Category: Sweatshops

The Reasons Companies Use Sweatshops, And The Impacts Of That For Business And For Society

Abstract

A ‘sweatshop’ refers to a “workplace in which workers are employed for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy – and often illegal – conditions” (Fan, Q 2018). The core motive for companies in utilising sweatshops in their production line is to reduce costs and therefore maximise profits. Minimum wage laws in developed countries such as Australia and the U.S., force major organisations to pay their employees a specified wage in correlation with legislation. Hence, Multinational Corporations (MNC’s) such as Nike outsource production to developing countries where workers are not protected by minimum wage policies. For businesses, this presents an opportunity for financial growth as inputs can be minimised and outputs maximised, increasing efficiency. However, this may also have negative impacts for the company in the form of a poor reputation for social responsibility, which will in turn reduce competitiveness. Sweatshops also incur additional impacts on society, particularly those subjected to sweatshops. The workers in such societies receive minimal wages and are force to work in unsafe conditions.

Presentation of views on the issue taken from a review of the literature

Organizational leadership, ethics and the challenges of marketing fair and ethical trade

The notion that a more collective approach to fair and ethical trade is essential for transformation is extensively explored in ‘Organizational leadership, ethics and the challenges of marketing fair and ethical trade’ (Low, w Davenport, E 2009). The traditional boycotting of commodities associated with the use of sweat shops in their line of production as a tool for “shopping for a better world” (Low, w Davenport, E 2009, pp.99), is an individualistic approach that provides minimal contribution to transformative change. To facilitate such transformative change, collectivist approaches may need to be utilised through mission-driven organisations as a catalyst for promoting ethical and fair trade, encompassed under the conception of “ethical leadership”. Such approaches might include the use of fair trade sources for outsourcing production and marketing this.

Ethical dilemmas in fair and ethical trade

The Fair- trade movement has aimed to mainstream food products to supermarkets that have been certified and branded. The goal, therefore, is to convey to contemporary society that “…people in prosperous countries should factor global social justice into their buying decisions’’ (Low, w Davenport, E 2009, pp.99). The intended impact for society in developing countries is a push towards equality and a raised standard of living. For the businesses in question, outsourcing from fair trade labelled sources may incur extra costs. As a result, a new ethical dilemma is presented whereby large organisations only outsource a small portion to fair trade sources. However, outsourcing to fair trade certified companies can in fact be marketed to the public in a positive light.

Marketing Fair Trade products

The use of Fair trade approved sources for outsourcing production can incur positive impacts for businesses. Fair trade certified production means that the workers involved with producing these commodities were treated in correlation with fair trade standards, which can in turn place the company in a favourable light to its consumers. This ultimately increases competitiveness of the firm as consumers are more willing to purchase products from a socially responsible business.

Public pressure against sweat shops as perceived by top‐management of apparel and footwear companies

Furthermore, ‘Public pressure against sweat shops as perceived by top‐management of apparel and footwear companies’ (Park‐Poaps, H 2010) delves into the ideals of MNC’s and the influences on company use of sweatshops. Park-Poaps H (2010) found through an array of surveys portrayed “…statistically significant influence of firm size, tenure, and firm ownership type on perceived public pressure for fair labour practices” (pp.300). Public pressure for labour practises were shown to be more significant than gender, age, education, business type and percentage of foreign sourced merchandise. This serves to highlight the influential impact of public pressure on business actions.

Stakeholder management and social responsiveness

The main underlying ideological theory underpinning the concept of corporate social responsibility is the notion that a business must adhere to and “…satisfy the values and demands of the society in which it operates” (Park‐Poaps, H 2010, pp.302). Hence, the concept of stakeholders presents vast importance to businesses because they incorporate consumers, government and suppliers (as the primary stakeholders). Pressures from these groups are influential to the business in question as the company strives to meet their demands and interests.

Top-management and corporate social responsibility

Top management has been found to influence ethical culture and plays a significant role in shaping corporate actions. This “…shapes the nature and scope of social responsibility for the firm” (Park‐Poaps, H 2010, pp.303). Therefore, top management can directly impact both businesses and society through the exploitation of sweatshops as ethical understandings and procedures are compromised.

Introduction

The last few decades have seen Multinational corporations seek out developing countries to be used as a source of cheap labour. It is often alleged that such companies exploit its workers from these developing countries, having them work in unsafe and unhealthy conditions that characterise ‘sweatshops’ for poor wages. One of the most prominent and controversial of these organisations is Nike. Nike is a Multinational corporation that is currently the dominant figure in the athletic apparel industry.

Nike is an effective example of an MNC that illustrates the actions of businesses in international relations over the past few decades. Nike admits that “We have also faced criticism for sourcing from contract factories – often called “sweatshops” – with low wages and poor working conditions” (LEARNING FROM OUR PAST n.d.). This in turn serves to highlight the actions of businesses such as Nike when enforcing unfair wages, despite its “annual sales of $US28 billion” (Lutz 2015).

Furthermore, government regulations provide little to no protection for workers in developing countries. Minimal laws are put in place that prevent individuals of developing societies from being subjected to such working conditions. This in turn establishes an easy avenue for Nike to exploit sweatshops for production purposes as there are no policies and regulations that prohibit such actions.

Societies in developing countries have no choice except to continue working in such poor working conditions as they don’t possess the necessary power to initiate change. However, the actions of societies in developed countries, such as boycotting Nike products, can be extremely influential on the imposition of sweatshops. Such actions have already proved influential in Nike’s activities. These impacts can be seen in through Tohiro, who “has worked at a Nike contract factory for 18 years. When she first started, she learned how to cut and sew. Today, she helps make a new type of shoe every six months. Tohiro’s job helps provide for the future of her two children, including paying for their education” (LEARNING FROM OUR PAST n.d.).

Aims

The main aim of this case study is to uncover the reasons as to why companies such as Nike use sweatshops in their production process and the implications this has for business and society.

Method

The research was carried out through the examination of both primary and secondary sources which were collaborated and recorded. The primary sources revolved around information provided directly from Nike in the form of online websites and statements. To build on this information, newspaper articles and written accounts were scrutinised to erect further supporting evidence and information.

Results

The results answer the aim in that “Nike is profiting from the cheap labour cost of production” (UK Essays 2015). It was found that Nike had bee involved with the use of sweat shops over past decades. However, Nike has renewed its reputation and ceased the use of sweatshops over the last 5-10 years.

Discussion of the case comprising a critical review of the case from your perspective

Business

Nike’s past dealings with sweatshops as one of the dominating athletic apparel companies in the world has seen a large percentage of production sources implementing sweatshop environments. Nike’s success is largely facilitated by the cheap labour sought out in developing countries such as Indonesia. This reduction in cost assists with an increase in efficiency, accelerating its growth and is therefore the reason for companies use sweatshops. Besides the obvious impact of economic growth, the use of sweatshops can impact businesses negatively through tarnished reputations of its brand. To build on this, Nike’s use of sweatshops also encourages other businesses to implement similar outsourcing strategies in order to maintain competitiveness.

There are other principles that may be applied to maintain growth without employing socially irresponsible methods. “Socially responsible Business can lead to economic development based on the principle of sustainability” (Fan, Q 2018).

Government

A lack of government intervention is another reason presented in the case study as to why businesses use sweatshops. Minimal government regulations simply make it easy for large corporations such as Nike to exploit cheap labour. Without government intervention, multinational corporations such as Nike can exploit the communities in developing countries who are desperate for income to support their families. Nike attempts to support itself in the case study by referring to Tohiro as an individual from Indonesia who can provide for her family because of her job at Nike. However, this does not state how much she earns or whether her wages are fair.

The sustainability of communities is reliant on the four principles of fair trade. These include: direct trade with producers, long trading relationship so as to ensure security, determination of a floor price that equals (the cost of production + the cost of living + the cost of complying with fair trade standards) and payment of a social premium to the organisation of producers.

Society

Society in developed countries contribute largely to the reason companies use sweatshops. This is Nike’s target market and exists in an extremely competitive market. Therefore, Nike’s use of sweatshops stems from the desire to increase competitiveness and adhere to the demands of modern developed societies. The influence that developed societies have over businesses however, also contribute to the reduction in use of sweatshops. This is because socially and ethically irresponsible businesses are perceived negatively by the public. Therefore, businesses are encouraged to be more socially and ethically responsible to satisfy the wants and needs of its target market.

Society in developing countries are devastatingly impacted by its interactions with government and business. Lack of government regulation and legislation in conjunction with exploitation by Nike force communities to work from an early age in poor working conditions and for low wages, dramatically reducing quality of life. This strips individual of any possibility to receive an education and advance their lives as their sole focus is survival. A social premium should be enforced

On the other hand, this does present some arguable notions about Nike’s outsourcing. Nike strives to convey how international business interactions have supplied developing countries with the provision of jobs necessary for survival. Without the work supplied by Nike, many families would not be able to survive. “Lea has dedicated her career to understanding and improving working conditions, particularly for women. She joined Nike seven years ago, recognizing the potential Nike had to revolutionize footwear and apparel manufacturing” (LEARNING FROM OUR PAST n.d.).

Conclusion

In summation, the main drive for companies to utilise sweatshops for production purposes is to reduce costs and maximise profits. Minimum wage laws in developed countries such as Australia, force major organisations to pay their employees a specified wage in correlation with legislation. Hence, Multinational Corporations (MNC’s) such as Nike outsource production to developing countries where workers are not protected by minimum wage policies. For businesses, this presents an opportunity for financial growth as inputs can be minimised and outputs maximised, increasing efficiency. However, this may also have negative impacts for the company in the form of a poor reputation for social responsibility, which will in turn reduce competitiveness. Sweatshops also incur additional impacts on society, particularly those subjected to sweatshops. The workers in such societies receive minimal wages and are force to work in unsafe conditions.

It may be proposed that Multinational corporations must ensure that 100% of its products are certified Fair trade approved sources of production. Such regulations should be enforced in all developed countries that sell outsourced products from any industry. This can be enforced through heavy fines which may will be applicable to companies who do not produce their commodities according to fair trade. The ultimate goal is to increase the standard of living of the global society and increase equality.

In addition, developing countries may also devise legislations that work towards regulating misconduct of multinational corporation. This should in turn protect the workers from being exploited and improve quality of life.

References

1. Essays, UK 2015, ‘Nike Sweatshops: Poor Conditions Of Work’ Author, ‘Title of article’, UK Essays, 23 March, viewed 5 June 2018, https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/sweatshop-poor-conditions-of-working-environment-marketing-essay.php
2. Fan, Q 2018, ‘Topic 2: IMPACTS OF BUSINESS ON PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE WORKPLACE’, 200158: Business, Society and Policy, 30 April, online lecture, viewed 4 June 2018, vUWS
3. LEARNING FROM OUR PAST n.d., 4 June 2018, https://sustainability.nike.com/learning-from-our-past
4. Low, w Davenport, E 2009, ‘Organizational leadership, ethics and the challenges of marketing fair and ethical trade’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 86, no. 1, pp.97-108, viewed 3 June 2018, ProQuest Central, DOI:10.1007/s10551-008-9763-7
5. Lutz, A 2015, ‘How Nike shed its sweatshop image to dominate the shoe industry’, Business Insider Australia, 6 June, viewed 5 June 2018, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-nike-fixed-its-sweatshop-image-2015-6?r=US&IR=T
6. Nike n.d., viewed 4 June 2018, https://www.nike.com/au/en_gb/
7. Park‐Poaps, H 2010, ‘Public pressure against sweat shops as perceived by top‐management of apparel and footwear companies’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, no. 2, pp.300-311, viewed 3 June 2018, Emerald Insight, https://doi-org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/10.1108/13612021011046129
8. Sens, A 2012, Multinational Corporations, 27 February, online video, 4 June 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCojpFwWuG0

The Issue Of Sweatshops At The Clothing Factories

A landowner receives a call from their tenants, they are a young family with two children, one in kinder-garden, and the other starting primary school in the next few weeks. The parents raise concerns about the gas heater not working properly. For the landowner, it has been the third call this week. Aware of the problem the landowner promises to get someone to look at it before the end of the week. The next day however, the family suffers carbon monoxide poisoning killing both the parents and children.

If I were to ask you what the outcome should be for the landowner I would guess that you would all agree that they should be tried in court for negligence resulting in death. With this in mind, I can’t help but question the unethical practises of the clothing industry. Blinded by the financial profit companies make from using sweatshops, many workers suffer from low wages, incredibly long working hours and appalling working conditions.

With consumerism growing, a large proportion of businesses take advantage of people in a vulnerable state by ignoring their basic human rights and placing them in inevitable danger. Just like the landowner, I believe that companies who consciously allow the mistreatment of their employees should be criminally prosecuted. Large corporations that use sweatshops have an obligation to ensure the safety of all of their workers, even if they do not directly oversee the management of these manufacturing sites in other countries.

In the 2013 Dhaka garment factory collapse 1,134 deaths resulted from hazardous cracks in the walls. A day prior workers were evacuated, but sent back to work the following day. It is because of the parent companies high demand for clothing that sweatshops ignore the safety regulations in order to meet their quota. Elizabeth L. Cline, author of Overdressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion, reveals that in Bangladesh factories were “in tall office buildings that were not built for manufacturing”.

Manufacturers work hard. They work hard despite their poor working conditions and yet they are not even guaranteed their own safety. Although those responsible for the disaster were charged, nothing stops big parent companies from using other sweatshops. Without consequences for big brand labels, they can continue exploiting countries who rely on their exports.

Furthermore, big clothing labels make a significant profit by employing workers who are uneducated, in extreme poverty and desperate for any money they can get. Companies exploit these people to manufacture their clothing because they know that they are desperate for a job to earn money, even if it is well below minimum wage. Fabricating the reality of a 50% off sale companies are able to gain a substantial profit and appeal to savvy shoppers at the expense of their workers who spend the majority of their time working.

Let me set the scene, Lahore Pakistan, 500 women aged between 14 and 30 work in a factory producing knitwear and jeans for companies in America and England. Razia works from 7am to 11pm. She eats her meals on the floor if she is allowed a break. Razia explains that her “male supervisor harasses young women workers” and if they do not sleep with him, he will not give them their wages. With no proper ventilation system and dim lighting Razia suffers headaches and eye problems. Earning an equivalent of 35 Australian dollars monthly, Razia is considered to be living in extreme poverty. Ultimately, it comes down to the actions of the big corporations, if they refuse to change the environment sweatshop workers are forced to work in then they should be severely punished.

However, commonly argued by those defending the use of sweatshops state that although working conditions are not ideal, big clothing businesses provide jobs for those who would be otherwise unemployed. Instead of addressing the root of the issue with an ethical solution certain people would rather adopt the glass half full mentality.

But how do you tell someone working in a sweatshop, that they are lucky to have a job when they struggle to feed themselves let alone their children or when they share their one bedroom house with ten other people because they cannot afford their own home. I’m sorry to say but sweatshops are not jobs they are forced labour.

In Bangladesh, children as young as six years old work an estimated 16 hours a day and with 1.3 million children working full time it comes to no surprise that it becomes an unrelenting cycle of poverty. That is 1.3 million children that could have been in school earning a better income in the future, boosting their country’s economy.

For those who have been informed of this issue, the tragic reality of economic interest is easy to see. Providing a viable solution however, is much more difficult, but let me offer one. By demanding global standards on production with legal consequences it would be a point in the right direction. It would ensure that both sweatshop owners and parent companies are on the same page. On the same page that no one should have to die for being exposed to poor conditions. And on the same page that if we do not tolerate this kind of treatment in Australia neither should the companies.

Sweatshops And The Importance Of Labour Reform

Abstract

The use of developing countries for cheap labour by multinational companies has become more prominent because of increased trading around the world. Supporters claim that MNCs are helping the development of third world countries by providing more job opportunities. However, others argue that MNC’s are using sweatshops to exploit their workers which causes many human right violations and deaths. A review of sweatshops in developing countries is that workers are usually forced to work long hours in dangerous working conditions for little to no pay. This essay points to the importance of a reform in this matter as many workers are being exploited and mistreated. Conversely, arguments supporting sweatshops will discussed and devaluated.

Thesis statement

This essay argues that there must be reform within the sweatshop industry to improve working conditions to eliminate the exploitation of the workers. Multinational companies such as Nike, Adidas and Apple are corporate organisations that operate in more than one country, and due to the spread of globalisation, more countries are trading worldwide; thus, creating more jobs (Background on Sweatshops. n.d.). However, there have been many cases of MNCs (Multinational companies) exploiting some of their employees in many ways, which goes against human right and ethical consumerism laws and MNCs have a responsibility to the people who produce their products in developing countries (Forrester 2013). Hence, there has to be reform on laws and regulations because many people are working long hours in dangerous working environments for little to no pay.

Sweatshops

Firstly, globalisation has changed the way people interact around the world. According to Ethical Footprint (2010), globalisation is “the process by which businesses or other organisations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.” Mejia-Zaccaro (2013) claims that some big brand companies are being heavily criticised due to the workplaces not providing the workers with their labour rights and forcing workers to work in these so-called ‘sweatshops’. Sweatshops are “any workplace in which workers are subject to extreme exploitation. The exploitation includes not providing workers with benefits, acceptable working conditions, or a living wage” (Background on Sweatshops, n.d).

Reality of sweatshops

Firstly, most sweatshops are owned by big brand companies originating from the United States and these sweatshops commit illegal actions such as disobeying the laws of the country and infringing contracts between the factory workers and owners (Forrester, 2013). Another example by Globalpeaceandconflict (2012) states that Nike is one the many companies that produce their clothing abroad, and in their case, the foreign factories provide jobs for locals, but the workers are also underpaid, overworked and exploited. They also explain that workers are not provided with proper training and safety equipment. Moreover, they are exposed to toxic glues and chemicals while being expected to work 60 to 70 hours a week with pay of 1.60 $ a day when a person needs around three dollars a day to survive. Therefore, Sweatshops are a clear violation of human rights and ethical consumerism laws, but yet not much is being done to provide workers with their fundamental rights. War on Want (2010) also asserts that Nike continues using these unregulated sweatshops for providing jobs for developing countries as an excuse for cheap labour.

Secondly, Forester and Mejia-Zaccaro (2013) argues that sweatshops pose a significant threat to workers’ lives, this is due to the sweatshops not paying attention to health and safety procedures, which risks the lives of many garment workers due to the dangerous and life-threatening working environments (Forrester 2013). Furthermore, As-Saber (2013) also argues that sweatshops usually fail to provide basic needs to workers such as working space, drinking water and light. Also, another violation is that workers are usually imprisoned inside low-cost factories in order to prevent theft, which as a result leaves the workers with no way to escape in the event of a fire or the collapse of the building. For instance, As-Saber (2013) states that the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in the city of Dacha killed 110 garment workers due to the building being over-occupied with machinery and workers and the doors were locked at the time of the incident which made it impossible for workers to escape the atrocity. However, there have been no reforms made to give these garment workers their well-deserved rights. Therefore, this results in the continuation of the desecration of human rights.

One other example is a violation a factory committed in Karachi, Pakistan where over 300 people died inside of the building due to the doors of the building being locked up at the time of a fire break out (War on Want, 2019). Therefore, sweatshops pose as a significant human rights violation as it goes against the ‘Declaration of Human Rights’ articles such as article 23 which states that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment” 2018. Moreover, article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. Thus, it argued that Global comities such as the United Nations Human Rights Council are failing to provide these fundamental human rights to those sweatshop workers which is ultimately contributing to the continuation of human right violations in sweatshops since it is cheaper for big brand company to pack their bags and leave than giving the worker’s their rights (Woolfe, 2013).

In addition, some governments are being heavily criticised for promoting the exploitation of workers through scheme a called “Race to the bottom”. The race to the bottom is a phrase used to describe the deregulation of the business environment in order to attract more investors to operate in the country of interest (Ethical Footprint, 2010). Therefore, MNCs are taking advantage of these third world countries in order to make the highest profits and some governments are supporting this by applying lower taxes and exemptions which makes MNCs more likely to continue trading in these countries (Forrester, 2013). This leads to the enforcement of weak labour laws, essentially concluding to many labour and human right violations. An example of this, is continuous demand by American companies to Chinese supplier to lower of prices in order for American consumers to enjoy cheaper goods at the expense of sweatshop workers who have their rights exploited. For example, attempting to escape from outrageous destitution, provincial vagrant labourers end up caught in horrifying working conditions. The vast majority of these labourers are ladies acquiring amazingly low wages – the average month to month pay, including extra time is CNY 1,690 (£150) (Woolfe, 2013). Migrant workers experience long working days, work seven days a week and many are without a business contract and face consistent abuse. Living conditions are poor with up to six individuals sharing little confined residences. Ladies transient specialists, who are principally utilised in production lines, seldom get maternity leave, and with no childcare offices and working a long time of over 70 hours many are compelled to send their kids to live with family in the farmland. Therefore, due to the lack of regulations in developing countries to protect labour and the government attracting investors by lowering taxes and tolerating labour violations, sweatshops are still being exploited.

Reform

Working conditions

Although it is tough to abolish the use of sweatshops altogether, many non-government organisations are helping to seek justice for sweatshop workers and to improve the horrible conditions and reduced wages they are experiencing. One of these organisation is War on Want, and the NGO aims to ensure that garment workers receive a fair living wage, decent working conditions, and that women workers receive the same treatment as men (War on Want, 2012). The organisation has been quite successful in making a minor change as they have been able to provide legal compensation to labour right abuses for over 500,000 workers accumulating to around £650,000 as well as Preparing and equipping migrant workers and teaching them how to protect their rights. In 2009, 14 migrant worker associations and 186 members were trained on labour law and techniques to battle for improved wellbeing and security assurance. Although this is making a difference, there is still far more steps that need to be taken to assure safe working conditions and fair wages (War on Want. 2012).

The National Garment Workers’ Federation (NGWF) has been battling for the privileges of sweatshop labourers in Bangladesh since 1984.They are situated in Dhaka, and have seven branches across the country, the NGWF is an establishing organization from the Bangladesh Garment Workers Unity Council, and a body that arranges work law and condemns labour rights infringement through exchange between worker’s guilds, government and processing plant proprietors. After a hard-hitting effort is driven by the NGWF together with other worker’s guilds, another lowest pay permitted by law for a piece of clothing labourers was presented in December 2010 (Mejia-Zaccaro, 2013), This spoke to an expansion of 80% for the most minimal paid piece of clothing labourers and a standard increment overall work evaluation of 60%. Moreover, In December 2010, another national the lowest pay permitted by law came into power, the first pay increment for a long time. Already, the most reduced paid piece of clothing labourers earnt a pitiful £15 every month (1,662 takas), yet they will currently have the option to acquire £25 per month (3,000 takas), an expansion of 80%. Anyways, this is still shy of a living pay, determined to be £45 per month (5,000 takas), and the NGWF keeps on crusading for reasonable pay that covers the essential needs of labourers and their families.

Counter argument-Survival

Although many argue that sweatshops are inhumane, and workers are paid less than minimum wage working environment. Others argue that sweatshops can be beneficial to some workers, and according to Powell (2014), people working in sweatshops have better wages and working opportunities than people working in other job sectors. For instance, it is reported that 82.8% of people working in Bangladesh make a daily living of fewer than two dollars whereas people who are working in sweatshops are making more money a day with most sweatshops paying their workers around 1.8$ a day in comparison. Moreover, in most of the countries in third world countries have a daily wage of two dollars for ten hours of work. Therefore, critics assert that with 41 out of 43 cases of people working in sweatshops show that they are making more than two dollars, which is better than most job sectors (Powell, 2014). In addition, critics assert that the developing countries MNCs operate in have high percentages of unemployment, for example, according to the CIA World Factbook, the projected unemployment rates for Nicaragua, Haiti, Bangladesh, Honduras and the Commonwealth of Dominica were 7.4 per cent, 40.6 per cent, 5 per cent, 4.5 per cent and 23 per cent (Mejia-Zaccaro, 2013). Powell (2014) also mentions that MNC’s employ thousands of people across these countries and by doing so, providing better financial work streams. However, people can argue that the data gathered is not entirely accurate as biases are likely causing an underestimation in earnings as a per cent of living standard.

Conclusion

In conclusion, through analysing sweatshops, it has been determined that sweatshops pose a significant threat to a worker’s life and many people have ended up injured or dead due to the hazardous working environment they need to deal with. On the other hand, critics argued that workers in sweatshops make more money than people in other industries. However, this is not a valid argument because workers are still being underpaid and exploited in these low-cost factories. Therefore, there must be a reform within the sweatshop industry to improve working conditions to eliminate the exploitation of workers.

Reference list

1. As-Saber, S. (2013, May 6). Bangladesh disaster shows why we must urgently clean up global sweat shops. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/bangladesh-disaster-shows-why-we-must-urgently-clean-up-global-sweat-shops-13899
2. Background on Sweatshops. (n.d.). Do Something. Retrieved from http://www.dosomething.org/‌tipsandtools/‌background-sweatshops
3. Ethical Footprint. (2010). Globalization and the “race to the bottom”. Retrieved 7 August 2019, from https://ethicalfootprint.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/globalization-and-the-race-to-the-bottom/
4. Forester, J. (2013, April 30). Sweatshops violate human rights; American companies at fault. The collegian. Retrieved from https://www.kstatecollegian.com/2013/04/30/sweatshops-violate-human-rights-american-companies-at-fault/
5. Globalpeaceandconflict. (2019). Nike: Modern Day Slavery. Retrieved 6 August 2019, from https://globalpeaceandconflict.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/nike-and-modern-day-slavery/
6. Mejia-Zaccaro, D. (2013, May 02). Sweatshops benefit poor, provide employment; American humanitarianism does more harm than good. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://www.kstatecollegian.com/2013/05/03/sweatshops-benefit-poor-provide-employment-american-humanitarianism-does-more-harm-than-good/
7. Powell, B. (2014). Retrieved 7 August 2019, from https://mises.org/library/sweatshops-way-out-povert
8. Woolfe, S. (2013, July 16). A Critical Look at Sweatshops. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/07/a-critical-look-at-sweatshops.html
9. War on Want. (2012). Sweatshops in Bangladesh. Retrieved 7 August 2019, from https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-bangladesh

The Issues Of Sweatshops In Bangladesh And Ways To Solve Them

Bangladeshi Government’s lack of responsibility

Indeed, it is the Bangladeshi government that must endure all the accusations, criticisms and spotlight for its lack of responsibility regarding sweatshops and its prominent garment manufactures. Numerous voices argue that the government are very well aware of the decaying infrastructure and worsening conditions but failed to address the dilemma publicly. Supposedly, the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association hampered employees from publicizing their problems, opinions, and voices and the workers received appalling poor safety working concerns and neglected as a consequence of disobedience to the government. Added, more commentators say one reason behind the incompetent government’s responsibility is because the famous garment exports in Bangladesh have amounted to about 80 percent of the country’s exports, as reports revealed in 2013, by massively boosting up its economy and financial system.

The garment industry in Bangladesh is also widely known to hire about four million people, playing a significant part in its country’s export income. Nevertheless, as Bangladesh’s economic growth has been increasing, especially after its entrance to the 21st century, workers’ rights remain stagnant. While its economy could grow at a faster pace, the failure in workers’ rights is keeping a tight rein over it, as stated by the founder of the Awaj union for women garment makers. Supposedly, years ago, exasperations exploded among many workers who had been voicing out to raise the minimum wage bar to 5,300 taka ($63.16). Accordingly, those workers grouped themselves to attack the Windy Apparels Limited factory in the Ashulia industrial area which housed about 350 factories. Another 25 factories immediately joined the demonstration after hearing the news followed by 150,000 workers leaving the workplace as well. The workers also drafted a list of 16 new demands, preeminent of which was an addition to their minimum wages to 16,000 taka ($190.68) per month.

In contrast, the Bangladeshi government reacted to these demonstrations by dispatching a group of policemen using purpose-built powers act to arrest the protesters, leaders of the protests and even guiltless workers who engaged in such acts. As a result, more than 1,500 innocent laborers were sacked as a consequence from a variety of garment manufacturers only after a myriad of complaints took place. These powerful actions against the government triggered by workers’ bravery, over the long haul, led to a week-long closedown at several garment places which were known to supply top European and American brands such as Zara, Gap, and H&M. What is more is that thousands of workers gradually departed from apparel factories in 2016 of December, especially around the mass-production core of Ashulia, which prompted concerns regarding clothing stocks within foreign brands during the holiday period.

Clearly, there are rooms for improvement concerning labor laws, the tug-of-war between the government with the minimum wage, and tackle the below-par treatment of garment factory workers by imposing strict regulations aimed at international retailers and big multinational corporations. However, one problem at this stage is that both the government and foreign businesses must execute them, then the will to impose them. If regulations regarding workers were not taken into account, the Bangladeshi government is also primarily in charge of keeping an eye on the sweatshops in its country. Even if it is the factory managers determine to oversee their workers, it is still up to the government’s tendency to be the absolute foreman.

Therefore, the traces of corrupted acts performed by the Bangladeshi government exposed how the government themselves are instead contributing to circumstances that should not be occurring in a wretchedly developing country that heavily depends on their cheap labor force.

Internal problem: Inside Bangladesh

As briefly mentioned, Bangladesh greatly depends on outsourced garment mass-production for its citizens’ well-being and its economy although there are specific problems regarding sweatshops in Bangladesh internally. Still, apparel factories continue to recruit over more than three million Bangladeshi residents, and the country acquires almost 80 percent of its export net from the garment section. Its exports of hundreds and billions of dollars’ worth of clothes annually makes Bangladesh the world’s second-biggest exporter of ready-to-wear attires chasing after China, categorized as the most favorable place to do business in the world with its cheap labor cost and massive productiveness.

However, in this narrative, an instant veto on the garment industry sector due to internal problems going on in today’s Bangladesh would most likely leave behind many of the people jobless and poverty-stricken, contributing to an increase in deaths and complaints. Such below par operations in the garment division may not appear to be attractive from the outlook of an industrialized country, in many developing countries, surprisingly, clothing factories often give more money than the average wage. Hence, it is still a debatable topic of how the money earned in sweatshops is higher than the regular average wage among developing countries while the workers obtain much lower than the regular local living payment. As of 2019 January, the official minimum wage for garment factory workers in Bangladesh added up to 8,000 taka ($93.54) per month.

After the disastrous collapse that happened on April 21st of 2013 in Rana Plaza factory, a sizable factory famous for making clothing for well-known international brands, many workers were still spotted working long hours in overheated factories without having any adequate fire exits, according to the reports from the working conditions within the supply chain at Walmart, H&M, Gap and other. On top of that, compacted factory buildings, carelessness mistakes caused by managers have historically oppressed many workers’ attempts to coordinate several labor unions for sweatshop workers and battle for better working environments and standards.

In the initial stage, better workplace circumstances and genuine respect for employees’ integrities, especially involving their right to make trade unions, are necessary both for workers’ rights and because such improvements can help hinder misfortunes just like what happened at Rana Plaza and Tazreen Fashions. The reason behind the sudden crackdown of the garment factory was because it was not properly established to be a plant well-suited for employees in the first place. Rather, the factory was built to accommodate different shops and offices which shows how the workers’ safety problems turned out not to be the country’s priority. This incident also illustrates how within apparel factories in Bangladesh, mistreatments, and abuse of workers frequently occur and some are either forced or threatened to work even during and after the occurrence of severe disasters. Hence, such susceptible matter once again clarifies that domestic problems are mainly due to the local government’s insouciance about local regulations because many of the laws are poor in quality, out of date or neglected by the local government, which many are unaware of.

Only if workers at Rana Plaza had more courage backed up to advocate for better workplace conditions, hundreds of deaths and harms could stay away from catastrophes at first. Then, the calamity would not have wiped out 1,138 workers. However, not a single factory that operated in Rana Plaza had a proper trade union where countless of workers turned out to be impotent to stand against their supervisors who commanded and drew attention to absurd claims. Moreover, there is still a common practice of workers stuck in building exits during emergencies only one day after massive fractures had appeared in it and pressuring workers to get their work done even when there is a fire or a collapse in the factory building.

Likewise, the workers at Tazreen Fashion factories had a hard time from exiting their workplaces by managing directors, although the ground floor caught on fire and alarms detonated. On the conditions that the workers at Tazreen had been associates of a valid operative labor union, there would have been possibilities that the staffs would have had better fire safety education. Also, the unions could have brought up security infringements like shortage of fire escapes, blocked stairways, and blocked windows, all of which contributed to death and hazardous injuries of staff members.

In many cases, the majority of the workers strongly insisted on the need for unions to speak up for end practice mistreatments and to engage in broader security problems. One female sewing worker currently employed at a factory in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, claimed in an interview that colleague workers at her workplace were going through severe physical agony to finish demands from the top. Despite that, those aiming to arrange associations encounter potential severe retaliation from the government and superior which is fundamentally why domestic problems Bangladesh encounters are barely going through progress.

While many awareness has been given to post-Rana Plaza advancements in government feedbacks in a few cases, and a modification to a couple of labor laws, covering stipulations alleviating the union registration procedure and enabling registration of unions, even after the changes made recently below 10 percent of garment industries in Bangladesh have unions. Besides, front runners of unions tend to be the primary prey. There is also a famous adage regarding Bangladesh’s sweatshop affair that ‘whoever amplifies their head is affected the most,’ where a misuse in violation mostly includes physical and sexual assaults on the head of union by both directors and gangsters called ‘mastans.’

External problem: Multinational Corporations

For a developing country like Bangladesh, it is nearly impossible to support its economy without engaging in foreign direct investment (FDI) for capital and being alert of globalization. Almost all named multinational corporations (MNCs) are familiar with the term ‘sweatshop,’ but it has turned out to be a blind eye. Here, the question of ‘Why well-known international brands and companies settle on the foreign territory to do work?’ would arise. The answer to this problem is somewhat straightforward: Bangladesh’s inexpensive labor.

The notion of the sweatshop is new and has been vulnerable to the media for many years, but turned out to be unsuccessful in penetrating the whole issue in micro level detail. In this context, Bangladesh has come across the very-many demands and manipulations executed by global brands and businesses, like Nike for example, and has been severely exploited by them.

On the other side of the globe, nearly all worldwide corporations in developed countries instantly espoused Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) instructions to further foster both their public perception and global image. Similarly, ready-made apparel manufacturing was no different. Nonetheless, during the mid-1990s, numerous international garment retailers were heavily denounced for not being able to carry out their social commitments and responsibilities they vowed because it turned out that those businesses dealt with inappropriate exercises like shoddy working conditions, feeble wages and other. Hence, Corporate Social Responsibility started to obtain an extensive amount of attention as a consequence. Accordingly, many garment retailers were tacitly coerced to consider CSR guidelines and matters particularly concerning employees’ wages, their well-being and working conditions.

Nevertheless, the clothing industry today confronts an internal struggle between CSR regulations and their companies’ profitability. The rationale here is that the apparel segment is categorized by its capability to manufacture and create unique patterns that seize many audiences on a global level that are mostly inexpensive, or manufacture mass, low-standard commodities like uniforms and shirts. For this reason, workers’ stipends remain very low in Bangladesh, and the living and working conditions of employees continue to be a continual root of worry. In particular, one problem that emerges in the field of sweatshops is that the nature of mass-production tends to contain fiber dirt, dangerous chemical elements that are deemed as tedious amongst many people in Bangladesh, contributing to worsening workers’ health and operating conditions. Adding on, the constant concern regarding low-technology sweatshop-type manufactures, industries, and factories persist on menacing reputations of many clothing brands and retailers with the cheapest working environments and wages that do not even amount to the smallest requirements of workers, occasionally with unpaid wages.

Moreover, adding on to the concerns mentioned above like globalization and the market power each multinational clothing companies and retailers, foreign businesses have allocated their manufacturing to operate in Bangladesh instead of their homes due to its extremely cheap labor force. For example, if a multinational business lands in a foreign country to do business, there is a high possibility that the Bangladeshi government would appoint inexperienced or semi-skilled female workers in exchange for foreign capital mainly due to the on-going call for a more cheaper channel of production as the fashion industry is becoming more and more ruthless these days.

Hence, due to the interruption among foreign multinational corporations and developing countries’ garment factories, the companies inadvertently seem to put more emphasis on generating mass profit and export their social and environmental problems abroad, and selling their sense of conscience currently developing countries, and one of the victim being Bangladesh. Thus, foreign corporations taking advantage of cheap labor and disregarding ethical morals are becoming one major external nuisance in Bangladesh today. Further on, this problem is becoming more vulnerable by the insufficient labor enactments in many developing states that do not consist of sufficient legitimate methods to handle these burgeoning difficulties in one’s own country abused by foreign multinational corporations.

No international mechanisms

Ever since the collapses and damages in Bangladesh’s garment industries, this tragedy resulted in the deaths of many workers where some important steps from international corporations and governments have slowly emerged. On the one hand, Australia, one of Bangladesh’s most prominent retailers – Coles (Wesfarmers), Woolworths, David Jones, and Myer – started to separate themselves from producing apparel lines in Bangladesh gradually. On the other hand, other EU-based retailers – H&M, Zara, and Primark – have assented to come up with improvements and newly developed conditions in terms of the workers’ safety at their garment factories, though Australian retailers have withheld to agree with the terms and conditions.

However, even though both Bangladesh and international corporations are looking for a front-line with certain provisions, the main problem is that there is still no proper international mechanisms firmly laid that can halt poor labor conditions and sweatshops abused by multinational corporations. The sort of harm those companies can face is having a lousy brand reputation, though consumers and customers who are careless will purchase those products. Still, low priced workers are widespread and the most favorable among foreign businesses. Nevertheless, this irony further indicates that even though anti-sweatshop advocates are continuously forcing multinational corporations to develop different mechanisms regarding problems that can occur within the garment industry, barely any businesses have adopted the agreements.

As an illustration, several Australian firms referred above are known to favor apparel factories in Bangladesh to do their businesses as it is a desired place for reasonable operating expense while bringing out more enormous profits. Nonetheless, in the midst of the fear of so many injuries and deaths, those amiable Australian retailers are gradually putting more distance as they are not applicable for international sanctions because there are no precise international mechanisms to regulate or restrict those businesses and retailers.

On the other hand, there is plenty of international commentators and human rights organizations who question the norms, duplicity and the many reasons behind leaving more gap between firms and the country. Despite that, there is no progress beyond this issue because those unions mostly urge for better conditions and qualities for workers and their workplace, not forcing for authorized international mechanisms that can be applied promptly to countless businesses exploiting sweatshops.

Thus, in order to ease sweatshop issues, it is ultimately crucial that major global brands – Zara, Gap, and H&M – are ratifying to the legally binding Bangladesh’s safety standards agreements. Naturally, the question of ‘who’ should be in charge of monitoring these firms would rise as this matter is as much as necessary as applying the rules. Presuming that codes are to have any teeth, it is a must to have monitoring. On the condition that the signed contract would be applied, it is crucial that the Bangladesh government would grant authorization upon apparel associations to arrange and protect employees. Accordingly, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights identified the specific duties of the state to look after its citizens from any malevolence.

Clearly, the labor and human rights abuses currently happening in Bangladesh depict an absence of state response the rights and issues regarding unwarrantable sweatshops at the international level and shows a great deal of impotence to control business practices along with the lack of international mechanisms.

To conclude, one possible solution for Bangladesh could be referring to Australia’s labor rights and conditions. Up to today’s date, Australia is famous for its world-leading policies to make adjustments to the supply chain and avoid mistreating workers in the garment sector. As it took Australia years to become a developed country, these labor norms and guidelines did not appear overnight; these regulations are the outcome of full reviews, trial and error, and analysis into exploitations of workers who belonged in the attire industry.

Key Factors And Impact Of Sweatshops Labour In Bangladesh

Introduction

This investigative report will explore the impact of institutional evil sweatshops labour. This will include the analysis of key facts factors and how Catholic’s and other world religions approach to this issue. Finally, the attitudes and principles required to underpin a positive transformation, as well as proposed strategies to provide change, will be deduced.

Intuitional evil is defined as evil contained within organisations or structures of human society, rather than a result wickedness (Sandford, 2018). Due to its ingrained and repetitive nature, its often committed with a significant lack of humanity and empathy towards its human victims despite its oppressive nature.

This report will investigate the use of sweatshops labour in Bangladesh. According to the oxford English dictionary, a sweatshop is a “factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under extreme poor conditions.

This report will investigate the impact of sweatshop labour for Bangladesh workers, Key facts will be interpreted, and secular and religious responses to the issue will be analysed. These will then inform suggestions to influence positive changes around the issue of sweatshops in Bangladesh.

Overview of the Issue

A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates 2 or more labour. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. Almost half of its population lives on less than $1.10 a day. Eighty percent, or 29 million dollars, of Bangladesh’s exports is accounted for by clothing exports, deeming it the second largest clothing exporters after China

Sweatshops in Bangladesh employ 3.5 million workers in 4825 garment factories. A sweatshop workers minimum wage is approximately 39 dollars per month is 75% cheaper than china. Workers earn 13 cents per hour, which is 75 percent less then China. As much, to save money, many garment companies have established factories in Bangladesh (Women’s Weekly, 2015)

It is common for labourers to work fourteen to sixteen hours per day, seven days a week. They are required to produce 100 to 200 garments of clothing per hour, with no time for breaks for stuff like food, water or even fresh air. Often workers are locked in and forced to work over night, sometimes this can continue till 3am until there large orders are finished.

Workers face unsafe, cramped and dangerous working conditions which are well below the Australian standards for work to be enforced in that area. Since the 1900s more than 400 workers have passed away and several thousand have been seriously injured in 50 major factories due to these dangerous working conditions. In 2013 a major garment factory, Rana Plaza collapsed taking over 1000 lives.

Secular Response to the Issue

Following the collapsing pf Rana Plaza in the year 2013, the organisation Faire and Building Safety help prevent accidents like this to occur again. This organisation then helped form Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh (ACCORD), a legally binding agreement between global brands and for current factories to improve the hazards and make it more of a healthy environment for the workers. Over 200 companies agreed with ACCORD and by the year 2018 in May the work of this company had contributed significant for the safety of these workplaces for the millions of workers in the Bangladesh garment factories. Major brand like Kmart, Cotton on and Target have all joined this organisation. (ADD CHECK DRAFT)

Christian Response to the Issue

Both the old and new testament of the bible contain passages that encourage the education around the treatment of labourers. New revised standard Version, Colossians 4:1 explain to us “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly knowing that you also have a master in heaven and New Revised Standard Version, Ephesians 6:8 educate us that “Knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the lord, whether he is a slave or free”. Both passages teach us around the issue of sweatshops but particularly child labouring, The Bible tries to educate the reader that this is wrong and to treat one the way you would want to be treated.

The Catholic Social Teachings of rights and responsibilities to work explains that the employees are peoples first, and not to be pushed to the side and be used or abused. People have the right to fight for safe working conditions, a wage that supports their family and fair working hours. Subsidiarity and Participation evocates that all people have the right to participate in decisions that are going to affect their lives. Sweatshop workers in Bangladesh should be able to negotiate their working conditions, hours and pay with the employers. This way worker will be treated fairly and equally rather then being belittled, human needs to be fulfilled. Solidarity, the Dignity of a Human Person believes that all people are made in the image of God, so sweatshop labourers should be treated as one. Poverty, hunger, oppression and injustice make it impossible to live a life with these issues. Thus, those in control of a sweatshop’s conditions must ensure it is suitable for safe and healthy working conditions

Recommendations for the College

Strategies are proposed for the College to help overcome this institutional evil and make systems more accountable for the upholding justice and human rights. Firstly, all garments to be sold in retail will be labelled with information about where and what conditions the garment is made. Considering 70% of Australian purchase would be willing to pay more for garments constructed in fair conditions, this would make it clear whether purchases supports sweatshops. So before buying the garment ask the store, do research and see whether the garment is safe.

Additionally, other ways to change the issue or change perspectives is spreading information around the topic, on assembly’s in the voca (newsletter) or on the school’s social media by starting a hashtag of #checkitb4youbuyit. The college could even run workshops for the girls so they can see what it would be like to work in a sweatshop under the conditions of these labourers.

Conclusions

Currently, the issue of sweatshop labour is underpinned by attitudes of apathy, ignorance, carelessness and inattention. In order to positively transform perspectives, empathy, fairness and protection should be employed. Garment purchases need to develop empathy for their producers, if customers heard the stories of their producers and were their goods and services came from and were able to experience their lives and work in the conditions these labourers have, maybe then they could understand the necessary to negotiate reasonable pay, working hours and conditions for the labourers. Furthermore, protection for those who are vulnerable is essential so that each person is granted the right to feel safe at work. Safety is a right.

The Views Of Matt Zwolinski And Debra Satz On The Idea Of International Sweatshops

As consumers, it is not often that we think of the origin of where the clothes we wear come from. We find ourselves submissive to the idea of finding the best deal or the lowest cost possible. For multinational corporations (MNCs), this mentality is similar. “The Race to the Bottom” refers to the idea of MNCs seeking to find the lowest production cost possible in order to manufacture their products. Through a corporate lens, this all seems great and effective, however through an ethical lens, we can find many things that do not align with the values of humanity, i.e. sweatshops. A sweatshop can be defined as a factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours under poor conditions and many health risks. This essay will explore two opposing philosophers views on international sweatshops as well as explain why MNCs should be obligated to pay its employees a living wage in developing countries.

Zwolinski: Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation

Matt Zwolinski attempts to argue that sweatshop employees and employers mutually agree to the conditions of their employment and that the workers choice to accept these conditions are “morally significant” (Zwolinski, 689). He goes on to argue that this is an exercise of their autonomy and as an expression of their preferences. The “moral magic of choice” is presented in two ways in which choice can be morally transformative; autonomy-exercising choice and preference evincing choice. Zwolinski states that autonomy-exercising choice essentially is viewing the “decisions of others as worthy of our respect because we believe that they reflect the agents will, or because they stem from desires, goals and project that are expressive the agents authentic self” (Zwolinski, 691). By this he goes on to say that “it would be wrong to interfere with the agents action, even if we think the action is bad for his/her and even if we disagree with the reasoning that underlies her decision”. In short, he believes that it is going against the agents autonomy by interfering with the action they choose to pursue. In the case of sweatshops, Zwolinski believes this same principle applies in that a worker makes the autonomous choice to accept conditions of employment and establish a strong claim to freedom from certain sorts of interference by others.

Zwolinski illustrates that choices are more than a method of exercising autonomy but rather “signal information about an agent’s preferences” (Zwolinski, 693). He gives an example of an agent under threat from a gunman of “your money or your life”. While he is given the option of either, with the action of handing over his wallet, we can note that he has the preference of his life over his money. Although this example is of the opposite spectrum of sweatshops, it presents a similar idea. “A workers choice to accept sweatshop labor can be morally transformative by signaling information about her preferences…it shows that she prefers that kind of labor to any other alternative” (Zwolinski, 694). Given that this type of labor may not be of intrinsic desire, when considering all other aspects – poverty, paid wages in alternative sources of employment, etc – she prefers to work there than anything else she could do.

Studies have shown that sweatshop jobs pay 3-7 times more than jobs elsewhere in the economy. So even if we were to think that the conditions of a sweatshop were unfair, relative to their other alternatives, sweatshop labour is a very attractive option for workers in the developing world. This also why workers are often so eager to accept these jobs. However, no one on either side of the debate defends forced labour, but so long that sweatshop labour is voluntary, even in the weak sense of being free from physical coercion, workers will only take a job in a sweatshop when that job is better for them than any other alternatives.

Moreover, even those were to believe that sweatshop labour is a bad idea or unethical, it would be a bad idea to prohibit it. Those who take these sweatshop jobs are what Zwolinski considers to be “desperately poor” and low on options. So to take away sweatshops does nothing to eliminate that poverty or enhance their options. In fact, in only reduces them further by taking way what the workers themselves regard as the best option they have.

Moreover, Zwolinski argues that it is better to do something to end the problem of global poverty than to do nothing at all. Sweatshops are doing that something to help; they are providing people with jobs that pay better than their other alternatives and they are contributing to the process of economic development. However, Western MNCs are doing nothing to improve the lives of these workers by choosing to not outsource their production at all. “We criticize a firm for failing to benefit a certain group of individuals sufficient, even though it benefits that group a little. But we do not fault other firms for failing to benefit that group at all and we do not fault the firm in question for failing to benefit other, possibly much worse off groups, at all” (Zwolinski, 708).

In conclusion, Zwolinski believes that the choices of the workers are not to be interfered with and their autonomy included. The sweatshop labour market in developing countries provides a much better lifestyle and pay considering other options workers may be left with. He argues that while the low paying wages and an emotionally abusive manager may not be the best option available to many workers, it is an option that provides them with greater opportunities and is better than “doing nothing”. Zwolinski would argue that MNCs doing business in developing countries should not be obligated to pay a living wage to their employees as per mentioned above, the fact that these MNCs are going into these countries and providing jobs to these civilians is doing something rather than nothing.

Debra Satz: Voluntary Slavery and the Limits of the Market

Debra Satz provides a normative perspective on bonded labour and an analysis on Libertarianism and Paretian Welfare Economics, addressing her view on sweatshops and international labour. She begins with defining a bonded labour arrangement as “a person is tied to a particular creditor as a laborer for an indefinite period until some loan in the past is repaid” (Satz, 171). Satz links bonded labour as an analogy to slavery and admits that it is generally contracted voluntarily but questions why labour bondage is even offered as voluntary. She explains that “poor peasants have no assets, they have no formal collateral” (Satz, 172). These labours voluntarily join these sweatshops because otherwise the income they could receive elsewhere fluctuates inconsistently, therefore they are given insurance to a steady income. Satz goes on to say that both Libertarians and Paretians ignore or dismiss other considerations that look at labour bondage more critically

Libertarian economics tend to highlight the importance of respecting individuals rights; believe in the freedom to contract as long as it is in bounds of the justice system. In order for bonded labor to be allowed, a libertarian will consider whether the goods and services to be exchanged were acquired by legitimate means and whether or not the exchange was voluntary. Satz questions this notion as she states that the understanding of “voluntary” is not to be confused with “coerced”. Libertarians seem to think that sweatshop workers or labour bondage is all voluntary but can we truly identify whether these choice were voluntary or if they were coerced because of outside factors? Satz links back to Zwolinski’s gunman example “your money or your life” stating that “what makes the offer coercive is clearly not that you have no power to choose”. Even if these sweatshop workers were to have a “choice”, they really are coerced into choosing that option which will bring them safety and survival, in which the labour bondage arrangements will manipulate in order to get these workers to “voluntarily” work for them.

Satz also mentions children in their capabilities of making just decisions. “Children are not born with all the requisite capacities for making choices, acting justly and supporting themselves…children raised to be servile labours tied to a single employer for a lifetime will likely lack the habits and dispositions that enable them to see themselves as rights bearers and independent sources of moral claims” (Satz 179). Here we see Satz addressing an issue that Zwolinski failed to mention and given that children are more often than not used as sweatshop labour workers, it is important to recognize the damage that is done when putting children in that environment.

Debra Satz also gives her analysis on paretian welfare economics, stating that welfare economists “operate with a view of human welfare (or well being) that identifies it with the satisfaction of preferences” (Satz 179). However, she goes on to argue that it is next to impossible and very subjective to be able to compare the preferences of different individuals and the extent of their satisfaction. She goes on to define the concept of a Pareto optimum that compares social states without comparing individual preferences that welfare economics use. Pareto improvement “is a change in a social state that leaves at least one person better off and no one worse off” (Satz, 180).

Satz would argue that MNCs doing business in developing countries should be obligated to pay a living wage to their employees as she views bonded labour as going against the morals of a society and a balance between egalitarian views and market values should be found in order to move in a better future.

Conclusion

In the analysis of both Zwolinski and Satz’ arguments, we can not that the debate over international sweatshops continues and differences still arise. In regards to Zwolinski, the choices of the workers are not to be interfered with and their autonomy included therefore the choice the workers make to work for a sweatshop is theirs alone and should not be interfered with. Moreover, Zwolinski argues that these workers have no better choice offered to them as these sweatshop jobs offer something rather than nothing. The problem with the argument is to determine whether or not these choices being made are completely voluntary (as Satz mentions). When given the choice to work at a sweatshop or in the urban sector when you could potentially make far less than you would in the factory, the choice is not entirely voluntary. See, these workers really have no choice. They are coerced into working for these MNC’s sweatshops as they have a family to support and their will to survive is at a greater cost. Debra Satz arguably see this argument as flawed as mentioned, these workers are coerced and are being indirectly forced into working in these poor conditions.

In regards to whether a multinational corporation doing business in a developing country is obligated to pay its employees (contracted or subcontracted) a living wage, I would have to side with Zwolinski in that the idea of aiding to help developing countries by providing them with paying jobs, will get us closer to the direction of ending world poverty. While I do agree that Zwolinski’s argument does in fact have many holes, including child labour and determining whether a choice is voluntary or not, I would still argue that the choice should be given to workers and is their autonomy to determine whether or not they have a preference to work there. Additionally, Satz fails to recognize that humans are autonomous beings and have the right against coercion. That being said, I would argue that Zwolinski provides a fair and just argument for MNCs not being obligated to pay a living wage to their employees in developing countries and that providing jobs to these workers is doing far more than those companies who choose to do nothing at all.

Sweatshops As The Factor Of Unethical Consuming

Sweatshops have been in the news for years now and not without a reason. Sweatshops, also known as a sweat factory, is a factory were products are being made by workers of which the human rights are being ignored. Sweatshop workers are being underpaid, make many hours per day, and work in unhealthy and unsafe conditions. Many organizations, such as the Ethical Consumer Research Association, have been trying to make people aware of the sweatshops and campaign against those sweatshops. In other words, they have been trying to make people ethical consumers. What are ethical consumers? And how can unethical consuming be explained? And how does this connect to popular culture?

Ethical consumers are consumers who buy products, such as phones and clothing, which are produced in an ethical way. The ethical way includes, as said earlier, workers of which the human rights and policies are being respected, but it also includes making sure that not too much energy is being used to make a product. Products you may buy that are produced in an ethical way are Fair Trade goods and products that are organically produced. The big question is: why would people still buy $5 T-shirts coming from sweatshops while they know the multinationals and sweatshops violate the human rights and policies of those workers?

This is a very hard question and there are so many parts that have to be taken into consideration, but possibly can be explained by Emmanuel Levinas and Adam Smith. Emmanuel Levinas, who served as an officer in World War II and who is a proud Jew, was captured by Nazi’s and sent to a concentration camp. He was lucky, if you can call it lucky, that he worked as an officer, because this meant he would not have to live with the ‘regular people’ and was in that way privileged. He saw what the Germans did with his own eyes, and after war was over thought about how this could have happened. How can humanity be at a point were entire populations are being wiped out? He developed a philosophy and discussed this in his book Totality and Infinity. In his chapter, the Face to the other, Levinas argues that the face is unique, and it is what we present to each other in our every day life. Levinas states, “The face is a living presence; it is expression. The life of expression consists in undoing the form in which the existent, exposed as a theme, is thereby dissimulated. The face speaks. The manifestation of the face is already discourse. He who manifests himself comes, according to Plato’s expression, to his own assistance. He at each instant undoes the form he presents,” (Totality and Infinity 66). He writes that when the eyes of someone look into the eyes of someone else it creates a dynamic. The eye-contact makes a person acknowledge someone else and asks the question of who that person is on the other side of that contact. Levinas states, “The face, preeminently expression, formulates the first word: the signifier arising at the thrust of his sign, as eyes that look at you,” (Totality and Infinity 178). Levinas also argues that the face is the most vulnerable part of a human’s body and for that reason a slap in the face is very humiliating. Following these assumptions and findings about the face Levinas tries to conclude how it is possible that a wiping out a population is possible and argues that it is possible because people remove the face for a label. The Germans did not kill the face of the individual, Ludger, Peter, Ismael, etc. The Germans killed the label “Jew”. Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to compare a total wipe out of a population with ethical consumerism, but this could be an argument for why people do buy those $5-dollar shirts. They don’t see the face of the person that works in a sweatshop, all they see is a shirt with its price tag.

Adding to this argument, Adam Smith’s vision on economic concerns and sympathy could explain it a little further. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith argues about sympathy and how we are tend to feel more sympathized with people closer to us, in our inner circles, and that it is harder to have the same level of sympathy for people who live on the other side of the world. Smith discusses the order of care and concludes that we care the most about ourselves followed by family. He states, “After himself, the members of his own family, those who usually live in the same house with him, his parents, his children, his brothers and sisters, are naturally the objects of his warmest affections,” (VI.II.5 Smith), family is followed by neighbors, your town, nation, and lastly the world. Smith goes a little further into detail by describing how sympathy occurs. He discusses that sympathy arises in two ways. First, people can feel sympathy for one another when we are aware of someone’s circumstances, and image our response. And secondly, when we see someone’s response and we can imagine their circumstances. The problem here is that when buying a shirt, we don’t know exactly how the T-shirt is made, in what circumstances, and were it is from. For that reason, a problem occurs with Smith’s first explanation of how we can feel sympathy for one another. This is the same for his second explanation. We don’t see the responses of these sweatshop workers and for that reason can’t imagine their circumstances. Concluding this paragraph, Smith gives us a couple of reasons why sweatshops are still a thing.

Another addition to the arguments, is given by Arnold and Bowie in Business Ethics Quarterly. Arnold and Bowie argue that multinationals are the culprit, because there are several advantages for multinationals to use sweatshops on the other side of the world. It helps the MNE’s capacity, specialization, reduced production costs, cycle time, and flexibility. With capacity Arnold and Bowie mean that MNE’s can grow their company way faster because they don’t have to focus the production process themselves. Secondly, specialization is a big advantage, since companies can market products that require a skill that they don’t have within their company. Thirdly, companies can look all over the world to find a factory that has the lowest production cost. Fourthly, outsourcing can help companies to reduce the time of turning around products and in that way, it can avoid inventory build-ups. Lastly, outsourcing can increase the flexibility of a company to experiment with other product lines and supplier relationships without taking too much risk. Arnold and Bowie state, “Outsourcing has been especially popular in consumer products industries, and in particular in the apparel industry. Nike, for example, outsources all of its production,” (Arnold and Bowie 226). Nike is one of the biggest companies in the world, and even they outsource everything they produce. These are all reasons for Nike and other multinationals to use those sweatshops. At the same by outsourcing, multinationals are ignoring human rights and policies in order to profit from it, which becomes a problem for those sweatshop workers.

Julie Irwin, marketing professor, psychologist, and writer for Harvard Business Review, gives another reason why multinationals would not want to change the way sweatshops are being used. Irwin writes, “I worry that the pessimism about ethical consumerism gives companies the idea that they should not actively pursue the moral high ground because consumers will not reward them for it. I also worry that consumers will give up on trying to effect change through purchasing, because they believe that the aim is hopeless.” She basically argues that why a multinational would worry about sweatshops if consumers don’t even care about ethical consumerism? Adding to this she writes that if multinationals do what is best for society they have to give up profits, just like Arnold and Bowie discussed. She discusses that regulations by the government would be a better solution for unethical consumerism than hoping the market will fix itself.

Short-Run And Long-Run Impacts Of Sweatshops Regulation

I will argue that unregulated sweatshops lead to the greatest overall societal welfare. First, I will discuss “The Ethical and Economic Case for Sweatshop Regulation” by Mathew Coakley and Michael Kates; they assert that unregulated sweatshops harm workers. Then, I will discuss the short-run and long-run impacts of regulation. Finally, I will show how the long-run net benefits of an unregulated sweatshop sector provide greater overall societal welfare than the long-run net benefits of a regulated sector.

Coakley and Kates argue that unregulated sweatshops are harmful to workers (553). Every social and economic practice has costs and benefits associated with it (555). To assess the impacts of regulation, Coakley and Kates compare the expected costs and benefits in terms of human welfare (554). Increasing wages of sweatshop workers will have a primary consequence and several potential secondary consequences. Coakley and Kates assert that “the certain and primary consequence of increasing sweatshop worker wages is, of course, that sweatshop workers will have more income” (554). The first potential secondary consequence is that the price of certain goods may increase, “depending on both efficiency effects and its share of the total cost” (554) The second potential secondary consequence is that “profits for sweatshop owners might decrease” (554). Thirdly, employment rates among non-sweatshop workers may rise due to sweatshop workers spending their additional disposable income on local goods and services (554). Fourthly, if prices of goods increase and consumption decreases accordingly, employment rates among sweatshop workers may decrease (555). A 2004 study found that a 100% increase in sweatshop wages in US and Mexican firms would result in a price increase of 2% to 6% (555). Coakley and Kates use this data to determine that the gains from workers having higher incomes would outweigh the losses associated with some sweatshop workers losing their jobs due to increasing operating costs (555). Furthermore, if some factories relocate due to increasing wages, the welfare losses are offset by the welfare gains in other countries that operations move to (555).

Coakley and Kates identify that all economic policies create benefits and costs. Increasing wages has the potential to create benefits from the increased income that workers receive and then spend; this can boost the local economy and labour demand. Coakley and Kates, however, fail to accurately assess the short-run and long-run costs associated with raising wages.

In the short-run, those that are fired as a result of increasing wages have their income drastically reduced or eliminated entirely. Therefore, these people will spend less in the local economy. Moreover, the workers that are fired enter the labour market in search for a new job. This increases the supply of labour which can have two potential negative impacts. A higher labour supply can drive down wages in non-sweatshop jobs while also decreasing the employment opportunities available to non-sweatshop workers.

Regulations like increasing wages do not help in eliminating extreme poverty in the long-run. Economic development, however, is a key factor that eventually leads to the minimization of extreme poverty. Living standards in a nation can generally be assessed using the amount of physical capital, level of technologies, and quality of human capital. Sweatshops can assist nations in all three areas. Firstly, physical capital increases because of the financial investments associated with sweatshops. Secondly, newer production technologies, relative to existing technologies, are brought to the nation. Thirdly, sweatshops provide more opportunities to improve human capital in comparison to other employment that is usually available in developing nations, like agriculture or service work. Increasing wages will provide short-run benefits, primarily for those who remain employed in sweatshops, but the fired workers will not build as much human capital while working in non-manufacturing jobs as they otherwise would have. While the short-run welfare may be improved, long-run welfare is hindered by regulations.

Multiple nations can serve as examples of the positive economic development that follows unregulated sweatshop production. In the 1950s, the nations with the most sweatshop production were Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea. Each of these nations adopted policies that supported economic freedom rather than regulation, and each nation was able to establish first-world living standards within a generation (Powell, 2014). More recent examples include China and Bangladesh. Between 1981 and 2010, China experienced massive urbanization as 160 million citizens moved to cities. The resulting impact was a decrease in extreme poverty from 84% in 1981 to just 12% in 2010 (Wall Street Journal, 2013). Lastly, Bangladesh’s sweatshop industry has been growing steadily and the nation more than doubled its GDP per capita from $510 in 2000 to $1093 in 2017 (Trading Economics, 2019).

A potential objection is that economic development can still occur in nations with regulated sweatshop industries, albeit at a slower pace than unregulated economies. However, higher operating costs and regulations mean that fewer companies are willing to enter the market and will instead opt for unregulated markets in other developing nations. Moreover, some companies will choose to relocate their current operations rather than complying with regulations. This will lead to low or no increases in physical capital and decrease the amount of new technologies that are introduced. These two factors combine to hinder the development of human capital, which in turn hinders long-run economic development and wage growth.

One could also contend that the companies will still be entering markets in other developing nations and this will eventually lead to economic development in those nations, improving overall societal welfare. However, relocation means that the process of economic development is restarted in the new nations that operations move to. This means that more time needs to pass before a developing nation prospers through economic development and establishes first-world living standards. Additionally, if the unregulated nations that companies relocate to decide to implement regulation at any point, this process of relocation and restarting economic development will simply continue with no developing nations experiencing long-run prosperity through the minimization of extreme poverty.

Where Sweatshops Are a Dream: Critical Analysis Of The Article

In his essay titled “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream,” feature writer for the New York Times Nicholas D. Kristof handles the controversial theme of sweatshops that are utilized, and frequently misused, in our overwhelmed economy today. Kristof starts his exposition by painting us an image of what his town Cambodia looks like outside of the sweatshop. Kristof addresses the endeavors being made to improve or expel sweatshops while exhibiting a contention for the need of these offices in certain pieces of the world. Even though the controversy is deficient in information, it is no under circumstances, new point of view on the theme. Be that as it may, he leaves the group of public hanging by neglecting to expound on any substitute answers for the issues he introduces.

The issue he recognizes is that despite the fact that Americans need to battle back with these sweatshops for ‘abusing an excessive number of individuals’ extremely these individuals simply dream for an occupation in the sweatshops. These individuals see these occupations as an exit from neediness. He utilizes stunning language and symbolism to reel the readers in and delineate the gravity of the circumstance, “This is a Dante-like version of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from a subterranean fire” (Kristof page#1). By looking at the setting of the spot called Phnom Penh that he is utilizing for instance in his paper to that of Dante’s outstanding Divine Comedy, Kristof makes a reasonable mental image of the conditions these individuals are living with, evoking a solid introductory response from his group of onlookers. He expects that the readers are individuals who need to end sweatshops, however, that they don’t understand that by closure these shops they are finishing individuals’ deepest desires.

His motivation in this exposition is to demonstrate the opposite side to this story. He is demonstrating to us that regardless of what we figure these sweatshops do, these individuals are grateful for them. To achieve this, he claims to our feelings. As an example, Kristof uses the image of a 13-year-old girl who is dressed in clothes like she is just got out of the garbage and she says, “It’s dirty and smelly here, a factory is better” (Kristof page#2). 13-year-old young girl said she earns every day under a $1 per day by searching in the dump area, who is tarnished in appearance, and fears for her sister who lost her hand when she got run over by a waste vehicle. This young girl is utilized on the grounds that it demonstrates to us that despite the fact that we might want to think we are helping these individuals by closing down these industrial facilities or improving them deal with their workers, we aren’t.

We are simply making these individuals’ lives harder claiming all they need is a job to earn some money and on the off chance that you push rules onto these sweatshops they will simply close down and move to all the more likely off pieces of the nation. Kristof additionally claims to ethos by endeavoring to demonstrate his believability regarding this matter, He states, “my views on sweatshops are shaped by years of living in East Asia watching as living standards soar because of sweatshop jobs.” This demonstrates to us that Kristof isn’t a pariah expecting what these individuals need, yet that he has been inside this wreckage and he knows precisely what these individuals feel. In Kristof’s exposition he tends to the principle contention against “labor standards can improve wages and working conditions, without greatly affecting the eventual retail cost of goods” (Kristof page#1). Kristof invalidates this contention by saying this is valid, yet by doing this we cause processing huge plants to simply move and work in happier nations rather than more unfortunate nations. In the end he states that “the best way to help people isn’t to campaign against sweatshops but to promote manufacturing there” (Kristof page#2). Kristof’s contention is powerful since it is clear and upheld by certainties.