iii Purpose - The purpose of the research is to develop interdisciplinary work and dialogue that will address a set of research questions that is of growing concern to academics, the general public, and the Athletic Apparel Industry. We will focus on the following producers, and their monitors, and global subcontractors.

Basic research while important is not sufficient. We propose to embark upon action research initiative that brings various stakeholders (researchers, workers, corporate executives, managers, subcontractor mangers, governmental and non-governmental organizations) together to implement change. There has been a good deal of consulting (i.e. Global Alliance, Fair Labor Association, and Price Waterhouse Coopers) and non-governmental organization (NGO) report and media writing, but limited academic empirical study (See Appendix B). The issue is to rethink labor and environmental monitoring practices, within a larger context that compels a reframing of the institutions and ethics of development and globalization. Our purpose can be summarized: to promote dialogue that leads to basic, applied, participatory, as well as action research efforts that lead to change.  

I hope for a truly postmodern approach to collaborative research and change with many voices coming from many different sources, swirling around each trying to make a difference. In some ways, this effort looks a lot like the Athletic Apparel Industry itself--hard to summarize, quick, shifting, unpredictable, Tamara-ish (See Boje, 2001b for theory work on this point). We have a process to get the proposal to its next stage of readiness. That is we have been co-sponsored at the Academy of Management meetings in Washington D.C. by the History, Research Methods (RMD) , and Organization Development and Change (ODC) Divisions for four 90 minute workshops (one per study group listed below). At these workshops we are inviting stakeholders mentioned in the project and Academy members to meet work with us to develop the proposal. ODC will act as facilitators. Then we would like to head for the field and collect the necessary data. But we do not stop there; we intend to follow through to see what positive changes can be made in monitoring, working conditions, and implement study group recommendations. In short, we seek an action research project the facilitates that starts and ends with participatory dialogue.  

To begin the dialogue, I am putting down some ideas about objectivity, the subject of the research, and methods. I also propose that the results of the studies be submitted for review to the respective journals of our Academies as well as journals that have already shown interest.

I think it is time we question the economics and moral sentiments (Adam Smith) of the subcontracting and outsourcing of Athletic Apparel production.  We think that even Taylorism would be an improvement to factory conditions. At least Taylor advocated a living wage, rest and bathroom breaks, and implemented post-feudal management practices. Taylor, like Marx and Smith contended that a living wage and humane working conditions would add to productivity and was therefore economically viable. The problem is the mostly Korean and Taiwanese owned subcontract factories to Adidas, New Balance, Nike and Reebok do not believe in Taylor, Smith, or Marx.  We propose action experiments with other management and subcontract models.

Adidas, Nike, Reebok, and New Balance would have us believe that there are no alternatives.

The data says otherwise. For example, The Spanish apparel firm, Zara, spends less on advertising, more on workers' wages, and does not outsource to subcontractors. Could it be that Adidas, Nike, Reebok, and New Balance have far less control over subcontractors than their PR and monitoring campaigns would have use believe? The Athletic Apparel firms have given up control over production facilities in order to concentrate on being the virtual postmodern company, who just does marketeering and some R&D. Consumers are becoming more aware of labor conditions in shoe and apparel factories in authoritarian countries. Zara, by contrast, maintains direct control over its factories, and uses that control as a competitive advantage. The advantage is being able to react more quickly to market trend changes than its competitors; Zara can change its production designs in two to three weeks). It also means that Zara does not build up expensive inventories, and can move quickly to respond to shifts in consumer tastes. "Its design team produce an incredible 11,000 different
designs a year" (CNN, June 15, 2001).  They not only design and sell in 1,000 shops, but make the clothes. Zara has never run an ad campaign, paid for celebrity endorsements, and does not have a 100-person PR staff to fend off inquiries into its labor practices. Yet their sales increased 28% last year. Money saved on ads, PR staff, and monitoring reports can pay workers a living wage. Nike, on the other hand, spent $7.8 million on two studies of labor practices done by Global Alliance (See monitors). Direct control gives more accountability for labor conditions in factories and cooperatives  in northern Portugal and the surrounding area of Galicia. In short, there are viable alternatives.

Please send your ideas on the proposal to dboje@nmsu.edu so they can be integrated into the proposal before it is sent to various Apparel Industry logo corporations and their subcontractors, NGOs,  and the various academic associations we will submit the proposal to for feedback.

We seek to promote dialogue and experimentation that leads to basic, applied, participatory, as well as action research efforts that lead to change.  

Return to Table of Contents