Ethics and Professionalism Regarding the Dangers of Sweatshops

Ethical issues have a particular resonance in American society at the present time, given the perceived failure of many of our public institutions to live up to the ethical standards they espouse and considering the consequences diminishing of public confidence in political leaders, religious leaders, the business community, and so on. A problem the fashion industry must face is the degree to which the goods they sell have been produced under sweatshop conditions. By definition, sweatshops are manufacturing sites, in this case for clothing, where ill-paid workers labor under difficult and even dangerous conditions, with too many workers cramped into too small a workspace, with unreasonable expectations as to the amount of goods produced, and without accepted safety features and government inspections. Sweatshop conditions were once more prevalent late in the nineteenth and early in the twentieth centuries in American cities. With more and more clothing goods made outside the United States today, however, the sweatshops are more likely to be in foreign countries with different laws and different controls. The charge is made that American companies use these foreign sources precisely because the laws are more lax and workers can be exploited. Sweatshops ar dangerous, and companies should realize that allowing sweatshop conditions creates a potential for harm to the company as well as these workers given the potential for public disapproval, while a more ethical way of doing business ca lead to success for the company in the long run.

Some ethical issues are brought into the public eye when a scandal erupts, as occurred within the last few years over the issue of child labor in sweatshop conditions. It was reported in the news that Kathie Lee Gifford's line of clothing had been manufactured under such conditions (Razzi, 1995, 46). Another case surfaced when Nike was accused of manufacturing its sports shoes under the same sorts of conditions, with women and children working in poor conditions and for little money to turn out this product that sells in the United States for high prices. Both companies have suffered from public disapproval and even boycotts as a result, which is surely not a way to achieve business success.

Foreign sweatshops using child labor create particular problems for American companies outsourcing to such companies. The issue is not simply the ethics of sweatshop conditions but also the ethics of child labor, which may mean something different in the foreign country than it means in the United States. Some point out that this is an issue that makes the question of social responsibility more difficult to assess, given that a boycott of goods produced by child labor could make conditions in these Third World countries even worse (Razzi, 1995, 46). American companies should adhere to a code of ethics that prevents them from ending up in the middle of the sort of scandals noted above. The American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences has set forth a Code of Ethics that could serve as a model for all companies, including those corporations and multinationals dealing with Third World suppliers. The Association says that its Code offers "guidelines by which a member may determine the propriety of conduct in relationships with clients, with colleagues, with members of allied professions and with various publics" (American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, 2002), which is precisely what a Code of Ethics should do. Members are to be assisted "individually and collectively in maintaining a high level of ethical conduct" (American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences). Members are also expected to "devote time and energy to public policy issues and to the public good" (American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences, 2002).

There is nothing specific about sweatshops or how companies should relate to other suppliers in the Code, but underlying the Code is the view that a company should do good for the public and be perceived as an ethical entity. Other codes have been proposed or adopted. In 1995, then Clinton administration offered a code specifically intended to be "a worldwide standard for the conduct of American business" ("Good Grief," 1995, 57). Lynn Sharp Paine of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration notes that managers often claim that an ethical failure is an isolated incident and not reflective of management, though Paine disagrees:

More typically, unethical business practice involves the tacit, if not explicit, cooperation of others and reflects the values, attitudes, beliefs, language, and behavioral patterns that define an organization's operating culture. Ethics, then, is as much an organizational as a personal issue (Paine, 1994, 106).

Paine further points out that the fact that a business action is legal in a foreign jurisdiction does not mean indulging in that action or allowing a foreign subsidiary to do so is ethical: "Companies engaged in international business often discover that conduct that infringes on recognized standards of human rights and decency is legally permissible in some jurisdictions" (Paine, 1994, 106).

Companies that fail to perceive this may end up in the middle of the sort of scandal affecting Nike once the situation becomes public knowledge. Clearly, unethical behavior damages the company's reputation and so damages every aspect of the business. It may damage all apparel manufacturers, since they may be associated in the public mind with the offending company even if they have done nothing wrong themselves. Many companies in the apparel and retail business have responded by developing codes and policies regarding their own and suppliers' treatment of employees following media attention to overseas sweatshops (Miller, 1997, 1). A recent study shows that media attention directed toward a company's ethical failings will often have the result of prompting the company to engage in broader and more direct ethics management (Weaver, Trevi & Cochran, 1999, 41-57).