Are Sweatshops an Inhumane Business Practice - Essay Example

? The of sweatshops and the treatment of its employees have long caused heated debates to occur, specifically if the practice is inhumane (Newton, Englehardt, & Prichard, 2011). Arnold and Bowie (2003) has studied and written extensively about this issue and believe that the issue comes down to the issue of respect and offering dignity to the workers. Sollars and Englander (2007) refute this simple claim declaring the issue is more involved than a single issue of respect. Arnold and Bowie (2007) believe that the Kantian theory supports their claims while Sollars and Englander (2007) believe the Formula of Humanity is the principle to follow. Each pair has evidence to support their claim and refute the others, yet through their arguments, the essential fact appears in both sides. Arnold and Bowie (2007, p. 308) believe that multinational enterprises (MNE) has one core duty and that is to be responsible for the employees under the authority, both directly and indirectly at home and abroad to ensure they are treated with dignity. The expectation is that the MNE will comply with all local labor laws, abstain from coercive practices, ensure all minimum standards for health and safety, and pay a minimum living wage (Arnold & Bowie, 2007, p. 308). Additionally, the yes side expects to force MNE managers by a “categorical imperative in general, doctrine of respect for persons in particular” to guarantee respect and dignity to all employees home and abroad (Arnold & Bowie, 2007, p. 309). The belief they impose on MNE is that all individuals have exclusive obligations due to their distinctive situations (Arnold & Bowie, 2007). The bottom line is MNE are responsible and accountable for the conditions in which their employees work. Sollars and Englander (2007) state that they are sympathetic readers but the Kantian theory simply does not state that the MNE managers must pay their employees subsistence wage. Furthermore, even if one is compassionate to this ideal, the theory does not demand of it (Sollars & Englander, 2007, p. 317). Sollars and Englander (2007) begin their argument that one cannot impose their beliefs into a theory and claim it supports it as Arnold and Bowie had done in their opinion piece. The next concern is addressing the imperative that all managers must protect their employees from coercion. The no side claims that they believe coercion exists in these types of workplaces, but working overtime is not a form of intimidation disproving Arnold and Bowie’s claim that it is (Sollars & Englander, 2007, p. 317). For each claim Arnold and Bowie makes towards sweatshops being inhumane, Sollars and Englander present valid counterarguments for minimum health and safety standards and upholding local labor laws. The claim these men make comes down to the right of the individual companies to set their own standards based on their companies mission rather than forcing all companies to uphold an unattainable standard. 2. This issue receives a lot of debate for a reason; there is no clear answer as to the manner of removing the negative characteristics, which make the workplace a sweatshop. Sollars and Englander make that point often in their response, there are many complex issues involved in these workplaces. In fact, the argument of Arnold and Bowie appears naive at times with its basis on respect and dignity without considerations to all the factors that hinder the changes from occurring. There are many issues to address in setting wages in another country that require consideration and not all of them deal with trying to purposely pay too little for too much work. Placing respect as the main reason for setting higher wages is not something possible in all cases and placing an imperative order on all MNE to pay more out of respect fails to address these issues. The first and most important factor is the costs the consumers are willing to pay for the products from the sweatshops. Yes, there are companies such as NIKE where the costs the consumers pay, considered very high compared to another brand found in a local discount store. Customers are willing to pay for the name recognition. However, NIKE addressed this issue of sweatshops but not out of respect or a desire to give their workers in these sweatshops a sense of dignity. The public outcry was enough to force them to adjust their manner of doing business. This supports Sollars and Englander’s argument that Kantian theory alone will not change the business practices of MNE contract work to sweatshops and respecting their workers is something one cannot force on a company. The previous argument does not prove that contracting work to a sweatshop where the employees receive poor treatment is acceptable. The problem requires a fair assessment of the individual company to determine what caused the sweatshop environment to occur and the unique steps to resolve this issue rather than offering a blanket command that all business respect their employees regardless of their geographical location. Sollars and Englander point out most multinational enterprises do not own the sweatshops in other countries; they are sub-contractors for the MNE. Sub-contractors have a different authority structure than the MNE, who contracts the work. A company working with a local supplier of employee uniforms has no say on the working conditions of the uniform company, yet Arnold and Bowie believe the MNE can enter a sweatshop and demand the conditions or pay change. While they cannot demand change, they can encourage change with positive and negative consequences. However, this is not usually effective in changing the problem as anyone can present a good first impression while hiding the truth. 3. Both sides have valid concerns about this issue and yet neither party has a clear answer in how to change the problem of sweatshops. This writer believes that many sweatshops are inhumane in their treatment of their employees but it is not solely due to the lack of respect of the employees. In a number of third world or developing countries, the expectations are lower than in the industrialized and post-industrialized nations. The population is not to the point of demanding dramatic changes in the manner of doing business. For a number of these nations, the sweatshops and improved sweatshop conditions have increased the opportunities for many more of their people. China and India have seen an increase in the economy and China’s workers are now able to afford more products from the United States and other developed countries. Another area of concern is the corruption and lack of laws to protect the workers. A number of media accounts have detailed the lack of health and safety standards in third world countries and the MNE entering into business in these areas meet the poor standards. This indicates that the problems are far more involved than simply the MNE lacking respect, but the lack of infrastructure to support developed nations ideas in a developing nation’s countries substructure. This writer supports more of the arguments that Sollars and Englander present as to why the respect issue is not sufficient to address the problems. However, the writer does not support their side of the argument that the sweatshops are a humane manner of conducting business. The problem really comes down to placing an ‘all or nothing’ phrase on sweatshops and the manner to correct the problem in these workplaces. The essential fact that appears in both arguments is that not all sweatshops are inhumane and there is more than one manner of correcting the problem. References Arnold, D. G. & Bowie, N. E. (2003). Sweatshops and Respect for Persons. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(2): 221-242. Arnold, D. G., & Bowie, N. E. (2007). Respect for workers in global supply chains: Advancing the debate over sweatshops. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 135-145.  Newton, L., Englehardt, E., & Pritchard, M. (2011). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Sollars, G. G., & Englander, F. (2007). Sweatshops: Kant and consequences. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(1), 115-133. . Read More