesc



Source: Compiled by casewriter from Sporting Goods
Intelligence, SGI Market Facts—Athletic Footwear and
Apparel 2012.

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Sporting Goods
Intelligence, SGI Market Facts—Athletic Footwear and
Apparel 2012.

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Dow Jones/Statista,
accessed January 2013.

Nike, Inc.














64.70% 0











a Adidas Group includes adidas, Reebok, and TMaG brands. “Other,” with less than 2% share each, includes Skechers, VF Corp. (including Vans, The North Face, and Reef), Crocs, Collective Brands,
Anta, Olympikus, Li Ning, Mizuno, Alpargatas, Fila, Quiksilver, Xtep, Peak, Brooks, K-Swiss, Foot-Joy, Under Armour, Lotto ASG (including Avia, Ryka, Nevados, Tumtec, and AND1), and Sole

b Adidas Group includes adidas, Reebok, and TMaG brands. VF Corp. includes outdoor and Imagewear. HanesBrands includes outerwear only, not socks or underwear. “Other,” with less than 2% share
each, includes Columbia, Quiksilver, Under Armour, Descente, Broder Bros., Russell, Mizuno, Anta, Li Ning, Goldwin, Asics, Fila, Speedo, Delta Apparel, Xtep, Peak, China Dongxiang, and Timberland.

c Jarden includes Jarden outdoor solutions segment (including Marmot, Coleman, and K2); VF Corp. includes outdoor and action sports and sportswear segments (including The North Face, Timberland,
Vans, Reef, Smartwool, and Nautica).

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


Exhibit 4 Major Nike, Inc. Shareholders

Beneficial Owner Common Stock

Class Aa

(not publicly traded)


Common Stock

Class Bb

(publicly traded)


Common Stock


(Class A + Class B)





% of


% of


% of


% of

Philip H. Knight and related parties

Philip H. Knight 67,097,005 74.6 7,740 < 0.1 67,104,745 14.4 – –

Knight’s spousee 130,448 0.1 130,448 <0.1 – –

Four grantor annuity trusts to
benefit Knight’s childrene 19,604,019 21.8 – – 19,604,019 4.2 – –

Knight Foundatione – – 796,145 0.2 796,145 0.2 – –

LP in which a company owned by
Knight was a limited partnere – – 1,294,403 0.3 1,294,403 0.3 – –

LP in which Knight was a
limited partner e – – 6,243,804 1.7 6,243,804 1.3 – –

Other officers and non-independent directors

Donald W. Blair – – 507,723 0.1 507,723 0.1 – –

Charles Denson – – 1,029,425 0.3 1,029,425 0.3 – –

Mark G. Parker – – 1,189,464 0.3 1,189,464 0.3 – –

John R. Thompson, Jr. – – 35,601 < 0.1 35,601 < 0.1 – –

Trevor A. Edwards – – 512,289 < 0.1 512,289 < 0.1 – –

Gary M. DeStefano – – 88,808 < 0.1 88,808 < 0.1 – –

Independent Directors

John G. Connors – – 44,460 < 0.1 44,460 < 0.1 – –

Jill K. Conway – – 41,462 < 0.1 41,462 < 0.1 – –

Timothy D. Cook – – 20,000 < 0.1 20,000 < 0.1 – –

Ralph D. DeNunzio – – 217,752 < 0.1 217,752 < 0.1 – –

Alan B. Graf, Jr. – – 62,000 < 0.1 62,000 < 0.1 – –

Douglas G. Houser – – 190,232 < 0.1 190,232 < 0.1 – –

John C. Lechleiter – – 10,500 < 0.1 10,500 < 0.1 – –

Johnathan A. Rodgers – – 22,000 < 0.1 22,000 < 0.1 – –

Orin C. Smith – – 48,700 < 0.1 48,700 < 0.1 – –

Phyllis M. Wise – – 5,000 < 0.1 5,000 < 0.1 – –

All directors and executive officers

(26 total) 67,097,005 74.6 4,975,389 1.3 72,072,394 15.4 – –

Institutional investors

FMR LLC, Boston, MA – – 20,951,837 5.5 20,951,837 5.5 – –

BlackRock, Inc., New York, NY – – 18,932,752 5.0 18,932,752 5.0 – –

Other – – – – – –

Sojitz Corporation, Portland, OR – – – – – – 300,000 100

Source: Compiled by casewriter from July 26, 2011, Nike, Inc. proxy statement, sec.gov/edgar, accessed May 2013, reflecting
numbers as of July 15, 2011, except for information provided in filings by FMR LLC and BlackRock, Inc.

a Class A shares voted for nine members of the board of directors; at the September 19, 2011, shareholder meeting Class A
shareholders elected Elizabeth Comstock, John Connors, Timothy Cook, Douglas Houser, Phil Knight, Mark Parker, Johnathan
Rodgers, Orin Smith, and John Thompson.

b Class B shares voted for three members of the board of directors; at the September 19, 2011, shareholder meeting they elected
Alan Graf, John Lechleiter, and Phyllis Wise.

c Because Class A Stock is convertible into Class B Stock on a share-for-share basis, the SEC considers each beneficial owner of
Class A Stock to be a beneficial owner of the same number of shares of Class B Stock. Therefore, in its reporting, Nike assumes
that a beneficial owner of Class A Stock has converted all shares of Class A Stock into Class B Stock. Nike’s reported
shareholding thus reflects substantial duplication for individuals and groups that hold both Class A and Class B shares. For the
sake of clarity, this exhibit represents beneficial ownership of Class A and Class B separately.

d Preferred Stock does not have general voting rights except as provided by law, and under certain circumstances as provided
in the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended.

e Knight has disclaimed ownership of all such shares.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Exhibit 5a Change in Stock Price, Nike, Inc. v. S&P 500, IPO through February 2012























S&P 500















Source: Thomson Reuters Datastream.

Exhibit 5b Nike, Inc. Stock Price and Financial Ratios, FY 2001–2011a

For the Fiscal Ye

Ended May 31,


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

stock price

20.55 26.88 28.00 35.58 41.10 40.16 56.75 68.37 57.05 72.38 84.45


11,040 14,303 14,759 18,725 21,462 20,565 28,472 33,577 27,698 35,032 39,523

Financial ratios:

return on

17.80% 18.20% 18.9% 21.6% 23.2% 23.3% 22.4% 25.4% 18.0% 20.7% 21.8%

return on

10.10% 10.90% 11.2% 12.8% 14.5% 14.9% 14.5% 16.3% 11.6% 13.8% 14.5%


4.0 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.8

current ratio 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.3 2.9

ratio (diluted)

19.0 21.8 20.2 20.3 18.3 15.2 19.4 18.3 18.8 18.8 19.2

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike website, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial-Reports-and-
Filings/Investor-ToolKit/default.aspx, accessed January 2013; and Nike, Inc. regulatory filings.

a All share and per share information has been restated to reflect the two-for-one stock split effected in the form of a 100%
common stock dividend distributed on April 2, 2007. For those years affected by a cumulative effect of change in accounting,
applicable financial ratios have been calculated using income before cumulative effect of accounting change.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -23-

Exhibit 6 Composition of Nike, Inc. Board, with Committee Assignments, FY 2001–2012

1 = Executive Committee
2 = Audit Committee
3 = Finance Committee
4 = Compensation Committee
(Personnel Committee in FY01 and FY02)

5 = Corporate Responsibility Committee
6 = Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
7 = Compensation Plan Subcommittee

Board = member of the board, but no committee membership
Shading = service on CR committee at any time FY01–FY12
Bold number = committee chair

For the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Thomas E. Clarke 1 1 1 1

Elizabeth J. Comstock Board 3, 4

John G. Connors 2 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3

Jill K. Conway 4, 5 4, 5 5, 6 5, 6 4, 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6 5, 6

Timothy D. Cook 4 4 4 4, 6 4, 6 4, 6 4, 6

Ralph D. DeNunzio 3, 4 3, 4 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6 3, 4, 6

Richard K. Donahue 5 5 5, 6 5, 6

Alan B. Graf, Jr. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2, 6

Delbert J. Hayes 2, 3 2, 3 3 3 2, 3

Douglas G. Houser 1, 2 1, 2 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6 1, 5, 6

Jeanne P. Jackson Board 4 2, 4 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5

John E. Jaqua 4, 7 4, 7 4, 7 4

Philip H. Knight 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

John C. Lechleiter 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5

Mark G. Parker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

William D. Perez 1

Charles W. Robinson 3 3 2, 3 2, 3

Johnathan A. Rodgers 5 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5

Orin C. Smith 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3

A. Michael Spence 2, 4, 5, 7 2, 4, 5, 7 2, 4, 7

John R. Thompson, Jr. 4 4 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 4, 5 5 5 5 5 5

Phyllis M. Wise 5 5 5, 6

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike, Inc. regulatory filings, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial Reports-and-Filings/SEC-Filings/default.aspx, accessed January 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Exhibit 7 Nike, Inc. Executive Team, Calendar Year 2012

The Nike, Inc. Executive Team (“NET”) was responsible for directing Nike’s mid- and long-term strategy, and
also managed the sustainability reporting process. In calendar year 2012, NET members included the following.

Hans van Alebeek
Vice President, Global Operations & Technology

David Ayre
Vice President, Global Human Resources

Don Blair
Vice President & CFO

Charlie Denson
President, Nike Brand

Gary DeStefano
President, Global Operations

Trevor Edwards
Vice President, Global Brand & Category Management

Jeanne Jackson
President, Direct to Consumer

Hannah Jones
Vice President, Sustainable Business & Innovation

Hilary Krane
Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Affairs

Mark Parker
President & CEO, Nike, Inc.

Eric Sprunk
Vice President, Merchandising & Product

Roger Wyatt
President & CEO, Nike Affiliates

Source: Adapted from casewriter interviews and Nike website, http://nikeinc.com/pages/executives, accessed April 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -25-

Exhibit 8 Selected Nike, Inc. Corporate Responsibility/Sustainability Goals Publicly Announced, 2001–2010 (as of announcement date)

The targets shown in the table below were drawn from Nike’s Corporate Responsibility Reports and reflect only those activities for which Nike announced quantifiable targets.
Activities for which no quantified objectives were announced, such as Nike’s Water Program launched in 2001 or employee diversity efforts, are not shown. The category headings
used in the table are based on casewriter analysis and do not in all cases match the categorizations used in Nike’s own materials or show business progress against goals.

FY01 CR Report

(published October 2001)
FY04 CR Report

(published April 2005)
FY05–06 CR Report

(published May 2007)
FY07–09 CR Report

(published January 2010)
Contract Factory Labor

Inspection and

Every factory accurately reflected in database,
inspected on schedule, making continuous
improvements; results available to public.

Child Labor Every footwear worker at least 18.
Every apparel or equipment worker at least 16
or at local age limit if higher.

Wages Every worker paid at least legal minimum
wage; no training wage or other exemptions.
Measure income against basic expenses to
understand worker well-being.

Training Fully operational management, environment,
safety, health (MESH) system in place at
every footwear factory.

HR management training implemented in
all focus contract factories by FY11 end.
Freedom of association education program
implemented in all focus contract factories
by FY11 end.
Lean manufacturing training rolled out in
all focus contract factories by FY11 end.

HR management training implemented in
all focus contract factories by FY11 end.
Freedom of association education program
implemented in all focus contract factories
by FY11 end.

Overtime Eliminate excessive overtime in contract
factories by FY11 end.

Reduce Nike-caused excessive overtime
in contract factories by FY11 end.

Interviewing Survey all workers in focus factories on
empowerment/satisfaction by FY11 end.

Survey statistically relevant sample of
employees in all focus factories by FY11.

Collaboration Share auditing and capacity building with
30% of supply chain by FY11 end.

Promote multi-brand collaboration on
improving working conditions in supply
chain; cover 30% of factories by FY11 end.

Energy and Climate

Overall Calculate baseline emission of greenhouse
gasses, establish goals for reduction.

Facilities and

Reduce combined CO2 emissions from
owned facilities and business travel by
13% from 1998 baseline by 2005.

Nike brand facilities and business travel
climate neutral by FY11.
Nike, Inc. facilities and business travel
climate neutral by FY15.

Nike brand facilities and business travel
climate neutral by FY11.
Nike, Inc. facilities climate neutral by FY15.

Manufacturing Announce footwear manufacturing CO2
emissions goals by January 2008.

Announce footwear manufacturing CO2
emissions goals by January 2008.

Logistics Reduce inbound logistics footprint by 30%,
2003 to FY20.
Create outbound logistics emissions model
by January 2008.

30% absolute reduction in CO2 emissions
from inbound logistics, 2003 to FY20.

Paper Benchmark all paper uses by 2001.
Implement procurement policies consistent
with FSC standards.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -26-

FY01 CR Report

(published October 2001)
FY04 CR Report

(published April 2005)
FY05-06 CR Report

(published May 2007)
FY07-09 CR Report

(published January 2010)
Product Design and Materials

Closed Loop Take full responsibility for products at all
stages of lifecycle, including the end of a
product’s useful life by 2020.

Environmentally Preferred Materials (EPMs) and Considered Designa

Footwear Increase use of EPMs by 22% from 2007
through FY11.
100% of footwear to reach Considered
baseline standards by FY11 end.

Increase use of EPMs by 22% from 2007
through FY11.
100% of footwear newly developed out of
WHQ to reach Considered baseline by
FY11 end.

Apparel All cotton apparel to contain at least 3%
organic cotton by 2010.

All cotton-containing apparel to contain at
least 5% organic cotton by 2010.

Announce EPM target in FY09.
100% of apparel to reach Considered
baseline standards by FY15.

Increase use of EPMs to 20% by FY15.
100% of apparel newly developed out of
WHQ, EHQ and Hong Kong to meet
Considered baseline by FY15.

Equipment Announce EPM target in FY10.
100% of product to reach Considered
baseline standards by FY20.

Announce EPM target in FY10.
100% of top-volume retail equipment newly
developed out of WHQ to reach
Considered baseline by FY20.


Elimination of


Eliminate all substances known or
suspected to be harmful by 2020,
beginning with product creation and
extending throughout the supply chain.

chloride (PVC)

Be PVC-free in footwear and non-screen
print apparel by end of CY02. Seek phase-
out from other products.

Evaluate business processes in FY06 and
develop strategy for creating tracking

Work with ink suppliers and printers to
determine whether/how to
reduce/eliminate all PVCs.

Volatile organic


Eliminate 90% of VOCs by 2001 from
1995 baseline; phase out completely in the

Footwear: Maintain VOC grams/pair at
95% reduction from 1998 baseline.
Equipment: Announce target in FY09.

Footwear: Maintain VOC grams/pair at
95% reduction from baseline.

SF6c Replace SF6 with benign gas in every
Nike Air product by Fall 2003.

Use benign gas across product range by


Overall Eliminate concept of waste in design,
materials, energy, and any resource that
cannot be readily recycled, renewed, or
absorbed back in to nature by 2020.

Footwear Operate product take-back business to
create profitable secondary market

Reduce waste in production by 17% from
FY07 through FY11 (155 grams waste/pair
in 2011).

Reduce waste in production by 17% from
FY06 to FY11 (157 grams waste/pair in

Apparel Announce target in FY09. Set target in FY09.

Packaging Continuous improvement in bulk amount,
bio-degradability, recyclability,

Develop package reduction goals for:
Footwear in FY05
Apparel in FY06

30% reduction of packaging and point-of-
purchase waste by FY11 end.

30% reduction of packaging and point-of-
purchase waste by FY11 end.


Develop apparel supply chain strategy
with other brands and retailers within FY.

Continue to work with supply chain on
impact of water use for production.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -27-

FY01 CR Report
(published October 2001)

FY04 CR Report
(published April 2005)

FY05-06 CR Report
(published May 2007)

FY07-09 CR Report
(published January 2010)


Giving and


Through Nike Foundation, 3% of prior FY
pre-tax earnings to community programs
(in cash, kind, and product)

Through Nike Foundation, 3% of prior FY
pre-tax earnings to community programs
(in cash, kind, and product and in-kind

Invest additional $315 million into
programs worldwide by 2011 end.

Invest additional $315 million into
programs worldwide by 2011 end
(beginning FY07).


Assess current programs for impact,
conduct gap analysis for underserved
regions, determine success with people—
not product-based indicators.
Host youth forums and provide grants for
youth to turn voice into action.
Develop system to facilitate and support
employee giving and volunteering,
equitably, around the world.

Set targets and metrics for programs for
excluded youth around the world by
January, 2008.

Employees and Diversity

HR Diversity Create a global HR scorecard by FY05-06

Suppliers Develop metrics for supplier diversity.
Achieve minimum 25% minority- and
women-owned business enterprises
(MWBEs) in each solicitation of bids Nike
sourcing team distributes.
Convert 10-15% of participating MWBEs
into live contracted vendors.
Develop and deliver internal training for
buyers outside procurement department to
promote inclusion of qualified MWBEs in
bidding cycle.
Include new vendor MWBE status and
certification verification in master log.

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike CR Reports for FY01, FY04, FY05–06, FY07–09, and Nike press releases, http://nikeinc.com/pages/reporting-governance, accessed January 2013.

a Environmentally preferred materials defined as “materials that significantly reduce the environmental impact of a product through better chemistry, lower resource intensity, less waste, and/or

recyclability” (http://nikeinc.com/pages/materials).

b VOCs are sometimes referred to in Nike materials as “petroleum-based solvents.”

c SF6 is a greenhouse gas that was used as the “air” in Nike Air products.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 -28-

Exhibit 9 Nike, Inc. Corporate Responsibility Committee Membership, FY 2001–2012

▲= chair, CR committee ○ = member of board, but not of CR committee

For the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Board Member

Jill K. Conway, visiting scholar, MIT
Program in Science, Technology and
Society, former professor of history and
President of Smith College

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

Richard K. Donahue, vice chairman of the
board, partner – Donahue & Donahue,
Attorneys PC (Chelmsford, MA law firm)

• • • •

Douglas G. Houser, partner, Bullivant,
Houser, Bailey (Portland, OR law firm)

○ ○ • • • • • • • • • •
Jeanne P. Jackson, founder & CEO, MSP
Capital, Newport Coast, California

○ ○ ○ • • • •

John C. Lechleiter, chairman of the board,
president, and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company

• • • •
Johnathan A. Rodgers, retired president
and CEO, TV One, LLC

• • • • • •
A. Michael Spence, former dean, Graduate
School of Business, Stanford University

• • ○

John R. Thompson, Jr., former head coach
of the Georgetown University men’s
basketball team, former head coach of the
1988 United States Olympic basketball team

○ ○ • • • • • • • • • •
Phyllis M. Wise, vice president and
chancellor, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, former professor and executive
vice president and provost of the University
of Washington

• • ▲

Source: Compiled by casewriter from Nike, Inc. regulatory filings, http://investors.nikeinc.com/Investors/Financial Reports-and-Filings/SEC-Filings/default.aspx, accessed January 2013.

• = member, board CR committee

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


Exhibit 10 Selected Nike Water-Related Initiatives, 2001–2012

This chart shows key initiatives related to water use, hazardous materials, and waste in the supply chain
launched by Nike, Inc. during the period 2001–2012.

Initiative Launch


Nike Water

2001  Designed to promote efficient water use and reduction of pollutants by contract

 In 2001, included some 55 textile dyeing and finishing vendors, and focused on
water quality and effluent discharge.

 By 2007, included 325 vendors, 22% were in China. Total annual wastewater
discharge by participants was 34 billion gallons, 40% was in China.

 By 2012, covered 500 of Nike’s 900 vendors, tracking over 60 billion gallons
annually (about one tenth for Nike products).

 Nike required participants to meet both legal requirements and Nike standards
for water quality using the H2O*Insight Water Tool

 Participants supplied data on water use and discharge, including permits,
water-quality tests, processes used, and materials produced

 Participants who did not meet legal requirements were required to submit plans
for improvement, including timelines outlining expected progress

 Nike field teams provided evaluation and training on leak detection, reuse of
grey water, and other conservation techniques

 In 2011 H2O*Insight Water Tool made publicly available

List (RSL)

2001  List of chemicals not permitted to be present in any finished Nike product

 Enforced by audited, third-party testing of finished products

 Per Nike, list “based on the most stringent worldwide legislation,” including
“additional substances that Nike has voluntarily decided to restrict”

 Abbreviated list made publicly available on Nike website

 List shared with all materials vendors

 Sustainable Chemistry Guidance introduced in 2010

 Complement to RSL

 Identified preferred materials and alternatives

Index and

2006  Designers used Considered Index to evaluate waste and materials impacts of
their design choices, including water and chemical use

 Set targets for products meeting Considered Index baseline standards

 Met 2011 Considered targets.

 Foundation for development of apparel, footwear, sustainability, and materials
sustainability indexes

 Shared with the industry and Sustainable Apparel Coalition


2006  Sought to educate participants at all levels of its supply chain to promote
innovative alternatives to use of hazardous chemicals

 Introduction of Nike Environmentally Preferred Rubber (EPR)

 Reduced hazardous chemical use by over 95%

 Made EPR patent available to industry using GreenXchange

 Switch from solvent-based to water-based adhesives (predates formal launch)

Source: “Nike, Inc.’s Response to Greenpeace Report,” press release, July 18, 2011, http://nikeinc.com/news/nike-inc%E2
%80%99s-response-to-greenpeace-report; and Nike CR reports, http://nikeinc.com/pages/reporting-governance,
accessed January 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)


Exhibit 11 Sustainable Business & Innovation (SB&I) and Nike, Inc. Organization Chart, 2012

Source: Adapted from http://www.nikeresponsibility.com/report/content/chapter/our-sustainability-strategy#info
graphic138, accessed January 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A) 313-146


Exhibit 12 Summary of Projects—“Joint Roadmap: Toward Zero Discharge of Hazardous
Chemicals” (signed November 2011 by Nike, Inc., Adidas Group, C&A, H&M, Li Ning, and Puma)

The table below summarizes the major actions to be taken based on this roadmap and their relative impact on
the issues of inventory, disclosure, elimination, and verification.

Categorization of
Roadmap Element

Roadmap Element

















Benchmark study whether 9 classes of chemicals not in discharge to water or
sludge using on-site visits and audits, inventories, and analytics where appropriate.

    Pilot

Develop action plan to address phase-out of any 9 chemical classes found in
benchmark study.

    100%

Communication to suppliers to source APEO/NPE-free preparations, initiate
project to identify “positive list” of APEO/NPE-free detergents.

    100%

Conduct follow-up study at selection of facilities that have converted to
APEO/NPE-free detergents to identify remaining sources.

    Pilot

Confirm, or set timelines for the elimination of products that are associated with
PFOA and PFOS by replacing C8 fluorinated water repellent chemistry with
alternative technologies including short-chain fluorochemical water repellents
approved by global regulators.

    100%

Develop a comprehensive, generic inventory of chemicals used in textile
manufacturing.     100%

Identify and agree to a cross-industry screening tool for chemical hazards.     100%

Establish a plan to evaluate the chemical inventory by intrinsic hazard and
establish a sector wide list of hazardous chemicals.

    100%

Expand our current efforts of prescribing alternative (greener) chemistries to be
used on our products.

    100%

Develop a joint generic audit approach for environmental performance (including
chemicals management).

    100%

Develop a shared dye house and printer audit protocol with a competent third

    100%

Within legal confines, develop a program to incentivize suppliers to fulfill the dye
house and printer audit protocol.

    100%

Continue expansion of individual/collective RSLs and MRSLs.     100%

Develop shared approach with 3rd party for dye house and printer audit.     100%

Collaborate on joint training efforts and knowledge transfer and deliver a joint
training program in one or more countries.     100%

Convene cross sector group to explore the best ways to encourage sector wide
supplier chemical disclosure and deliver a study based on data collection from a
select group of facilities.

    Pilot

Explore platform options for suppliers to disclose their chemical inventory under
the assumption that disclosing their inventory will have a positive effect.

    Pilot

Scale of Impact: Low:  Medium:  High: 

Source: “Joint Roadmap: Toward Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals,” November 14, 2011, tozero.com/joint-roadmap.
php, accessed January 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

313-146 Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)



1 Market share data in this paragraph is drawn from Sporting Goods Intelligence, SGI Market Facts—Athletic Footwear & Apparel
2012 (2012).

2 This paragraph and other information on Nike’s origins is drawn from David C. Rikert and Roland Christensen, “NIKE (A)
Condensed,” HBS No. 391-238 (rev. October 13, 1998) (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991). Ownership
structure after IPO compiled by casewriter from Nike, Inc., December 2, 1980 prospectus for 2,377,000 Shares of Class B
Common Stock.

3 Ibid.

4 Information on retail stores calculated from information in Nike press releases and annual reports; retail store numbers
adjusted by casewriters to reflect Nike’s sale of Cole Haan, announced in May 2013 and completed in February 2013.
See http://investors.nikeinc.com/default.aspx?SectionId=5cc5ecae-6c48-4521-a1ad-
http://investors.nikeinc.com/files/doc_financials/AnnualReports/2011/docs/Nike_2011_10-K.pdf; and
all accessed January 2013.

5 Ellen McGirt, “How Nike’s CEO Shook Up the Shoe Industry,” Fast Company, September 2010,

6 See http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml; U.N Water Statistics: Graphs & Maps,
http://www.unwater.org/statistics_use.html; and http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002171/217175E.pdf, all
accessed January 2013.

7 Casewriter calculation of amount based on industry analyst estimates of expected polyester production of 39 billion tonnes
for 2015, estimated water use 100–150 liters of water per kilogram of textile material, and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency estimates of municipal water consumption. Sources: http://nikeinc.com/press-release/news/nike-inc-announces-
strategic-partnership-to-scale-waterless-dyeing-technology; https://www.ceres.org/roadmap-assessment/key-
prweb8121171.htm; and http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/fixleak.html, all accessed January 2013.

8 Textile industry and pollution data reflects years 2003–2007. See World Bank Development Indicators, World DataBank, The
World Bank Group, and World Bank via CEIC, accessed February 2013.

This document is authorized for use only by Wilson Jones ([email protected]). Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright. Please contact
customerse[email protected] or 800-988-0886 for additional copies.

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • Governance and Sustainability at Nike (A)
    • Company Background
    • Origins and Growth
    • Business Model
    • Innovation and Sustainability
    • The Origins of Corporate Responsibility at Nike
    • Creating a Board-Level Corporate Responsibility Committee
    • Integrating Corporate Responsibility into Operations
    • A Systems Perspective
    • Charting a Path Forward
    • Building New Capabilities
    • Toward Sustainable Business & Innovation
    • Project Rewire
    • Restructuring
    • Evolving Role of the Board CR Committee
    • DyeCoo Investment
    • The Next Generation of Sustainability Targets
    • The Planning Process
    • Greenpeace Campaign
    • New Sustainability Targets
    • Final Adjustment
    • Exhibit 1aNike, Inc. Income Statement, FY 2001–2011
    • Exhibit 1bNike, Inc. Balance Sheet Data, FY 2001–2011
    • Exhibit 2aNike, Inc. Revenues by Product Category within Geographic Region, FY 2009–2011
    • Exhibit 2bNike, Inc. Revenues by Geographic Region within Product Category, FY 2009–2011
    • Exhibit 3 Global Footwear and Apparel Industry Market Share Data
    • Exhibit 4Major Nike, Inc. Shareholders
    • Exhibit 5aChange in Stock Price, Nike, Inc. v. S&P 500, IPO through February 2012
    • Exhibit 5bNike, Inc. Stock Price and Financial Ratios, FY 2001–2011a
    • Exhibit 6 Composition of Nike, Inc. Board, with Committee Assignments, FY 2001–2012
    • Exhibit 7 Nike, Inc. Executive Team, Calendar Year 2012
    • Exhibit 8Selected Nike, Inc. Corporate Responsibility/Sustainability Goals Publicly Announced, 2001–2010 (as of announcement date)
    • Exhibit 9Nike, Inc. Corporate Responsibility Committee Membership, FY 2001–2012
    • Exhibit 10Selected Nike Water-Related Initiatives, 2001–2012
    • Exhibit 11Sustainable Business & Innovation (SB&I) and Nike, Inc. Organization Chart, 2012
    • Exhibit 12Summary of Projects—“Joint Roadmap: Toward Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals” (signed November 2011 by Nike, Inc., Adidas Group, C&A, H&M, Li Ning, and Puma)
    • Endnotes