Fact check: What specific labor violations have been documented in Nike factories?

1. Shocking faintings and heat stress that contradict safety pledges

Investigations found repeated episodes of workers fainting at the Y&W Garment factory in Cambodia, with medical staff reporting monthly fainting events and hospitalizations linked to excessive heat, long hours, poor ventilation, insufficient sleep, and inadequate food ^[1]. ProPublica’s May 2025 reporting documents workers collapsing on production lines and ties these acute incidents to structural problems in factory conditions and scheduling that produce extreme physical strain; the findings run counter to corporate assurances that supplier workplaces meet safety standards. The reporting also situates these events in a broader pattern of similar episodes across Cambodian factories, indicating systemic risk rather than isolated negligence ^[5]. The presence of medical corroboration and recurring incidents strengthens the factual basis that occupational health risks are material and ongoing despite supplier codes of conduct ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Forced overtime and pressure to meet targets that violate codes

Multiple accounts from workers at Y&W Garment describe coerced overtime, threats of firing for refusing extra shifts, and intimidation tied to production quotas, practices explicitly prohibited by many buyer codes yet persisting in day-to-day operations ^{[3] [5]}. ProPublica’s April–May 2025 coverage records that managers pressured employees to exceed normal hours and used threats as leverage, producing a cycle where workers rely on unpaid or forced extra hours to approach subsistence pay. These documented practices demonstrate a gap between contractual codes and factory management behavior; the reporting shows that enforcement mechanisms — internal audits or buyer oversight — have not reliably prevented compelled overtime ^[3]. The pattern suggests labor control methods that prioritize output over legal or ethical compliance, creating ongoing exposure to violations despite public commitments.

3. Low wages and contradictory corporate wage claims

Payroll records and worker surveys at Y&W Garment indicate most employees earn close to the local minimum wage, with only about 1% making the 1.9x minimum wage Nike cites as typical, and some earning as little as $204 per month, directly conflicting with Nike’s public wage-statements ^{[2] [5]}. ProPublica’s analysis highlights a sharp divergence between corporate-average wage claims and on-the-ground realities at this supplier, where workers depend on overtime to approach living standards and where base pay alone falls substantially short of consumer-facing assertions. This discrepancy raises questions about how “average” wage metrics are calculated and whether outliers, bonuses, or selective sampling inflate corporate portrayals. The factual record shows a measurable shortfall between public wage claims and payroll evidence at identified suppliers, putting the credibility of supplier wage statistics at issue ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Wage theft and retaliatory tactics documented in Thailand

A Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) investigation of Hong Seng Knitting in Thailand found coerced unpaid leave schemes that resulted in nearly $600,000 in stolen wages and documented retaliation against workers who spoke out, including threats and forced departures ^[4]. The WRC’s May 2025 findings present concrete financial loss figures and personal testimony of a Burmese migrant forced to flee after management reported them to police for raising complaints, underscoring systemic vulnerability of migrant laborers. Nike has engaged with the WRC about remediation, but watchdogs and reporting criticize corporate responses as insufficiently timely or comprehensive given the scale of alleged theft and reprisal ^[4]. These documented violations show a spectrum from payroll manipulation to direct suppression of worker voice, revealing structural enforcement failures within supplier management and oversight frameworks.

5. Monitoring systems under scrutiny and implications for accountability

Reporting questions the effectiveness of auditing bodies Nike relies upon, notably Better Factories Cambodia, which auditors sometimes rate suppliers highly despite independent evidence of violations such as union-busting, forced overtime, and health hazards ^[5]. Investigative accounts in 2025 argue that audits may miss systemic abuses, be subject to interference, or reflect limited snapshots rather than sustained compliance; this critique implies that third-party monitoring is not a guaranteed remedy and that supplier self-presentation or audit capture can mask violations ^[5]. The combined evidence from ProPublica and the WRC points to a governance gap: documented worker harm and wage theft persist even as corporations cite codes and monitoring programs. Closing that gap will require materially different accountability mechanisms and transparent remediation reporting to ensure corporate promises align with worker realities ^{[1] [4]}.