I have been thinking a lot lately about better aligning my values with my purchasing decisions, particularly when it comes to clothing. I am aware that concerns have been raised about human rights conditions in some manufacturing facilities in developing countries and in China. My inclination is not to purchase from companies that appear to be unconcerned about the working conditions in their overseas factories. I also realize, however, that many people, often in poor conditions, depend on these jobs to support themselves and their families. Are there ethical guidelines to help me decide if I am doing the right thing? — Barbara P.
From the Ethicist:
The United Nations’ “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” holds that companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and address abuses in their supply chains. These days, many corporations have adopted such policies and set standards for their suppliers, though monitoring remains uneven and abuses persist. For a consumer, this means most large companies will have public positions on labor rights. With a bit of research, you can see what they claim to be doing.
For example, Walmart publishes detailed supplier standards; Target has a “business partner code of conduct” and defines its expectations with respect to health and safety and more; Burberry’s “human rights policy” requires all its business associates to comply with various international conventions concerning working conditions. Whether these commitments are honored is another matter, but once companies make such pledges, they at least risk public exposure if they fail. Various advocacy groups provide additional ways to compare firms — though you should always check the criteria behind their rankings.
Consumers, too, can hold companies accountable. Of course, one person’s shopping cart is not going to move the needle, but it can matter as part of an organized effort. Groups like the Britain-based Ethical Consumer track and publicize boycott calls, turning a shopper’s personal scruples into collective campaigns that corporations have a harder time ignoring.
Still, the picture is complicated. Exploitation occurs everywhere, not just abroad. Millions of U.S. workers earn poverty wages; in 2023 the U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights raised questions about whether Amazon, DoorDash and Walmart were contributing to “in-work poverty.” So the moral problem isn’t confined to the global south; it’s in American warehouses too.
A big complication, as you’re aware, is that while abstaining spares us complicity, it can also deprive others of their livelihood. Bangladesh’s ready-made-garment industry has been plagued by poor conditions, yet it also helped cut extreme poverty in that country sharply in recent decades. Workers often take these jobs not because they are good but because they are better than the alternatives. That doesn’t mean they aren’t exploited; governments often suppress unions and tilt the rules against labor, leaving workers “choosing” the least bad option.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The post I’m Concerned About Sweatshops. Should It Change What I Buy? appeared first on New York Times.
