Taking their cues from their peers at Nike, who led to the dismissal of Trevor Edwards and other high-ranking executives earlier this year, some employees of Adidas and Under Armour in the U.S. have called for better treatment of women, ethnic minorities and people of color in the last few days.
Adidas America's newly minted president, Zion Armstrong, received a letter from certain employees urging him to take action to expand minority and ethnic representation in the upper management. The letter, which was obtained and publicized by Footwear News, questioned the existence of “an exclusive all-white environment made up of the same individuals that are consistently promoted and spotlighted,” in contrast with Adidas' more inclusive marketing campaigns.
Also a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal put out an extensive report on sexual misconduct at Under Armour, based on more than a dozen interviews with current and former company executives and employees. It unveiled the practice among executives and other employees of placing visits to strip-tease clubs with athletes and co-workers on their expense accounts after certain corporate and sporting events. Some of these visits included the company's founder and chief executive, Kevin Plank.
Last February, Under Armour banned this and other gambling and adult entertainment practices. The Journal also found that some top male executives behaved inappropriately with female subordinates. Some women were invited to an annual company event based on their attractiveness.
Both Adidas and Under Armour reacted severely to both reports, stating in essence that they didn't want this type of behavior to go on. Under Armour's top management listed a number of initiatives taken in recent years such as leadership development courses and a Diversity Driving Innovation platform, and noted that it is providing safe and confidential channels to identify inappropriate behavior, which will be addressed “swiftly and resolutely.”
Under Armour's former male-oriented culture has begun to change under the management of Patrik Frisk, who became president and chief operating officer in July of last year. Kerry Chandler, the former chief human resources officer, left last month, but the Journal was told that her replacement would also be a woman.
Adidas stated its commitment to maintaining a “respectful and inclusive environment” for all its employees around the world. It said it was expanding its Diversity and Inclusion team in North America to focus on communities underrepresented in its staff, and conducting workplace inclusion training for employees across the region.
In contrast with Nike, Adidas and Under Armour have apparently been spared action in the courts on the issue of diversity, inclusion and gender equality. Meanwhile, there is a new plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit known as Cahill et al. v. Nike. Paige Azavedo, who until recently was a marketing manager at Nike's headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon, is claiming that male bias stalled her career. During her 13 years at the company, she says, male colleagues were paid more and received raises and promotions despite her being a senior director with responsibility for an annual budget of $100 million. Azavedo claims furthermore that she and other women were unduly yelled at by her supervisor, Daniel Tawiah.
Nike has already stated that it wants to do better. In its 2017 CSR report, it said that only 38 percent of its vice presidents were female, while whites were 83 percent. In a broader sense, women have 31 percent of the management positions at Adidas and 38 percent at Puma.
Interestingly, however, Adidas had the top score among apparel companies worldwide in the 2018 edition of the Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB), which is based on consultations all over the world with representatives of more than 400 companies, governments, civil society organizations, investors, academics and legal experts.
Adidas came out with a score of 80-90 percent, up from 50-59 percent last year. VF Corp. got a note of 60-70 percent. Nike and Under Armour were in the 30 to 40 percent band, followed by Kering with a score of 20-30. Other luxury goods companies like Hermès, Prada and Tapestry got a note of only 0 to 10 percent.
CHRB noted that some companies in apparel and two other sectors may have scored lower because the researchers were unable to obtain the required information in public documentation within the research project's timeframe.
