The Ethics of Sweatshop Labor

SWEATSHOP LABOR ETHICS1

The Ethics of Sweatshop Labor

Name

Course Name/Course Number

Instructor Name

Date

The Ethics of Sweatshop Labor

Sweatshop labor is nothing new, as many companies have engaged in the practice for quite some time. There are several questions, though, that the practice raises. First, is the practice in and of itself unethical, or is it merely a practical response driven by consumer demand? Second, how do different perspectives guide ethical decision-making? And finally, how does a company influence the ethics of their environment?

Sweatshop labor, the practice of hiring workers in economically poor countries to work long hours at minimal wages, often under poor conditions, is generally driven by consumer demand. Many consumers would perhaps argue this, claiming that they would much prefer to purchase goods that were not made under questionable labor practices, or by children toiling for hours on end—but consumer habits tell a different story.

“…while surveys suggest people do not endorse the use of sweatshop labor, what people say and what they actually do is often different. Consumers may not really disapprove of sweatshop labor [but] [l]ike many economists, these consumers may feel their participation in this system is a necessary evil that actually yields long-term benefits such as economic development, or is a better option for the workers than toiling in fields. People may also be motivated to…consider a company less unethical especially when they strongly desire a particular product.” (Paharia, 2013)

As recently as 1997, economists responded to activists’ arguments against sweatshops with arguments of their own. Sweatshops, they reasoned, should not be quickly dismissed. “…[C]ritics often demonstrated a lack of sensitivity to both the underlying economic conditions that gave rise to the sweatshop phenomenon and to the beneficial consequences of sweatshops for both their employees and the broader economies in which they functioned”(Powell & Zwolinski, 2011). Today, though, arguments against sweatshop labor have become even further distinguished for their condemnation of how they violate the laws of the countries in which they operate and how even if it is economically beneficial to both parties, there exists an element of exploitation that is nonetheless distasteful.

In Powell and Zwolinski’s“The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor,” they argue that different perspectives guide the ethical decision making where sweatshops are concerned. An economic perspective, for example, looks at sweatshops as a necessity. Workers made a voluntary choice to accept employment in that location, determining it to be the best available option for them. Activists, therefore, should be wary of removing that option, as it would be disruptive and harmful to the local economy. Another perspective is that of those who feel the companies violate labor laws. The author makes the point that it is sometimes necessary to do so for the good of the workers. The workers, he states, would rather have larger paychecks than smaller paychecks plus safer working conditions. Another perspective involves the idea that workers are somehow coerced or exploited into working in sweatshops. According to Arnold and Bowie, “workers might wish that they had even better employment options available, but ‘having to make a choice among undesirable options is not sufficient for coercion’” (Powell & Zwolinski, 2011).

Although employment in a sweatshop is not coercive, it can potentially be considered exploitative. While workers are provided just enough of a wage to make the job appealing, the working conditions do not render it any less unfair or even dangerous. Companies possess the opportunity, though, to influence their ethical environment. Jeremy Snyder, for example, argues that when individuals and organizations enter into a “duty of beneficence” with others, it takes on a special form. They have the ability and the responsibility to confer not just minimal benefit with a mere labor opportunity, but to truly better the lives of others. They can do this through careful enhancement of working conditions that do not upset the balance of number of employees, improved safety features, and regulated length of working days. An example of this in action is Nike, who influenced the ethical climate of their factories substantially with a complete turnaround involving raising the minimum working age, increased monitoring, and adapting OSHA clean air standards (Nisen, 2013).

After careful consideration, sweatshops are a necessary response to consumer demand. Their less appealing qualities can be modified with more ethical approaches. Nike stands as an example of one company who did precisely this, altering its practices to become a more ethically sound workplace.

References

Nisen, M. (2013, May 9). How Nike solved its sweatshop problem. Retrieved from

Paharia, N. (2013, July 10). The psychology of sweatshop labor. Retrieved from

Powell, B., & Zwolinski, M. (2011). The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assessment. J Bus Ethics Journal of Business Ethics,107(4), 449-472. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1058-8