Which Nike suppliers have been repeatedly accused of using child labor and what were the findings?
Executive summary
Multiple reports and long-running campaigns allege Nike suppliers repeatedly used child or forced labor; historical and recent sources point to suppliers in Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam and links through cotton supply chains (notably Uzbekistan via Daewoo) as focal points of accusations and investigations [1] [2] [3] [4]. Nike’s own public statements say the company prohibits child labor, audits suppliers, and has systems to address risks but activists and monitoring groups say problems have recurred at named factories and in commodity supply chains [5] [6] [1].
1. Origins of the allegations — documented episodes and geography
Investigative reporting and human-rights monitors trace Nike’s child-labor controversy back decades: Life magazine published an image in 1996 of a 12‑year‑old sewing a Nike football and commentators place initial major scrutiny in the 1990s; later NGO reports documented violations at specific supplier complexes in Vietnam and fainting and child‑labor findings linked to suppliers in Indonesia and Cambodia [1] [2]. These historical exposures set the template for repeated accusations that certain named supplier factories — including Hansae in Vietnam referenced in NGO reporting — had ongoing labor-rights breaches despite brand audits [7] [1].
2. Recent focal points — garment factories and cotton sourcing
Contemporary campaigns and reporting have two main vectors: factory-level complaints from garment workers and wider commodity‑chain allegations. Worker organizing and NGOs in 2024–25 have targeted Nike over factory conditions and alleged persistent exploitation in supplier plants across Southeast Asia [8] [9]. Separately, coalition groups and press coverage highlight concerns about forced child labor in Uzbekistan’s cotton sector and link firms such as Daewoo International — a cotton trader used by multiple brands — to allegations that worry critics about Nike’s exposure through synthetics and cotton supply lines [3] [4].
3. What Nike’s public documents say it found and does
Nike’s official statements and policy pages assert that the company forbids child labor, requires suppliers to meet a Code of Conduct and Code Leadership Standards, and conducts announced and unannounced audits to assess forced‑ and child‑labor risks [5] [6]. Nike publishes periodic “Statement on Forced Labor, Child Labor, Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery” reports describing audit activity and risk‑management processes, and says it works with multi‑stakeholder initiatives to address industry‑level problems [10] [11] [6].
4. Findings cited by third parties — monitoring groups and journalists
Independent monitors and journalists have reported specific findings that conflict with or supplement Nike’s public claims. The Worker Rights Consortium and press investigations found labor‑rights violations, including fainting incidents, wage and safety issues, and in earlier eras explicit child‑labor cases at suppliers linked to Nike; reporting on Hansae and other supplier complexes argues brand audits sometimes failed to identify or correct abuses [7] [1] [2]. These external findings are central to activist campaigns and university‑community pressure that drove reforms in the 1990s and continue to fuel scrutiny today [1] [8].
5. Repetition versus remediation — competing narratives
Nike and its statements emphasize remediation, updated Codes, and audits as evidence of progress [6] [11]. Critics and labor groups argue the pattern of repeated allegations — faintings in Cambodia and Vietnam, historic child‑labor photos, and ongoing campaigns about Uzbek cotton ties — shows recurring failures or blind spots in corporate oversight and sourcing decisions [2] [1] [3]. Both narratives rely on evidence in the public record: Nike’s published policies and audit claims versus NGO and media reporting of named incidents and supplier links.
6. Where the record is thin or disputed
Available sources do not list an authoritative, single roster of “repeat offending” suppliers that courts or a regulator have adjudicated; instead, the record is a mix of media exposés (Life, The Oregonian), NGO reports (Worker Rights Consortium), and activist campaigns naming supplier factories or trading partners [1] [2] [8] [3]. Specific allegations about companies like Daewoo rest with coalitions like the Cotton Campaign and reporting cited by HR Grapevine; Nike’s response acknowledges concern about Uzbek cotton but describes participation in multi‑stakeholder efforts rather than an admission of supplier culpability [3] [4].
7. What to watch next — accountability mechanisms and pressure points
Key indicators going forward are independent monitor access and published findings from groups such as the WRC, follow‑up audit outcomes in Nike’s own statements, and whether major buyers sever ties with suppliers or traders named by NGOs — a step some brands have taken with Daewoo while Nike’s stance remains contested [4] [3]. Worker organizing campaigns and university/consumer pressure continue to drive public scrutiny and may prompt more transparent third‑party verification or supply‑chain changes [8] [9].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied documents and reporting; it does not include primary legal filings, proprietary audit reports, or independent fieldwork beyond the cited NGOs and press accounts.