All-Stars+or+metal+bars?+The+background+of+Sweatshops

‘Blood, Sweat, and T-Shirts’: What is the role of the globalised fashion industry in affecting human health and quality of life?

Ida Tornvall n8745773 Tutor: Michelle Cornford



**THE ARTEFACT**

Hipster or no hipster - the classic Converse Chuck Taylor All Star basketball shoe is an all-time favourite. The Converse shoe is simply made out of rubber and canvas, and it was first introduced in the 1920‘s to be used by basketball players, but has been widely used amongst athletes for decades since then. It is today a well known fashion item that according to many, including myself, goes well with almost any outfit. I have chosen Converse as my artefact because it is a product I use almost every day, and can therefore easily relate to the topic of this wiki page.

**PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE**

Converse is owned by Nike, which was the main company that fifteen years ago received a lot of criticism for the working conditions in their factories. Nike has since then taken different actions to improve the conditions for the workers producing their products, but in July 2011, the Daily Mail published an article pointing out the fact that this did not apply to the Converse factories that Nike had bought four years earlier (Mail Online, 2011).

Sweatshops are factories or workshops where the working environment is considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. There can be several public health issues regarding different sweatshops; the workers can be exposed to hazardous materials or situation, child labour can occur, and workers can be subject of abuse from their employers. However, this wiki article will focus on the background to issue that all sweatshops have in common; long working hours and extremely low wages.

**LITERATURE REVIEW - SWEATSHOPS THEN AND NOW**

The term “sweatshop” applies to factories that regularly violate a variety of labour laws (Soyer, 1999), and mostly refers to factories within the garment industry, but in recent years more focus has also been turned towards the production of electronic equipment.

Sweatshops are not an incident of the 21st century; the problem with violating workers’ rights has been deeply rooted in the manufacturing industry since the industrial revolution made mass production possible in the United Kingdom during the second half of the 18th century (Soyer, 1999).

The sweatshop had its rise during the last decades of the 19th century, when the concept of contractors had a breakthrough. The manufacturers designed and cut out the garments, as well as marketed them under their own labels, but subcontracted the bulk of the work to smaller entrepreneurs who were responsible for the production of the attires, including hiring and equipping work force (Soyer, 1999). In this system, the manufacturer paid the contractor a set price per unit, which usually was very low since the contractor that offered the lowest price per unit was the one that would score the contract. The contractors were forced to work on a limited profit, which led to a pressure to keep the labour cost down (Soyer, 1999).

In the end of the 1880‘s, sweatshops were considered a social problem and awareness was raised upon the issue by the media (Soyer, 1999). Eventually, in what today is the developed world, workers started movements and formed unions, and different regulations and legislations about minimum wages and maximum working hours were implemented by governments (Soyer, 1999). However, the concept with manufacturers, contractors and sweatshops still exists, but the issue has been moved to what today are developing countries, mostly in Asia and South America. Klein (2005) is one of many that blame the globalisation for this. Globalisation can be described as the figuratively shrinking of the world, due to the spread and interconnection of production, communication and technology.

In order to keep their production costs down, multinational corporations today subcontract factories in countries like China, Vietnam and the Philippines, to produce their products. Due to bad economy in these countries, the competition for the contracts with the big companies is high, and puts an enormous pressure on the contractors to keep the unit price down. Klein (2005) calls this a “race to the bottom”, where countries outbid each other for who can abuse their workers the most, since these developing countries also offer different incentives, such as tax breaks, to become more attractive to foreign investors. Just like in the United Kingdom 250 years ago, the profit for the products still stay with the manufacturers that design and market the products. The value therefore lies within the intellectual property and not in the manufactured product, and the problem in today’s globalised world is that the intellectual property is owned by corporations in the developed world and that is also where the profit stays. Klein (2005) calls this the “Nike Paradigm”; when the profit of the sweatshops does not stay within the production country and therefore limits the third world countries abilities to develop economically. For example, in 1992 Michael Jordan was used for celebrity endorsement of a Nike basketball shoe, and for doing so he got paid more than the combined income of the 30.000 Indonesian workers who produced the shoes (Mayer, 2007).

When the topic was brought to the public’s attention in the middle of the 1990’s, Nike was the main company that got criticized for using sweatshops. The company has since then taken action to improve the situation for their workers, and thus also the company’s reputation. However, when Nike bought Converse in 2003, they moved the production of the canvas sneakers overseas from America, to countries without proper labour laws, such as Indonesia.

In Australia, the retail price for a pair of Converse high-tops is AU$90 (Authentics.com.au, 2013). The average production price for a pair of sneakers is reported to be US$1 (Meyers), and the workers in the Converse factories make about 50 cents an hour (Mail Online, 2011). In order to not lose their jobs, workers are required to work overtime without breaks. Low wages and long working days without breaks combined with unsafe working environments, as well as physical and mental abuse makes the everyday life for hundreds of thousands of workers in sweatshops around the world (Mail Online, 2011). To prohibit the workers from forming unions and making demands, the sweatshops keep their labour forces strictly controlled (Klein, 2005). The factories are placed in so called free trade zones, or export processing zones, which are fenced and guarded industrial parks, and the workers are monitored during all hours (Klein, 2005).

**CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS - WHO’S FAULT IS IT?**

When the Daily Mail in 2011 reported about the unacceptably low wages and the treatment of the workers in the Converse factories, Nike admitted that they were aware of the problem but claimed that there was not much they could do about it (Mail Online, 2011). This leads to what seems the be the eternal discussion; the question on who holds the responsibility for the existence of sweatshops.

Mayer (2007) insists that it is not possible for the underdeveloped countries to demand higher wages for its citizens, and refers to the race to the bottom-theory and the fact that countries compete each other in providing the lowest production costs and the best tax incentives in order to attract foreign investors. If the production cost goes up in one country, the corporations move along to the next one. The same goes for the individual entrepreneurs who compete with the factory next door, or the workers who can easily be replaced by others due to the poverty and high unemployment in the developing world (Mayer, 2007). Mayer instead insists that the responsibility lies with the multinational corporations, and means that even though they only buy the products from subcontractors, it is not morally acceptable to make a profit from agents that violate labour rights.

One of Klein’s (2005) main points is that it is due to the multinational corporations efforts to create “branded identities” that the sweatshop system is enabled. Consumers in the developed world are willing to pay an enormous amount of money just to wear the Converse logo because it contributes to creating a specific social status in the western world culture. With Klein’s theory, the responsibility also be placed on the consumers who in the end purchase the products from the corporations and keep their businesses going. Either way, whether you blame the companies or the consumers, most experts seem to agree that the responsibility lies within the developed world.

It is hard to believe, but there are people who defend the sweatshops and argue against increased wages and regulated working hours. These defenders justify their objections by saying that poor countries and its workers would suffer from increased wages, since it, as mentioned, would lead to less foreign investment and therefore less employment (Coakley and Kates, 2013). That is a highly relevant argument, but Mayer means that if the corporations were held responsible for the workers wages, it would not necessarily lead to reduced employments since the cost of increased wages could be absorbed in other places within the corporation, such as the profit margin. Furthermore, Mayer points out the fact that increased wages and improved working conditions would not lead to decreased production, but would actually increase the productivity. Less working hours would make the employees stronger and healthier and their morale would rise with their paychecks.

**HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO ME?**

The sweatshop topic is a global problem and is relevant to everyone, especially for us consumers in the developed world. Even though I agree with Mayer who argues that it is the corporations that hold the main responsibility for sweatshops, I think it is important for the consumers to be aware of where our products come from, since we are the ones that keep the process going. Personally, I have probably owned at least fifteen pairs of Converse shoes in my life, and doing the research for this wiki article I have become aware of that I am a slave under the branded identity. When I wear my Converse shoes, I literally walk in the effect of globalisation. I happily paid AU$90 for those shoes, and AU$89 went straight to Converse’s Australian department. Some people would call it a rip off to pay $90 for a product that only cost $1 to produce, but I paid the other $89 for my branded identity. The ones getting ripped off in this process are the citizens of the developing countries. And yes, it does make me feel ashamed.

**References**

Authentics.com.au (2013). //Chuck Taylor All Star Hi//. [online] Retrieved from: [] [Accessed: 31 Oct 2013].

Coakley, M. and Kates, M. (2013). The Ethical and Economic Case for Sweatshop Regulation. //Journal of Business Ethics//, 117 (3), pp. 553-558.

Klein, N. (2005). //No logo: Brands, Globalization and Resistance//. [online] Retrieved from: [] [Accessed: 31 Oct 2013].

Mail Online (2011). //Nike workers 'kicked, slapped and verbally abused' at factories making Converse//. [online] Retrieved from: [] [Accessed: 31 Oct 2013].

Mayer, R. (2007). Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility. //Journal of Social Philosophy//, 38 (4), p. 605.

Soyer, D. (1999). Garment Sweatshops, THEN AND NOW. //New Labor Forum//, (4), p. 35.

Reflection:

[|Rape Culture or Cultural Rape] [|Factory Farming]