Nike’s climbdown in spending US$2m or more on defusing the Honduras supplier row was, according to the Worker Rights Consortium, testament to the “courage” of the sacked workers.

I’m not doubting that courage for a second, but the formation of a $1.5m workers fund, plus numerous other benefits, has far more to do with an extremely well-orchestrated campaign of protest and the inevitability of bad PR.

Technically, legally, Nike almost certainly did nothing wrong here. A sub-contractor chose to ignore Honduran law and shut down two factories without paying the workers their dues – and not even the most arch-conspiracy theorist will believe that the company was directly to blame.

But the row taps into the growing realisation that, if we’re not careful, cheap clothes in our stores mean that others pay the price as sourcing costs are whittled away and sub-contractors fight to hang on to lucrative deals.

This notion of collective responsibility is behind the momentum of public opinion against Nike in the Honduras row and, crucially, the master stroke of mobilising student and college protest against the company.

Any media strategist will tell you that, once the chorus of disapproval reaches a certain decibel level, it can drown out the most well-rehearsed of responses and justifications – hence Nike’s inevitable retreat and decision to help out the Honduran workers.

The other widely drawn conclusion from the affair is that Nike has somehow given a lead that all other apparel companies must follow – as suggested by University of Washington president Mark Emmert and Worker Rights Consortium executive director Scott Nova.

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. True, if a company of similar scale and profile to Nike finds itself in a similar situation in the future, it’s going to find it very hard to wriggle out of any responsibility.

But what of the smaller companies who also regularly source product from Honduras, Colombia, Guatemala, Bangladesh, Mexico and other countries where worker rights are fragile at best?

Will their own version of the “Just Pay It” scandal generate the same sound and fury among protesters and, even more importantly, the same level of coverage in the media?

Personally, I doubt it – because they simply don’t have the news appeal of that swoosh logo and all that goes with it.

Nike’s climbdown here is clearly a step forward for workers’ rights campaigners and those who fear the consequences of increased globalisation – but it’s just that: one step.

And, without the pressure of bad PR and the threat of a direct impact on the company’s top line, it might never have happened.