Bangladesh Garment
It seems to be a simple answer on its face; do US companies have a responsibility for the welfare of the workers who manufacture their clothing? The immediate humanitarian response is “Of course!” But, deeper questions then have to be raised and considered; does a private company have purview over a manufacturing plant overseas to begin with? Would enhancing work conditions damage the profit margin of clothing produced there? How responsible is the company to stockholders? Consumers who buy their low-priced goods? If a plant is shut down on the name of worker welfare, what paying jobs are there to replace the ones lost? How do you balance profits against treating workers fairly and with safety? The capitalist says; profits are the bottom line, selling product at a competitive price, and no one is forcing the workers to work in plants. The opposing view is; why should foreign workers labor in sweatshop conditions so Americans can have cheap clothes and CEOs can cash big, fat paychecks? First, we must recognize that the purpose of business is to provide a good or service, and to make money while doing so. That is the nature of the beast; it always has been and I suspect always will be. The main variable in question what responsibility does the company have to the workers? While the workers are foreign, they are, in a de facto manner, working for (often) American companies, stock shares for American investors, and affordable clothing for American consumers. By the law of transitive properties, it appears to be clear that companies do have a responsibility toward the welfare of workers. There are several things a company can promote (I’m not sure they can enforce conditions in a faraway foreign plant); 1.) They can insist upon minimum age requirements; nothing is more damaging to a company’s image than the imagery of children slaving away on the