Return
to Table of ContentsResearch Question 3: Does the Athletic Apparel Industry subcontract with sweatshops?
This study group will look at definitions of sweatshops and measure said variables in a sample of subcontract factories. It will also propose and implement action research experiments in alternative conditions. To us, it is critical to demonstrate experiments that prove to subcontract managers that "extreme" forms of Taylorism are both unproductive and unnecessary (See review of French Taylorism above). A critical question is just how do we define "extreme Taylorism (see above) and what is a sweatshop?
The US General Accounting Office defines a sweatshop as a business that regularly violates wage, child labor, health and/or safety laws. There are other definitions this study group would explore. Some include young adults who work in sweatshops, not just in the third world, but in major metropolitan cities in late capitalist economies.
This study group would determine a working definition of "sweatshop" and set out to establish if the Athletic Apparel Industry (particularly logo corporations) have any sweatshops. A sample of factories in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and a number of Third World nations would be decided upon. No study of what is or is not a sweatshop would be complete without hearing the voice of the workers. There are essential cultural differences in what people in various countries experience as acceptable working conditions. In short, inclusion of workers is essential to this question.
Technically answering the sweatshop question would require that the population of subcontract factories be sampled. This will require the cooperation of logo corporations since few locations have been disclosed. The size of the sample will be determined in face-to-face meetings of the study groups (where we can coordinate sampling requirements). For example, this study group needs to coordinate its action research experiment sites with those of the previous study group looking at wage systems.
The research opportunities for basic and action experiments include:
1) Comparing manager versus worker perceptions of sweatshops. Hancock (2000), for example found that 40% of a sample of 323 women working in Indonesian foreign-managed sports shoe, textile, or garment factories believed their status had improved as a result of factory work.
The remaining 60 per cent believed that their household status had not changed. Of the women who claimed to see a positive improvement in their status, roughly 45 per cent stated that this was predominantly due to their new wage contributions to their family. The remaining 55 per cent claimed tit was due to the fact that they were not in the home all the time and, therefore, not confined to household duties and constant parental control (p. 8).
Being at home also means the young women are under constant surveillance of other members of their communities. Using oral histories, focus group and ethnographic methods, Hancock "factory employment has acted as a catalyst, and most women saw the opportunity it provided them compare to very limited opportunities in the agricultural or trading sectors" (p. 7). The point is comparing manager, worker, and even outsider definitions of what is and is not a sweatshop will reveal the complexity of this research question.
2) Based on the definition of sweatshop it seems important to examine the incidence of regulatory violations/complaints in each facility. There are government and union records in some locations as well as NGO and corporate audit reports that detail regulatory violations. There are allegations of forced overtime, unsafe working conditions, excessive noise, inadequate ventilation, confiscation of identity cards, wage cheating, wages set below the minimum legal wage, termination for being pregnant, terminations for being over twenty-four years old, illegal one month wage deposits, and illegal deductions from pay checks for infractions such as talking, breaking a sewing needle, or a machine that is down for repair (through no fault of the worker). The research question is to establish the validity of such complaints and to examine the type of factory and locations, if any such violations are found to recur.
3)Compare to other industries where sweatshops are purported to operate, such as a sample of factories in making non-apparel items. It was also suggested this group look at "white collar" sweatshop such as call centers to see if similar patterns emerge.
4) Incorporate the concept of commitment to ethics (Weaver, Trevino & Cochran, 1999a) 5) compare firm/industry performance for sweatshops versus non-sweatshops--is the relationship moderated by strategy, commitment to ethics or what? This would be a place to implement action experiments in French Taylorism and compare them to a sample of subcontractors using more traditional approaches. Research by Weaver, Trivion and Cochran (1999b: 539) "showed how the scope and control orientations of ethics programs reflect influences from the external institutional environment and from top management's commitment to ethics."
- Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999a). Corporate ethics practices in the mid-1990s. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 283-294.
- Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999b). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal,
42 (5): 539-552.
5) One idea proposed by Joerg Sydow is an interesting research question. "From the background of my main research interest (new organizational forms, especially interfirm networks) I would argue that the labor conditions in global sweat shops, though an outcome of global (out-) sourcing, are more likely in classical market relationships than in hierarchical or network forms. In contrast to the former, the latter allow not only for (better) control but also enable the organization of (social) responsibility. Perhaps there is a chance to include this question in your grant proposal." Again, this type of hypothesis requires active experimentation to measure alternative networking approaches.
6) Finally, this study group will look at how the Apparel Industry is able to convince stakeholders, one way or the other, that it is or is not involved with sweatshop production. One way to accomplish such an aim, is to experiment with French Taylorism, and other alternatives; to measure productivity, expenses, and worker satisfaction under both conditions. This is an industry that "takes an active role for its public image. It makes use of the media to publicize their achievement on protection of workers' rights and to convince consumers and the general public that they are turning over a new leaf" (Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee, February, 2000).
On the other hand there is no denying that industry standards are rising, but have yet to attain SA8000 levels. This subgroup will explore both sides of the issue. The limitation of current approaches is that the industry is relying on consultant work, not on validated scientific experimentation.
7) In a recent interview before and audience at Gustavus, noted economist, Stiglitz suggests: "In China or Indonesia, the alternative to a job in a Nike factory might be unemployment and destitution. What you want is not for Nike to shut down, but for Nike to recognize that it doesn't cost much to build a factory with air conditioning, regular work breaks and so on" (Star Tribune Minneapolis, MN October 11, 2000 "Economist says bad management of trade creates hardships" by Dave Hage). The research question is just how much does it cost to move beyond "extreme" Taylorism? We believe Nike subcontractors can be even more productive by implementing experiments in alternative working conditions. Such experiments allow Nike and subcontractors to develop best practices.
In sum, in terms of democratic freedoms (particularly rights to union representation) study group members hypothesize that China is the worst case, followed by Vietnam and then Indonesia. However, empirical and ethnographic work must be done to prove or disprove such a ranking. The point however, is that action research experimentation in alternative conditions is possible to achieve in each location.
We include China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand in our request (See Table Two). In terms of other concerns (e.g. violence against workers by supervisors) the level of repression of democratic rights in China and Vietnam mean that conditions may well be a lot worse, but workers have no means of saying so. Certainly what we know about conditions in Vietnamese factories up to January 1999 (when the Vietnamese government effectively made it an offence to pass information about conditions in industry factories to foreigners) is very disturbing. We think the silence since then should not necessarily be interpreted as meaning that conditions have radically improved, it may just be that it is now too dangerous to pass information to the outside world. There are situations in other countries that need to be researched by the study group.
For example, "I just heard that Nike
pull(ed) out an order from Cambodia because of the BBC reports on
child laborers in June Factory. This is in the front page of
Cambodian Daily for a few days now and the Cambodian Government is
trying to bring Nike back to Cambodia and refuse [to acknowledge]
that there are child labours involved in producing Nike. I think
this BBC documentary is going to be aired on 16 Oct." (Junya
[Lek] Yimprasert jyimprasert@access.inet.co.th
October 8, 2000). Instead
of pulling out, we would like to take some of the worst case
situations and develop action research alternatives that improve
conditions and prove to subcontract managers that alternatives to
"extreme" Taylorism are profitable.
Volunteers for Study Group 3 (Press on name link to see statements and relevant publications):
- Dr Ngaire Bissett ngaire.bissett@rmit.edu.au SUBGROUP COORDINATOR
School of Management
RMIT University
239 Bourke Street
Victoria 3000
Australia
tel + 6 1 3 9925 5941
fax + 6 1 3 9925 5580
e-mail: ngaire.bissett@rmit.edu.au- Dr Peter Hancock
Registrar & Director
West Coast Institute of Management and Technology
251 Adelaide Terrace - Level One
Perth WA 6000
mobile 0412 148 575
Ph 61 08 9225 4121
Fax 61 08 9225 4120
email phancock66@hotmail.com
email registrar@westcoastinstitute.com.au
His work is cited in Appendix B- Professor Laura P. Hartman, Ph.D. lhartman@wppost.depaul.edu
Asst. Vice President/Assoc. Prof. of Business Ethics
DePaul University, Executive Offices- Professor Sanjay T. Menon, Ph.D. menons@clarkson.edu
Director, Shipley Center for Leadership and Entrepreneurship
Clarkson University, New York- Nicholas S. Miceli, Ph.D. n-miceli@onu.edu
Associate Professor of Management
Ohio Northern University- Professor Joerg Sydow sydow@wiwiss.fu-berlin.de
Free University of Berlin - see letter.- Professor Peter John Anthony Elsmore, Ph.D. P.J.A.Elsmore@uel.ac.uk University of East London, UK.
- Professor Miguel Caldas, Ph.D. mcaldas@fgvsp.br
EAESP/FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas)
São Paulo, Brazil- Lynn Kahle, Ph.D. lkahle@lcbmail.uoregon.edu
James Warsaw Professor of Marketing
University of Oregon See Appendix B for Kahle et al research.- Pun Ngai, Ph.D. npun@hkucc.hku.hk
Research Assistant Professor
Centre of Asian Studies
University of Hong Kong- Professor Maria José Tonelli, Ph.D. mjtonelli@fgvsp.br
Professor of Psychology
Escola de Administração de Empresas
Fundação Getúlio Vargas de São Paulo
Departamento de Fundamentos Sociais e Jurídicos da Administração
Av. 9 de julho, 2029 - 9o. andar
05417 - 010 São Paulo - Brazil
phone: 55 11 281 77 96
fax: 55 11 281 78 05
e-mail: mjtonelli@fgvsp.br I have been working with a qualitative methodology to study time and speed at work- Professor Miguel Pinto Caldas Ph.D. mcaldas@fgvsp.br
Professor of Organizational Theory
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
Fundação Getúlio Vargas
São Paulo - Brasil- Professor Flavio De Carvalho Vasconcelos Ph.D. fvasconcelos@fgvsp.br
Professor of Strategy
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
Fundação Getúlio Vargas
São Paulo - Brasil- Professor Thomaz Wood Junior Ph.D. twood@fgvsp.br
Professor of Management
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo
Fundação Getúlio Vargas
São Paulo - BrasilDr. Michael Fichter" mfichter@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Joerg Sydow has informed me of this project and asked me to join him in the study group three. Joerg and I will be organizing a student research group in preparation for a seminar on sweatshops we plan to teach next Spring at the Free University of Berlin. I have taken a look at the project proposal and find its concept and goals quite impressive. I would be honored to join the study group. Hopefully, I will also be able to make a substantive
contribution. As to my background, I am a political scientist and have done most of my teaching and research on trade unions and labor relations in Germany and Europe. A particularly important focus of my recent
work (and one which I see as being especially pertinent to the project) has been on labor relations and work organization in the transformation societies of central and eastern Europe. At present, I am directing a joint German-Hungarian team of researchers on a
project to analyze the impact of German foreign direct investments on labor relations and work organization in Hungary. The study, which has just commenced will be based on 15-20 general and 4-5 indepth case studies. Further information on my background can be found on my
webpage at http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~mfichter . Of less crucial importance for the project, but of possible interest to you personally is that I am familiar with Las Cruces because I grew up in Albuquerque before going to Stanford for my B.A. I am looking forward to participating in this complex effort. I think that the seminar which Joerg and I are planning could make a sound contribution to the work of the study group three.If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact
me. Best regards, Mike Fichter
Items suggested for Study Group Review:
"Global Alliance gives Asian workers a voice." Newly released data reveals first-ever look inside factories from workers' perspective. For Release September 6, 2000. Washington, D.C. - Amidst the debate about working conditions in overseas manufacturing facilities, the workers themselves finally get a voice with the release of a comprehensive independent assessment of 3,800 Nike footwear and apparel workers in Vietnam and Thailand. The survey was conducted by the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities. http://www.theglobalalliance.com/content/press2.cfm Maria Eitel, Vice President Corporate Responsibility, Nike, Inc., United States is on the Board of Global Alliance. The approach is to conduct focus groups and surveys with workers and managers. http://www.theglobalalliance.com/content/about.cfm (Jeff Ballinger adds Global Alliance is a "Public Relations firm responsible for this has also done work for NikeTown, (Michael) Jordan brand, Disney, Hasbro..." -- The implication is that the study group review the research methods and findings. See also http://www.nikebiz.com/media/n_enhance.shtml
On the other side of the issue,
There is a September, 2000 critique of the Global Alliance methodology and findings available http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike00-09-15.htm The new study was conducted by Junya Yimprasert of the Thai Labour Campaign and looks into the situation at Luen Thai, one of the five subcontract factories. The report contends that "10% of workers at five Thai factories producing garments and footwear for Nike were surveyed by the Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute (CUSRI) as part of the Global Alliance for Workers and Communities project, an initiative that includes Nike, the World Bank, the International Youth Foundation, and others... What they fail to report is how workplace conditions have been defined. For the purposes of the Global Alliance study, "workplace conditions" does not include several major topics of concern to Thai garment and footwear workers. What's missing from the Global Alliance report are worker's opinions on issues relating to wages, hours of work, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Though Nike describes the Global Alliance as part of Nike's overall monitoring program this initiative is clearly not investigating issues of basic workers rights." According to the main report at http://www.cleanclothes.org/companies/nike00-09-15-1.htm "In the Global Alliance study selected workers were asked to answer multiple choice questions. In this way, their priorities were suggested for them." Finally, after interviewing Luen Thai workers, the Thai Labour Campaign found that "...they felt that the questionnaires were guiding them and tried to encourage them to conduct activities at the community level. The workers questioned why they, the workers, have to do community development while their working conditions were not improved." Please consult the report for additional issues related to methodology.
There is a new survey of wages in Indonesia conducted between 10 September and 18 October 1999. The Urban Community Mission in Jakarta worked with Workers to survey 3,500 workers from 11 different Nike contract factories. The survey results allege that sweatshop and abusive management practices are widespread Review the survey in preparation for your response. (Press here for survey results).