In a decision made Wednesday, Nike resigned from its position on the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, citing disagreement with the board’s opposition to climate change legislation.
A statement released by Nike said the company’s leaders “fundamentally disagree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action.”
Nike donates heavily to the University, a relationship begun by its co-founder and chairman Phil Knight, a University graduate who started the company as a supplier for the University’s track and field teams. Despite the relationship, the University declined to comment on Nike’s decision.
University spokesperson Phil Weiler said commenting on “third-party decisions would not be in its better interest.”
Nike also refused interviews on the subject. A Nike spokesperson said in a voicemail message left that the company is “not doing any interviews and unable to share any more information” about its decision, and referred reporters to the public statement.
“We … believe that we can better influence policy by being part of the conversation,” Nike’s statement says. “Moving forward we will continue to evaluate our membership.”
The dispute stems from the Chamber’s June 23 challenge of federal climate bill backed by the Obama administration. The legislation would regulate greenhouse gases for hundreds of power plants and large industrial facilities.
In April, a draft version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger the public’s health. If passed by Congress, the act would require the Environmental Protection Agency to force power plants, auto companies, manufacturers and other major industrial polluters to cut their greenhouse emissions.
The Chamber is asking the EPA to hold a formal, “on-the-record” hearing giving the Chamber and other groups an opportunity to question EPA witnesses on the validity of their rulings. Nike, however, does not agree with the Chamber’s petition.
“We believe businesses and their representative associations need to take an active role to invest in sustainable business practices and innovative solutions,” the statement said.
“Nike believes U.S. businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth.”
Nike will remain a member of the Chamber, but only in hopes of “advocating for climate change legislation inside the committee structure.”
“It is important that U.S. companies be represented by a strong and effective Chamber that reflects the interests of all its members on multiple issues,” Nike’s statement read. “We believe that on the issue of climate change the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the Board of Directors.”
Nike is one in a string of companies to resign from the board in September; PG&E and Exelon both dropped from the chamber in late September.
Junior Dallas Branum, an activist for campus anti-sweatshop group Step Up, Oregon!, questioned the move by Nike.
“It’s not a surprise to me,” Branum said. “Like we saw in 2000, if (Nike) can’t have it their way, then they won’t participate.”
In 2000, Knight retracted his promise of $40 million for athletic and academic facilities on campus after the University announced it was joining the Worker Rights Consortium, a group promoting workers’ rights in overseas factories, prompting the University to leave the WRC. Step Up, Oregon!, is a campus chapter of Students Against Sweatshops, a group that has opposed Nike since that decision.
“They have to have their hands in on it,” Branum said. “If Phil Knight can’t control it, he won’t take part in it.”
[email protected]