The Ethical Concerns of Sweatshops (2024)

HUMANITIES PROGRAMME
2019 CAPSTONE PAPER
Ethics in Progress

Existingliterature by Powell and Zwolinski (2011), and Synder (2010), suggest that theethical argument for sweatshops through a moral lens of the individual does nothold, hence this capstone project hopes to approach the argument from adifferent angle. This project aims to explore the ethical concerns ofsweatshops, the progress that fast fashion brings to the socio-economic sceneof certain countries where sweatshops are commonplace, as well as some ethicalpoints of contention — are sweatshops sources of economic and social progress for theselabourers, or are they convenient sources of exploitation? This projectconsiders both the ethical and unethical concerns of sweatshops in asocio-economic dimension, then evaluating the necessity of sweatshops in termsof the ethical lenses of deontology and utilitarianism.

In general, we argue that fast fashion and its influence it has on sweatshops is a double edged sword when it comes to the social and economic impacts it can have on its host country. Entirely obliterating the industry of fast fashion is almost impossible, as it would involve millions of low-skilled workers being unemployed. Instead, careful regulations have to be put in place to protect the rights of the disempowered working in the industry such that everyone can benefit from it.

INTRODUCTION

In many developing countries, employment opportunities come in the form of sweatshop labour—where workers, mostly women and children, work in exploitative and hazardous conditions, facing harsh employers and suffering the backlash of global materialism all for a meagre pay. Driving the demand for sweatshops is the consumerist desire for new and on-trend items, otherwise known as fast fashion, ranging from high-fashion apparel to machine parts; yet the pursuit of convenience and material gratification always comes at a higher price than the good purchased. Nowadays fast fashion brands produce about 52 “micro-seasons” a year, translating to at least one new “collection” being released per week. According to author Elizabeth Cline, the ever-popular Zara started the craze by shifting to bi-weekly deliveries of new merchandise back in the early aught. From then on, it has become the norm to have a towering supply of stock at all times. With the increased rate of production of retail clothing, there are inevitably corners to be cut, resulting in clothing items that are being produced at an astonishing rate, but being low quality and even lower costs. Brands such as Forever21 or Zara are able to profit from their operations by selling a tremendous amount of clothing worldwide at cheap prices. However, as expressed by journalist Lucy Siegel, “Fast fashion isn’t free. Someone, somewhere is paying.” At the expense of workers’ basic rights, retail conglomerates choose to focus on economic gain, where keeping wages low allows the firm to lower manufacturing costs, and keeping workers packed in cramped, unsanitary conditions allows for the employment of more workers per factory. Simultaneously, proponents of sweatshop labour argue that the creation of such factories provide jobs to the unskilled, who choose to work in the best given conditions in the country, where alternatives could be even less favourable. Therefore, with this dilemma in place, this brings to light a critical question: what are the ethical concerns of sweatshops?

WHY SWEATSHOPS ARE UNETHICAL

Sweatshops violate the right to basic wages and working conditions. Sweatshop owners often pay their workers inadequate wages, an injustice compounded by unsafe working conditions and exhaustive working hours – in Bangladesh, workers are forced to work daily for 14-16 hours for around $45 a month, which remains far below the living wage level (War on Want, 2015). Several thousands of workers were also injured from over 50 factory fires since 1990. As workers are routinely paid below the minimum wage, much less can be expected of employers to pay their labourers for overtime work done, what workers are forced to commit to daily. Overtime pay thus becomes a secondary concern (Bullman, 2003) in the face of poor working conditions. Besides this, to ensure the subordination of female labourers, male workers and supervisors inflict sexual, verbal and physical abuse onto these women.

Furthermore, thedesire to expose sweatshop employers and bring justice to the workers may comeat the expense of complete joblessness, forcing sweatshop labourers into worsejob alternatives or deeper poverty. In the debate over the ethicality ofsweatshops, the “Choice Argument” posits that “a sweatshop worker’s choice to accept the conditions ofhis or her employment is morally significant, both as an exercise of autonomy andas an expression of preference” (Zwolinski, 2006). However, there areobjections to be made against this belief, as workers firstly may not be of theage to consent to working in such dismal conditions, which is the case forexploited child labour. Secondly, due to a lack of education, labourers fromdeveloping countries may not understand the implications of, and alternativesto, working in sweatshops, thus are robbed of the opportunity to further theirskills due to the constraints of their abilities. Finally, with a lack ofbetter infrastructure and employment opportunities, even if such labour doesprovide minimal benefits, sweatshops still remain wrongfully exploitative(Zwolinski, 2006).

WHY SWEATSHOPS MAY BE ETHICAL

Economic benefits of sweatshops

Firstly,sweatshops could encourage mass employment opportunities, which raises theminimum wages. This is especially so for the fashion industry, which is still alabour-intensive industry that causes companies to source much of thelow-skilled labour required from the host countries in order for them to keeptheir cost of production as low as possible. With the creation of jobopportunities, fewer desperate workers competing for jobs meant employers mustpay more for labour, argue economists Chris Blattman of the University ofChicago and Stefan Dercon of Oxford University in the latest study (Coren,2016).

Furthermore,local employees benefit from the transference of skills that the sweatshopsequip them with, especially since many employees of sweatshops are low-skilledgroups of people who often have little access to education. There was aparticular facility in Bangladesh that was well lit and clean, and the ladiesinside were required as a condition of employment to spend several hours dailyin a company-run school where they were taught to read and write (Graham,2000). This was a country where illiteracy rates among women could reach almost90 per cent, hence such efforts would drastically improve the quality of labourin the country where the sweatshop resides in. Even though instances of harshlabour conditions can be found due to lapses in regulations, senior managementofficials will correct them once they and the public become aware of them,suggesting that the conditions of sweatshops can be improved to reach an“acceptable standard”.

On a macroscale, the presence of sweatshops bring in Foreign Direct Investments (FDI)which are highly beneficial to host countries, especially if it is closelyintegrated with parent firms (Cooper, 2009). FDI generally improves the livingstandards in the country because the infrastructure required by the sweatshopindustry can help to support the host countries’ development. Furthermore,there are more indirect impacts brought by FDIs through forward and backwardlinkages in the production circuit that enables more local industries, such astextiles for clothing sweatshops, to increase their activities as well. Thereare more jobs created in the local economies of the host countries because ofincreased local spendings on more goods and services, driving the entirecountry’s economy to develop, as well as to reduce unemployment rates(Kurtishi-Kastrati, 2013). Anumber of countries have passed through a manufacturing phase in whichsweatshop conditions were more prevalent on their way to full industrialisationand a diversified economy, such as the United States, Japan, and Korea. Morerecently, China may be on a similar route though it is still in a transitionphase and sweatshop abuses reports are rather common (Jimenez and Pulos, n,d.).

EVALUATING THE NECESSITY OF SWEATSHOPS USING DIFFERENT ETHICAL LENS

Clarification

This section will evaluate thenecessity of sweatshops in the fashion industry using two ethical perspectives,deontology and utilitarianism. It will compare the two theories and theirrelevance to the issue at hand and defend the presence of sweatshops through autilitarian approach while critiquing the applicability of the deontologicalapproach in examining the ethical nature of sweatshops.

Employing a deontological perspective

Deontology is a normative ethicaltheory that argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action should bedetermined by whether or not the action is right or wrong under a set of rulesor duties; in this case, evaluating the moral value of sweatshops would requirereference to the legal frameworks and social paradigms present in individualcountries in order to draw conclusions on whether they are right or wrong.Therefore, a deontological approach to considering the moral nature of thesweatshop industry would involve an examination of the existing laws thatgovern the fashion industry in countries with heavy sweatshop activity, as wellas the various social rules and duties underpinning countries, such as the dutyof the government to ensure economic growth and the duty of the average citizento be a productive member of society.

As previously discussed, manysweatshops violate labour and wage laws due to the subpar environments whichthey operate in. This indicates that sweatshops are deontologically wrong dueto their violation of the law. However, deontology also advocates that theethical nature of actions should be determined in relation to the duties of theactors performing them. In the case of firms in the fashion industry, whichhave social obligations to manufacture clothing for consumption, deontologywould not oppose the establishment of sweatshops if they were primarily used toprovide consumers with clothing. However, this is only true if it is assumedthat clothing is a basic necessity and thus obligates producers to cater tothis need; admittedly, this may not strictly hold true in all situations, suchas the frivolous purchasing of clothing by the financially comfortable.

At the same time, firms arguablyhave a duty to respect the human rights of sweatshop workers and are thereforedeontologically faulted for failing to meet them through sweatshop operations.Employing a deontological approach therefore appears to lead to a moralimpasse, where the duties of firms are internally conflicted and are notaligned towards common end goals e.g. the firm’s duty to maximise profit and tomeet the high demand for clothing contrasts and its obligation to comply withnational laws contrast with the firm’s duty to maintain acceptable workingconditions in sweatshops. To appropriately apply the deontological approach tothe sweatshop industry, one would need to properly examine and reconcile theconflicting rules and duties of every agent involved; this is clearlyuntenable.

Employing a utilitarian perspective

Utilitarianism, on the other hand,is an ethical theory that advocates that the most ethical choice is the onethat produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Unlikedeontology, the utilitarian approach does not lead to internal contradictionsif applied to the sweatshop industry. It applies a clear criterion fordetermining which action is more ethically desirable: how much good it does forhow many people.

In the case of employingutilitarianism to evaluate the sweatshop industry, one would weigh havingsweatshops or abolishing them and then determine how much “good” each optioncontributes and for how many people. Simply put, the utilitarian approach justifiesthe continued use of sweatshops for three primary reasons. The first is thatthe sweatshop industry has produced a net happiness for consumers of clothes.It can be realistically assumed that the total number of consumers of sweatshopproducts in the world, estimated to be 1.2 billion by 2020 (Orendorff, 2019)far exceeds that of the number of sweatshop workers. It has also been arguedthat the purchase of clothing produces happiness in consumers, given that thechoices inherent in shopping may restore personal control over one’senvironment and reduce residual sadness (Rick, S. I.,Pereira, B., & Burson, K. A., 2014). It is reasonable to conclude that the gross happinessderived from purchasing sweatshop products outweighs (or at least equals) thesum of negative consequences, both emotional and physical, that the sweatshopindustry has inflicted on sweatshop workers, then the continuation ofsweatshops holds more goodness than its discontinuation.

Conversely, discontinuingsweatshops would result in less net “good” because the loss in net “goodness”due to the number of people who are no longer able to consume sweatshopproducts would outweigh the increase in “goodness” due to the improvedstandards of living for sweatshop workers. Secondly, since it has been arguedthat sweatshops do in fact lead to some benefits for workers themselves (suchas the provision of wages in the first place), it may be argued that sweatshopsshould still be continued because they benefit workers themselves, albeit to asmaller extent. In this way, the best approach to maintain the use ofsweatshops without abolishing them altogether would be to strike a middleground by ensuring that workers enjoy more rights and higher wages whileoperating under acceptable working conditions. Thirdly, the presence ofsweatshops in the fashion industry yields “good” for other agents beyondconsumers and workers. For example, firms are able to benefit due to the lowercosts of production of operating sweatshops, while governments are able toeasily achieve macroeconomic goals like lowering unemployment through thecreation of job opportunities in sweatshop industries. The benefits generatedfor third parties are evidently enough to justify the continuation ofsweatshops as compared to their discontinuation.

KEY TAKEAWAYS AND IMPLICATIONS

Inthis paper, we outlined both reasons as to why sweatshops may be unethical or ethicaland evaluated the necessity of sweatshops using a deontological and autilitarian perspective. The ethicality of sweatshops can come into questionwhen issues such as the right to basic wages, safe working conditions and casesof exploitation and harassment come to light. On the flip side, sweatshops alsoprovide mass employment opportunities, allow for transference of skills to theless-educated and lowly-skilled garment workers and bring in FDI to improvegeneral living standards in the host country.

Usinga deontological perspective to evaluate the necessity of sweatshops brings usto a moral impasse: where the duties of firms are internally conflicted and notaligned towards a common goal end.

Wealso employed a utilitarian perspective to evaluate the necessity ofsweatshops, where we concluded that the benefits generated are enough tojustify the continuation as compared to their discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Recent trends have shown that retailer ethics will be increasingly scrutinised in today’s market; unethical behaviour or manufacturers will be highlighted and they will be subject to bad press like Zara and H&M. Though the systematic exploitation of labour due to fast fashion is a problematic model that needs to be subject to change, large fashion retailers such as H&M employs over 100,000 people worldwide, and to stop making clothes would mean job losses on a huge scale. To simply say ‘no more fast fashion’ would mean the redundancy of millions of people, including those indirectly affected in the supply chain. Admittedly, the model of fast fashion is important to consumers, manufacturers and labourers. Instead of casting aside the entire model of fast fashion manufacturing, a paradigm shift must occur — to move away from unethical practices in the fast fashion industry towards sustainable, ethical practices that will benefit all parties involved. There is evidence of growing interest in responding to ethical consumer concerns, by incorporating ethics into organisational practices in large companies. It is plausible to say that change is on the horizon for the fast fashion industry. Yet, a change will only be observed in this complex and convoluted system through the joint efforts of all the actors involved — the manufacturing companies, governments, labourers themselves, and consumers like you and me.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cooper, R. N. (2009,January 29). Beyond Sweatshops: Foreign Direct Investment and Globalization inDeveloping Countries. Retrieved from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2003-01-01/beyond-sweatshops-foreign-direct-investment-and-globalization

Coren, M. J. (2016, October07). New research finds sweatshops may be a necessary evil in the developmentof economies. Retrieved from https://qz.com/800707/new-research-finds-sweatshops-may-be-a-necessary-evil-in-the-development-of-economies/

Graham, E. M. (2000).Globalization, Foreign Direct Investment, and labour. In FIGHTING THE WRONG ENEMY: ANTIGLOBAL ACTIVISTS AND MULTINATIONALENTERPRISES(pp. 99-106). FIGHTING THE WRONG ENEMY: ANTIGLOBAL ACTIVISTS ANDMULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES.

Jimenez, G. C., &Pulos, E. (n.d.). Good Corporation, Bad Corporation: Corporate SocialResponsibility in the Global Economy. Retrieved fromhttps://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/good-corporation-bad-corporation/chapter/9-csr-and-sweatshops/

Kurtishi-Kastrati, S.(2013). The Effects of Foreign Direct Investments for Host Country’s Economy. European Journal of InterdisciplinaryStudies,5(1), 26-28. Retrieved from https://www.ejist.ro/files/pdf/369.pdf.

Orendorff, A. (2019,January 10). The State of the Ecommerce Fashion Industry: Statistics, Trends& Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.shopify.com/enterprise/ecommerce-fashion-industry

Snyder, J. (2010).Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business

EthicsQuarterly,20(2), 187-213. doi:10.5840/beq201020215

Sweatshops in Bangladesh. (2015, June23). Retrieved from https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-bangladesh

Rick, S. I., Pereira, B., &Burson, K. A. (2014). The benefits of retail therapy: Making purchase decisionsreduces residual sadness. Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 24(3),373-380. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.12.004

Luanne Ang, Charlotte Teng, Isabel Nadine Tan, Lek Siang Ern (18-U1)