INTRODUCTION

Many of the clothes and shoes available in the high end showrooms today are being
manufacturedin thec companies with socially unacceptable working conditions and which
routinely pay their workers even lesser than the minimum wages. Such working places have been
commonly called as sweatshops. By definition , a factory or workshop, especially in the
clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and
under poor conditions. At such workplaces the workers right to form an independent union is not
respected and the workers may also be fined on a dailybasis for arriving late, taking too much
time in the toilet, forgetting to turn off the lights and other such incidents. If workers cannot
afford the fine then they are unable to quit the job and hence they are effectively enslaved.
Historically the word sweatshop originated in the Industrial revolution to describe a
subcontracting system in which the middlemen earned profits form the margin between the
amount they received for a contract and the amount paid to the workers.The margin was said to
be sweated out from the workers because they received minimal wages for working excessive
number of hours in unhygienic conditions. These sweatshops incurred criticism by labour leaders
on account of violation of the human and labor rights as they used to be crowded , poorly
ventiliated , and prone to fires and rat infestatitions etc.
Even after such criticism , the concept of sweatshops has still continued till now and many
multinational companies like Nike, Adidas, GAP and Marks & Spencers have been accused of
running sweatshops in less developed countries such as Indonesia, china and Cambodia where
legal protection rights are minimal and tax rates are almost non-existent.
As a part of this report, we wish to analyse the case through different ethical theories and
traditions and highlight
Nike Issue at a glance.
Nike by 1996 had build a big sporting googs business with its swoosh embodied the celebrity
fuelled American culture. But the brand which symboliswd excellence and performance soon
acquired some frighteneing attributes of greed, exploitation and indifference to human suffering.
Warning signs appeared in early 1992 but the picture took a complete shape only in 2995 when
anti-Nike publicity and activism gathered and concerns over globalization and sweatshops
converged.
The whole matter became the focus of intense scrutiny and allegations of nike became very
serious and attention grabbing. It came out in public that Pakistani children were stitching Nike
soccer balls. Factory managers in Vietnam subjected employees to physical , verbal and sexual
abuse and exposed workers to toxic chemicals.

Consequently, nikes business practices and motives were questioned and the disparity between
the celebrity endorsed sneakers and the wages of the Indonesian women who meade them were
pointed out.
Nikes initial response was defensive and its spokeperson denied the responsibility for the
conduct. He argues that Nikes presence in such developing countries has led to higher living
standards and company has done enough to ensure labour accuse doesnt occur. But ultimately
under steady pressure they had to change their approach and took some meaigful steps to address
the issue.
Q. Why are sweatshops so common around the world.?
Many major clothing and footwear companies like Nike, GAP, Converse and Levis have all
been guilty of numerous violations of requirements for reasonable working conditions in their
production facilities. All of their headquartersand customer bases are located in United States,
while the manufacturing component of the production process is carried out in Asia. Some of the
major reasons can be as follows:

From the business perspective, sweatshops are overwhelmingly lucrative since they
capitalize on low wage labour in developing countries and significantly reduce
production costs.
One otherhallmark of sweatshop labor is that workers are simply underpaid especially
considering the kinds of working conditions they endure. Minimum wage levels in
countries such as Thailand, the Phillippines and China are significantly lower than that of
the United States. The federal minimum wage per hour in the United states is currently at
7.25dollars while it is 1.48 dollarsin Thailand , 69 cents in the Phillippines and 67 cents
in china.
Though many Asian countrieshave official minimum wage levels but the lack of uniform
and comprehensive regulations with nationwide coverage across all labor groups and
industries remains a huge problem.
Furthermore, the lack of institutional regulatory effectiveness in enforcing compliance is
an even greater problem.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

The practice of sweatshops has outrageously violated many of the 30 human rights article
declared by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Some of them are as follows:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be
made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or
territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or
under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms.
Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Critics Versus Defenders of sweatshops

Critics of sweatshops
The opinions are conflicting. First of all, critics of sweatshops argue that labour practices at
overseas factories do not meet rules of international labour law standards proposed by the
International Labour Organization (ILO 2013). They are against a number of core ILO
conventions including Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, Minimum Age Convention,
Hours of Work Convention and Discrimination Convention (ILO 2013).

Moreover sweatshops are very distressing for individuals who are affected by them and are
against internationally proclaimed human rights within social institution. The treatment received
by workers at sweatshop factories challenges the fundamental human rights proposed by United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1949) which states that everyone has a right to freedom,
shall not be held in servitude or be an object to any offensive forms of treatment. Arnold and
Hartman (2003 cited by Radin and Calkins 2006) go further and notices that these types of
labour practices not only breach universal human rights, they also contradict with basic moral
norms which regulate behavior standards in society.
Critics use deontological ethical theories to justify that sweatshops are morally incorrect
(Meyers 2007). Philosophy provided by Emmanuel Kant proposes a powerful perspective on
human rights and dignity (Radin and Calkins 2006). Individuals in Kantian categorical
imperative are seen to possess dignity and should be treated as rational beings (Hartman and
Desjardins 2008) rather than used for certain purposes of other people. According to this 18th
century philosopher following customs and legal or institutional law is not enough to be
considered moral (Hartman et al. 1999). Instead actions can only be referred to as moral and
right if they are performed out of sense of duty by an individual who has good will (Horn et
al. 2006).
Anti- sweatshops activists also call attention to the fact that treatments received by workers at
overseas factories interfere with socially accepted values such as: dignity, justice, fairness,
equality, respect and responsibility (Meyers 2007) as well as break the golden rule which states
that one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. Critics of sweatshops
argue that businesses which use sweatshops labour have a very egoistic approach to the problem
and act merely in their own interest ignoring the needs of employees. At the same time critics of
sweatshops claim that this behavior damages the psychological contract between workers and
employer- the deal between employee and employer which is based on perceived fairness, trust
and specific promises made by both parties (Kaufman 1997).
Defenders of sweatshops
Contrary to what is thought by the opponents of sweatshops, defenders of this type of
labour practice offer entirely different view on the sweatshop dilemma. First of all, defenders of
sweatshops underline that governments of less developed countries encourage sweatshop
movement themselves by lowering tax rates and developing favorable regulations (Young 2004).
Economists argue that sweatshops are crucial for the economic development (Hartman et al.
1999). According to Paul Krugman (1994) sweatshops are beneficial to the workers in the
developing countries and provide them with work opportunities that would not be available
otherwise. Scholars also stress out that sweatshops are not purely empowered by the desire to
harm poor people from the developing countries (Radin and Calkins 2006) and workers
undertake available jobs voluntary (Powell and Zwolinski 2012; Mayers 2012; Chartrier 2008).
The growth of this kind of employment is tremendous good news for the worlds poor (Arnold
et al. 2005) and economists point out that sweatshops offer population of less developed
countries much better prospects than other available alternatives. Jeffrey Sachs from Harward

University contributes to this debate by adding that the problem is "not that there are too many
sweatshops, but that there are too few (Samuelson 2010).
Defenders of sweatshops similarly to those who criticize sweatshop labour practices refer to
ethical theories to support their argument. They draw its support from the utilitarian theory which
states that the most reasonable and ethically justified decision is the decision that results in the
best consequences for the greatest number of people and which consequences are better than
other available options (Hartman and Desjardins 2008).

Looking Through various ethical theories and frameworks.

1. Utilitarianism : Making Decisions based on ethical consequesnces.