Update June 29, 2010

Hey Readers,

Sorry for the lack of posts for the last few months. Our writers just completed their first years of college and are enjoying a well deserved break. But a few of us are still taking summer classes. While I’m busy studying for physics in the upcoming weeks, I’m going to try to write some new blogs every so often. Some topics I’m going to cover include how to shop at Walmart (if you have to), ethical clothing companies, and the role of technology in globalization of markets.

David Axe

Latest Developments in Labor Relations

So, have we seen any recent developments in the news about labor relations? Yes, in fact.
Perhaps the year’s biggest news on this topic came April 9, when the University of Wisconsin-Madison (usually referred to as Wisconsin) decided to end its licensing agreement with Nike over worker rights concerns.
The university wanted an explanation from Nike of why it closed two factories in Honduras without paying severance to workers. When Nike refused to address the issue, it violated Wisconsin’s code of conduct for companies making products with the university brand.
This is a very big development because of how Nike dominates the college sports world. Athletic departments earn lots of money for big schools like Wisconsin as long as the teams are successful. To have good teams, you must recruit good athletes. The sad but true fact is that a surprising number of athletes choose a college based on its uniform contract; in most cases, they want to wear Nike products. Actually, Kent State recently signed a football uniform contract with Nike because they were losing recruits solely due to having uniforms made by New Balance.
For Wisconsin to but worker rights over athletic success is very impressive and shows the strength of organizations like United Students Against Sweatshops.
One other piece of good news came in April from Wham-O, which is known for making popular toys like the Hula Hoop, Frisbee, Slip ‘N Slide and Super Ball. Wham-O had moved its manufacturing to five Chinese factories in January 2006, but has decided to move much of it back to the United States specifically because of labor relations.
Also, during a recent trip to Portland, Oregon, I learned about the Northwest Workers’ Justice Project, which works to improve workers’ rights in the Northwest United States. NWJP formed in 2004 and currently prioritizes a campaign against wage theft. An example of wage theft is a contractor hiring a day laborer, sending him or her miles away to work for a day and abandoning him or her there to find his or her own way home. More common forms of wage theft include not paying a worker for overtime or not giving a worker his or her final paycheck after he or she leaves the job.
While the NWJP focuses mainly on the state of Oregon, wage theft is an issue across the United States and results in workers having billions of dollars stolen from them every year. The most reported cases of wage theft come from industries like agriculture, poultry processing, janitorial services, restaurant work, garment manufacturing, long term care, home health care and retail.
Interfaith Worker Justice runs a website that posts a few new wage theft news articles every day at wagetheft.org, and its main website, iwj.org, has a Workers Center Directory where workers can get help for unfair workplace treatment. Organizations are trying to collaborate nationally more than ever so that they can easier educate the nation on campaigns to improve conditions for workers. I invite you to look at IWJ’s various campaigns, which also include affirming the right to join unions and urging Wal-Mart to provide more benefits to its employers.

By: Jody Michael

Unethical Companies: McDonald’s

Mostly everyone will enjoy McDonald’s every once in a while, even if you aren’t a fan of fast food. While the food may be cheap, it may come at more of a cost to the environment and the global economy than one might think.

McDonald’s has a negative impact on the environment in more ways than one. Aside from the pollution from factories where the food is produced, the unusable waste from nearly all the food they sell, and the massive amounts of power and energy that are required to keep all of the branches up and running, this corporation is destroying natural rain forests. According to http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly_Unethical_Firms/McDonald’s/, McDonald’s likes to purchase their meat from privatised farms, which is not a problem in and of itself. The conflict arises when these privatised farmlands are built on the land where a lush rainforest once resided. So not only is McDonald’s polluting our air, but they are destroying a large part of what would help to clean it out. The trees that are levelled do more than just clean the air, though. They are also homes to thousands of animals that are likely killed or made homeless as the trees are torn down. This is not exactly a healthy step in making our world a better place.

The people at McDonald’s treat their employees no better than they treat our environment. McDonald’s staff are frequently underpaid for the amount of time that they work (which often extends into illegal amounts of labour hours), get little to no benefits along with this gross underpayment, and are oftentimes forced to work in unhealthy and unsanitary conditions. The farmers from which they get their food are also generally underpaid for the amount of produce and meat which they sell to the corporation, particularly considering the cost that many of these farms have regarding the environment and health of the farm workers.

McDonald’s claims to give back to the community and the environment by working with schools and local organisations, but what they repay isn’t nearly enough to cover the damages that they’ve caused.
By: Jennifer Reese

What Constitutes as an Unethical Company?

Ethics has often been a touchy subject, as it is almost completely based upon one’s opinions. This blog does not necessarily deal with all questions of ethics. For our purposes, we will simply be talking about moral and immoral decisions on the part of corporations and, to a lesser extent, those of the consumer.

A company, in the context of this blog, is categorised as ethical or unethical based upon their treatment of their employees those who are paid to make parts of whatever product they might sell and of the environment.

Many companies will attempt to portray an environmentally sound and economically prudent façade, as well as that of a friendly working situation. They may do this through the use of commercials, being locally and globally “active” to help the environment or those in need, or any other number of devious means of advertisement. However, that is not always the case, and this sort of propaganda is usually spread to make the companies look good, endorse the product, or generally encourage people to buy the product.. The majority of these companies pay their workers minimum wage, and pay the people who provide them with the means to make their products even less. The company will hire someone to find the cheapest way to make a certain portion of their product, and often that means paying someone in a foreign country less than a dollar a day to make hundreds or thousands of the same things for nine or more hours a day. These people, along with the continental employees, are often subjected to poor and unsanitary working environments, and are provided few (if any) benefits to help them keep up with bills and the general costs of daily life on these low salaries. The toll that these companies are taking on the environment is not much better. Rainforests are destroyed, factories spew out massive amounts of smog and other pollutants into our air, and small homes, local businesses, natural reservoirs, etc. are taken over, just so that the corporations may have a little more room to expand business and make more products, so that they may continue to make a huge profit by spending as little as they can on labour and the people whom they employ.

It would be hard to consider anyone who engaged in such activities to be “ethical.” And that is why, for the sake of this blog, that is the standard definition of an unethical company.
By: Jennifer Reese

Do Ethical Companies Exist?

Being an ethical business in the world we live in today is almost impossible. It is difficult in our capitalistic economy, where more profit equals more success, to be ethical with the constant pressure to succeed. Many companies will throw away their morals, so they can be more successful, which means exploiting as many people as possible. This is how capitalism works; the rich take advantage of the workers because the only way to make profit is by taking advantage of human labor. Corporate owners will employ workers for the cheapest price possible until they can find labor in another country that is more profitable. This is why large companies build new plants in foreign countries because they can make the most profit by making these workers work long hours in poor working conditions for below minimum wage. This is one of the main problems with our society today because we, the consumers, do not realize what we are buying and where we are buying it from. As consumers, we have to be conscious about what we buy.

There are some businesses that try to follow ethical procedures, and the purpose of this article is to highlight these businesses as positive role models for other businesses to follow. The purpose of a business should not be to make the most products at low quality to maximize revenue. The purpose of a business is to give our society what it needs through fair practices while making only a minimal profit. An ethical business should follow these standards. First, the employer should promote a workforce that is educated in their field of work and give their workers good conditions to work in and fair salaries. The investors should be ensured that their money is safe. The consumer should have complete information about the products, and how it was made. The business should not cheat in any way to get an unfair advantage over the competition, and all unlawful activities such as bribing should be discouraged. Finally, industries should try to minimize pollution and abide by government rules and regulations. Unethical businesses of course overlook most if not all of these rules and regulations.

Organizations should realize the positive effects of being ethical, humane, and considerate. It is not surprising that most of these ethical companies have a competitive edge in the market. A more ethical business in theory should attract more and better workers. Some of the ethical businesses to name a few are the following: FPL Group, AFLAC, New Balance, The Hartford, Kellogg’s, General Mills, Marriot, and IKEA. The following information was provided by http://ethisphere.com/worlds-most-ethical-companies-rankings/. Buy a pair of New Balance shoes instead of buying shoes from Nike that were made in a sweatshop. Unethical businesses should follow the example of these ethical businesses, which are just as successful because of their principled standards. As consumers if we buy more products from ethical companies then maybe the money driven unethical companies will get the hint. This is my challenge to you, think about your individual purchasing power and make a difference. Buy from ethical businesses.

Unions and Globalization

The relationship between businesses and unions has been tedious at best, both in the United States and on an international scale. Despite the creation of labour laws as well as the formation of national and international labour organizations, employees still find themselves at the leniency of their employers. And, in an increasingly globalized world where companies are investing more and more in foreign markets, it becomes a substantial challenge to monitor labour rights and treatment, let alone human rights violations. This growing interconnectedness between business industries finds itself at the fore-front of international labour disputes.

Nationally within the US, there has been a constant struggle by unions for greater pro-union legislation as well as more stringent monitoring and prosecution of companies who try to prevent workers’ rights to freedom of association. Under the National Labor Relations Act (otherwise known as the Wagner Act) passed in 1935, “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing…”(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sup_01_29_10_7_20_II.html). This part, referred to as an employee’s Section 7 rights, allows those who wish to form a union to do so but also for those who are part of a non-union company the right to “…engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…”  (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/usc_sup_01_29_10_7_20_II.html ). Meaning, they have the ability to discuss and protest issues that deal with their hours, wages and working conditions. Working for American unions are the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (A.F.L.-C.I.O.), which has about 11 million members and the Change to Win federation, representing more than 5 million workers, among others. Roughly 16 million American workers are in labor unions, though the percentage of unionized workers has declined.

Recently stated in a New York Times article… “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12.4 percent of the American work force belonged to a union in 2008, down from 35 percent in the 1950s.” (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/labor/index.html?scp=1&sq=national%20labor%20relations%20act&st=cse). The author also notes the large disparity between the private and public sector as it relates to unionization rates (7.6% vs 36.8% in ‘08) which is not a particularly new trend but still markedly different. Reasons given for the lessening percentages have been that “…companies have closed many unionized operations and moved them overseas and [that] many employers have grown more sophisticated in beating back unionization efforts” (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/labor/index.html?scp=1&sq=national%20labor%20relations%20act&st=cse). There is also the contention that, since conditions for the growing work force have improved since WWII, there is not such a strong need for union representation.

The author further comments on this affect of globalization by providing the example of the 1980’s growth within the Japanese economy and auto industry and how it placed pressure on US auto manufacturers. He also points out how the low cost of labour in China as well as the booming information technology industry in India has encouraged many companies to outsource jobs. “The movement of so many jobs to the developing world has lifted living standards in many once-impoverished countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, but has raised concerns that workers in some of those countries toil in sweatshop conditions”. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/l/labor/index.html?scp=1&sq=national%20labor%20relations%20act&st=cse). Such labour problems as outsourcing have also been proven an issue in Europe.

Internationally, there has been a similar push for unions. Not only in developed countries but in those considered as having an emerging market economy, there are organizations working, globally, on behalf of workers, employers and governments. One such organization, that has this tripartism approach, is the International Labour Organization (ILO). Within this is the International Trade Union Confederation which, itself, is comprised of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) and eight other national trade union organizations. Organizers wanted “…to give workers a stronger voice in meeting the challenges of globalization and allow the union movement to remain…” an essential contributor within the “economic climate” (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/ampro/cinterfor/news/press49.htm). Its efforts’ focus on improving productivity as well as working conditions, outcomes which will ultimately provide better quality products without sacrificing employees well being. “The ITUC’s primary mission is the promotion and defence of workers’ rights and interests, through international cooperation between trade unions, global campaigning and advocacy within the major global institutions” (http://www.global-unions.org/spip.php?rubrique12). The most encompassing though, is that of Global Unions which is, basically, the collection of all international trade union organizations. All such organizations under this group “…share a common determination to organize, to defend human rights and labour standards everywhere, and to promote the growth of trade unions for the benefit of all working men and women and their families” (http://www.global-unions.org/spip.php?rubrique25).

A problem arises with union intervention on a national and international stage in combating globalization. Because the issue or more so, the effects of globalization are so hotly contested, the idea of a nation industrializing under (for lack of a better word) the constraints of union laws and practices does not provide foreseeable outcomes. So, if one is to argue that developing nations today that are industrializing are in a way “catching up,” then the presence of unions will hamper that process. The US, Russia, parts of Europe, etc. did not formerly industrialize with unions present, let alone stringent labour laws. But, as mentioned before, not only is the argument that globalization will allow for countries’ development purported but it is also disputed. So, in that situation, labour unions would serve well at protecting employees, if not from the workers’ own countries, then from international interests.

But if the matter is international solidarity for the cause of social justice, then the efforts of labour union organizations may effectively be no different than the proponents of globalization who contend that it is an increasing international solidarity for the means of economic equaling.

For more information on globalization and/or unions, visit www.wto.org, www.global-unions.org, www.ilo.org

By: Monique Brunatti

What is an ethical consumer?

Some of you may have wandered onto this page, wondering what exactly is an ethical footprint, or what it means to be an ethical consumer. You have come to the right place. As all of the members of this blog, we have been studying about postcolonialism this year, and have learned a great amount of knowledge about colonialism, globalization, and ethical consumerism. Through this class we have become more conscious of the world around us, as consumers, but mainly as human beings.

During this class we have discussed what it means to be an ethical consumer. we have learned many different things from our professor, Dr. Massod Raja, who happens to be a very ethical consumer. Many of his clothes were either purchased from second hand stores, or directly from his native country, Pakistan. We have learned that it is possible to buy food that is also grown ethically. Our professor has told us that shopping at farmer’s markets is one way of finding food that was ethically grown. After learning about his ethical ways, we decided that our class project should be a blog informing people of ways they can help the environment and the people who produce every little product we use.

An ethical footprint is a way of measuring how much of an ethical consumer you are. In this blog, we will be trying to inform the people that happen to stop by here about ways that will help reduce their ethical footprint. While looking for definitions of what an ethical consumer is, I found very few good definitions, but one stood out above all:

“An ‘ethical consumer’ looks for products which, above all, are both friendly to the environment and also the people who produce them. An ethical consumer is therefore aware of the consequences of production, consumption and disposal. They have clear expectations of how they expect a company to behave and expect ethical companies to conform to ethical standards” (Marketing Profs).

With this definition in mind, your idea of what is ethical and non-ethical can be completely different from someone else’s idea. Your idea of what is ethical will most likely be affected by your own ethics, customs and values. In our opinion, ethical consumerism involves the public having the knowledge of how the products they consume on a daily basis are made and sold. Many of the other students in my class have given good examples of stores and companies that are ethical and non-ethical.

We believe that there are many people that would try to be more ethical consumers, once they were informed of the things that go on in this world. There are links on this page that will help you gain the knowledge about products. As I was looking for definitions of what an ethical consumer is, I came upon a website that rates different companies based on how ethical they are. There are about 170 buyer’s guide comparisons that you can subscribe to with a subscriber’s fee (www.ethiscore.org). On this same website, there are a few reports that are actually free to the public. There is actually a magazine from the UK, that also gives good ideas on how to be a more ethical and green consumer (www.ethicalconsumer.org). The only downside to these websites, as is true with many others, is that you have to pay for this knowledge.

By: Agata Jagusztyn

Labor Union Keeps Cleveland Plant Open

As of December 2009, German suit manufacturer Hugo Boss announced its intention to close its Cleveland-based plant. While the company is famous for high-fashion men’s garments, the Brooklyn factory in particular only produces two lines of suits. This was one of the reasons cited by Hugo Boss for publicizing the plant’s imminent closure, set to take place in late April 2010. According to the company’s official statement, the Ohio location “is not globally competitive” enough (abc NEWS). Shutting down the factory would cost upwards of 300 jobs.

Following the statement by Hugo Boss, the company entered into negotiations with Workers United, a labor union representing the 300 plus employees of the Cleveland location. But what exactly are labor unions, and what do they do for the workers they represent?

Labor unions began making themselves known during the time of the American Industrial Revolution and are divided into two different types. Those classified as trade unions appropriately represent employees in a certain trade, while industrial unions support groups in certain industries. In either case, labor unions offer mediation between the large corporations and the little guys – the workers (UnionSmart.org).

Trade and industrial unions often use collective bargaining, in which workers will group together in order to negotiate with their employer for higher wages, better working conditions, or other benefits in the work environment. The union’s role is to better the work experience for the employees, yet keep the corporation in business. Oftentimes if the workers’ demands are not met, the union will organize a labor strike in the hopes that it will drive the company to concede, although the threat of a strike can be just as beneficial (UnionSmart.org).

In the case of Hugo Boss, a strike would not have been favorable, seeing as the manufacturer intended to close the Cleveland plant anyway. However, Workers United and Hugo Boss were able to come to an agreement in the days immediately preceding the scheduled closing of the factory to keep it up and running, saving the hundreds of jobs that would have been lost. Additionally, wages will not be cut, and the Ohio-based Hugo Boss will be able to become more globally competitive by reducing other costs and increasing flexibility of manufacturing. The deal was also driven by actor Danny Glover, who urged others in Hollywood not to wear the company’s suits to this year’s Oscars. His support of the workers helped to draw attention to the situation taking place (Manufacturing.net).

While labor unions help to obtain better working conditions and higher wages for the workers they represent, they may also be viewed in a negative light. Some corporations like Wal-Mart have been known to actively oppose unionized labor, and it has become harder for them to operate since the time of the Industrial Revolution.

By Alyssa Parnaby

Child Labor

When you buy something, do you stop and take the time to think of the hands that made what you are purchasing? Every day, children all over the world work to barely earn a living. It is estimated, according to UNICEF, that one in 6 of the world’s children experience child labor. These children have to work to survive, and they may often be the main source of income for their families. One very important thing to do is define child labor. A child age 5 to 11 who works at least one hour of economic work (hired and paid) or 28 hours of domestic work (i.e. family business) in a week, and children ages 12 to 14 who work at least 14 hours of economic work or 28 hours of domestic work are child laborers. Finally any children ages 15 to 17 who work over 43 hours of domestic or economic work are considered child laborers. These standards determine the safe amounts of work children can do; any more work, and it is considered harmful for the child.

Child labor is in some developed countries, but it is nothing like the child labor that exists in the third world. There are rigid regulations and laws that help to prevent child labor in the United States and in other parts of the world. Work regulation is almost nonexistent in some countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Children here often work hard days and nights barely being able to sustain their families. In Africa, child labor makes up for 32% of the works force; 22% of the workforce in Asia is made up of children; and in Latin America, 17% of the workforce consists of child labor. These are huge numbers compared to just 1% in the U. S., Canada, and Europe.

Child labor is not invisible, either.  Their labor is used in factories, mines, agriculture and in many other areas. Many large, popular companies have been found using child labor. Nike and Coca Cola, two big name companies that you have probably seen in other posts on Ethical Footprint, have both been accused of using child labor on different occasions. Apple Computers has also come under fire when it was discovered that there were children working in some of its factories in China. These three names are only companies that have been discovered to be using child labor. Who knows how many companies are sneaking by with unethically produced clothing, toys, furniture, etc.

Although many of these these kids are far away from the United States that does not mean there is nothing you can do. A little research can make a big difference, and it can open your eyes to how many big companies use children to get cheaper cost of production. A good place to start is UNICEF. This organization has been working for the rights and well being of children for years. Another way to help is to just talk about child labor. Some people just do not think about it, so start a discussion. Education is a very powerful thing, and it can be a great tool in helping to stop child labor.

By: Joe Cancelliere

Fair Trade

While there are many products you may have to think twice about purchasing, or should avoid if possible, there is one type of product you can always count on.

Those products are fair trade certified products, and they can help in the mission to become an ethical consumer. “Fair trade standards are established by Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) and address social and economic development, environmental management, and labor conditions of Fair Trade farms” (TransFair USA). The strength of fair trade is that it helps the producer and the consumer. “You’d be forgiven for thinking Fair Trade was about the price, but it isn’t. 100% Fair Trade is about relationships. Relationships between people both locally and globally, relationships between organisations up and down the supply chain, and the relationships between the consumer and producer” (World Fair Trade Day).  When you purchase fair trade products you are supporting their 10 standards, many of which address basic human rights and match up with many modern desires.

“Organizations who buy Fair Trade products from producer groups either directly or through intermediaries ensure that no forced labor is used in production and the producer complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and national / local law on the employment of children” (World Fair Trade Organization). People and their rights are the main focus of these standards. “100% Fair Trade is a total commitment between people to deliver a prosperous and sustainable future for the good of the planet and for the good of mankind” (World Fair Trade Day). It’s also about helping impoverished people. “The organization supports marginalized small producers, whether these are independent family businesses, or grouped in associations or co-operatives. It seeks to enable them to move from income insecurity and poverty to economic self-sufficiency and ownership. The trade supports community development” (World Fair Trade Organization). The organizations which are approved by the World Fair Trade organization are held to many standards which are intended to better the lives of employees. “The organization respects the right of all employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively. Where the right to join trade unions and bargain collectively is restricted by law and/or political environment, the organization will enable means of independent and free association and bargaining for employees” (World Fair Trade Organization). The companies are monitored to ensure that these conditions, among many others, are met.

In America, the Fair Trade Federation was established in 1994 as the North American Alternative Trade Organization, or NAATO. The name was switched to the Fair Trade Federation in 1995. “Fair trade seeks to change the lives of the poorest of the poor who frequently lack alternative sources of income. As North American fair trade organizations grow, they employ more and more individuals in their communities” (Fair Trade Federation).  Rather than taking American jobs to other countries, as you may suspect, the products represented by these organizations aren’t necessarily in production in North America. You also don’t have to worry about the prices of these goods being too much more than normal prices. “Most fair trade products are competitively priced in relation to their conventional counterparts. Fair trade organizations work directly with producers, cutting out exploitative middlemen, so they can keep products affordable for consumers…” (Fair Trade Federation). This form of trade is about making life better for all people, and for fostering balance and self-sustainability. “The Federation envisions a just and sustainable global economic system in which purchasing and production choices are made with the concern for the well-being of people and the environment, creating a world where all people have viable economic options to meet their own needs”(Fair Trade Federation).

In the UK the FairTrade Foundation was established in 1992. “Our vision is a world in which justice and sustainable development are at the heart of trade structures and practices so that everyone, through their work, can maintain a decent and dignified livelihood and develop their full potential” (Fair Trade Foundation). Since 1998 the sales of Fairtrade certified products in the United Kingdom have increased from 16.7 million to 799 million, in 2009. In 2008, FairTrade’s organization found that 70% of people recognize the FairTrade symbol (see below). They also found that 1 in 4 shoppers are consistently buying products with the FairTrade Label (Fair Trade Foundation). These trends are continually expanding. On May 11th, 2010, Fair Trade Foundation published a press release saying that a recent “survey showed that Fairtrade clearly adds value to products and strongly impacts on people’s intention to buy. An overwhelming 90% of active ethical consumers say the FAIRTRADE Mark on pack helps the product create a positive impression and many say it makes them more likely to buy specific brand. What’s more, over 60% of existing purchasers are likely to recommend Fairtrade to friends and colleagues” (Fair Trade Foundation). These increasing numbers can say only good things for Fair Trade’s progress.

As a consumer you can become more ethical by looking for these labels on products you regularly shop for. Some popular fair trade items are coffee, tea and herbs, cocoa and chocolate, fresh fruit, sugar, rice, vanilla, flowers and honey (TransFair USA).  The Fairtrade Labelling Organization says there are “…thousands of products that carry the FairTrade mark. Fairtrade standards exist for food products ranging from tea and coffee to fresh fruits and nuts. There are also standards for non-food products such as flowers and plants, sports balls and seed cotton.” (Fairtrade Labelling Organization) While you may not be able to find all the products  you’re looking for in Fair Trade form, you have to start somewhere. Ethical consumerism is about taking the small steps necessary to make a big difference, in your life and in lives all over the world.

By: Hailee Monk

Nike- Just Don’t Do It

In an earlier post, I researched Nike’s code of conduct and the prevalence of public thought about such codes of conduct. Though I briefly mentioned Nike’s poor performance in complying to its own standards, I felt that a more in depth coverage of the corporation’s practices was necessary. Thus, in this post, I will explore further three aspects of Nike’s unethical trade practices: its refusal to fully compensate its workers with fair wages, its continual use of unsanitary and unsafe conditions in its factories, and its use of child labor around the world.

In my previous post I mentioned an article describing the extent to which Nike fairly pays its workers.  As you have seen, this amounted to very little. The Article found that, in some factories, “ … workers are still paid less than the local minimum wage.” Obviously, A company cannot present itself to be ethical if it does not even pay workers the area’s already low minimum wage. Another website compared the minimum wages of countries which house Nike factories and interviewed an Indonesian factory worker: “ “If I don’t work overtime, I can’t survive,” says Baltazar at PT Hasi Nike factory in Jakarta. He works an average of 40 overtime hours a week.” Nike cannot continue to support this kind of labor—the idea of someone working eighty plus hours a week, just to survive, should not be acceptable in the twenty first century.

Though Nike has been trying to give the public an image of itself as a changed company, Nike has failed to better the working conditions of its factories. For example, one article suggests that “ … significant health and safety issues still remain. Workers in some sections of the plant still faced overexposures to hazardous chemicals, and to heat and noise levels. Respiratory illness rates remained a concern”.  Another article uncovered that, in addition to health hazards, many of Nike’s factory workers have to deal with ” … widespread verbal and physical abuse, shockingly high rates of sexual harassment, forced overtime, [denial of] sick leave, inadequate access to medical care, and … worker deaths.” These working conditions must be improved and Nike’s actions cannot be tolerated.

Probably the most frightening practice employed by Nike is its use of child labor. One case study observed that children around the world, “ … some as young as 4 and 5 years of age, are involved in the production line.” The disparity in wealth between nations is so great that children in one country produce the toys for another country’s children. For example, the case study suggests that “ … if you go to a shop to buy your child a new soccer ball … there is a good possibility that the ball has been made by someone your child’s age or even younger.” It seems that the ” … Nike success story is not based on good name and advertising alone but also attached to it is the tears of tortured workers and child labor.”

As a final note, I encourage readers to make an effort to change this world for the better. Until Nike pays workers fairly, improves working conditions, and ceases its use of child labor, decrease the amount of Nike products that you use. And this should not just apply to Nike. Research the companies and brands you buy from daily and try to limit transactions with those which have questionable ethical backgrounds. By consciously thinking about where the things we buy come from and making just small changes in our purchasing decisions, we can greatly improve the lives of many people around the world.

So as to buying that new pair of Nike sneakers: Just Don’t Do It.

Media Representation?

As a journalism and mass communications major, I always find media representation interesting. It’s intriguing to see what is deemed deserving of media coverage and what isn’t. Business and consumer ethics seemed to me to be extremely newsworthy topics for all outlets. I surmised that it would be an interesting and applicable topic to all audiences.

After perusing the Internet for a while in search of articles and specials on this topic, I was surprised to find very little.  I looked at the websites for all the major news outlets, and after searching each one, I found very little relating to the topic. This, I find interesting. It says a lot about the news media in general. The media is in complete control of what it gives attention. I found more articles along the lines of “Ten Great Tips for Summer Fun” than I did about a serious humanitarian problem occurring all over the world, in every country and city.

I found that more internationally focused news outlets and publications centered on business and finance had more content to offer on the topic of unethical business practices. The BBC website came forth with several relative articles when I searched for terms like “sweat shops,” “child labor,” and “unethical businesses.” I did find that many articles in this field, particularly those related to conscientious shopping, were outdated, as if it were “old news.” When searching for articles pertaining to conscientious shopping, I was directed to an article written in 1999 whose external links on the topic had all closed down. Has the media lost interest in spreading important awareness about topics such as this?

Bloomberg Businessweek had a few articles pertaining to unethical business practices within the Walmart Corporation concerning treatment of its own employees and interpretation of the corporation’s ethical codes. A Walmart employee, strictly operating under Walmart’s policy of reporting any suspicious activity among other employees, reported her superior for what seemed like insider trading. The company covered the superior, claiming that what she did was only mistaken as insider trading. The identity of the lower employee was disclosed to the higher manager without her consent and the employee was discharged by Walmart to be transferred to another store. However, it’s not guaranteed that she will be reinstated in another store within 90 days. After 90 days, the offer is null and the employee is out of luck. The media does a mediocre job of reporting about American companies for their internal unethical business practices, but what about where their products come from? I found no articles pertaining to where Walmart’s products come from, who really assembles them and how these facts are an even greater testament to Walmart’s unethical ways.

The news media needs a reality check concerning what it decides to cover. The educated community has no desire to read flighty articles about staying cool in the summertime. Audiences should be seeking solid information concerning topics that affect our world today, unethical business practices for instance. Whether we realize it or not, we are all consumers. We are all inherently connected to this system of exploitation and unfairness. Workers around the world are paid pennies per day to make products we use every day.

The news media, in this case, does not serve its audience well in informing them. A consumer is more likely to find important information on special websites such as http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/stop/ and http://www.organiccoupons.org/blog/2008/10/50-must-read-blogs-for-the-conscientious-organic-shopper/. These websites are dedicated to spreading awareness about the painful truth of the industrial world and sharing tips for conscientious shopping.

By: Hannah

Kent businesses

One possible way of reducing your ethical footprint is to shop local. Sometimes it can be difficult to decipher which of the local stores are providing the best or the most ethical products. Smaller businesses often purchase products that come from the United States, are fair trade products, or sometimes even come from your hometown. Local stores often have many products which were purchased under ethical conditions, but that does not mean they all do. One of the most important things you can do as a consumer is also very simple—ask!

We did just that; on a recent trip to the downtown Kent area a few students working on this project made that just our mission. We headed to some popular shops in the local Kent areas to ask questions about products and where they came from.

The Works

The Works is what you might describe as an eclectic shop of sorts. It is filled with everything from blankets to jewelry to bags and mugs to household decorations. With such an assortment of items the question of where things come from may seem overwhelming. When presented with such a variety of objects you can’t necessarily find out where everything comes from, but you can find out about individual items. If you have something particular in mind, a friendly sales associate can probably give you a few details on where that product came from. Off the top of her head, our sales associate was able to tell us where many of the items scattered around the front of the store came from.

• Garden ornaments (recycled) come from Kentucky
• Woven blankets from the East Coast
• Hanging decorations from Chicago
• Art from a local Akron gallery (Artist Don Drumm who graduated from Kent State)

On top of these items the sales associate informed us that many items they purchase are fair trade items, often coming from a catalog. The store also purchases items from ‘normal’ catalogs, but they aim to purchase unique pieces that are one-of-a-kind. People visit their store looking for unique, handmade items, and that’s exactly what they find. If you’re in the local Kent area, stop by and take a look, but don’t forget to ask where your purchase comes from!

Last Exit Books

Last Exit Books is a safe place to shop to begin with. Their products are books—but they aren’t new books. These books have been used and resold back to the shop. Buying reused products is one of the best things you can do. The money doesn’t go back to the big corporations which may have produced them;  reused book stores are also a part of the small shops you may find in your home town, stores you would probably want to support. On top of the good things buying used does for your ethical footprint, this shop goes beyond just this in order to be ethical.

• Reusing plastic bags (rather than throwing them away)
• Won’t throw away books—if a book won’t sell, he will GIVE it away before trashing it
• Never selling books at full price

If you are looking for a place to purchase books in the downtown Kent area, this is the place for you!

Empire

You can tell that Empire is an interesting place from the moment you walk in. The walls on the left are lined with products, on the right there is a table with jewelry and a display of handmade chocolates. The middle of the room is bare of products—instead it has seating. In the back there is a screen, behind it a comfortable looking area. Empire is best known around campus for its weekly Ladies’ Night, where you can get free henna. We stopped in to see if they had anything else to offer.

• The line called Mystique is created by a local woman, Susan Smith
• House of Bittersweets (in Stow) creates all of the chocolates in-house; it is Empire’s store
• Magic crystals are made from industrial waste

The crystals are one of the most interesting things we learned about. They are made from industrial waste. They smelt quartz and silica which would usually end up in a pit, buried in the earth. This helps cut out the amount of waste produced. The sales associate also told us about the jewelry that is sold at Empire, emphasizing that they are very careful about where their products come from. The water buffalo jewelry is hand carved from water buffalo in Vietnam. The buffalo die naturally, and every part of it is used in some form or another—the buffalo are the most important part of life. Although these products are not made locally, it is easy to trace where they come from and knowing their path is certainly a step in the direction of becoming a more ethical consumer.

Kent Natural Foods Co-Op

The Kent Natural Foods Co-Op is one of the places you would most expect to find ethically created and purchased products The goal of the Co-Op is to purchase as many local products as is possible. Of course, one can imagine that this tends to be seasonal.

• Local produce in Summer from Kent or Brimfield
• Eggs are purchased locally. The furthest the eggs come from is Clinton, OH.
• Hummus and tahini from a local middle eastern store in Akron, and is homemade.
• Herbs from Frontier (another co-op)
• Local soaps and skincare from Meadowlake Farms in Hiram
• Locally produced goat soap and goats’ milk cheese from Kent
• Teas from Dalton, OH who grow their own mint and produce their own tea
• People bring in items (some men had brought in mushrooms the day we were there)
• Maple syrup, honey, bee pollen and products, all made locally
• Cheese from Middlefield, OH, Fredricktown, OH, and from Amish country
• Milk from Wooster

One of the interesting things about the locally purchased milk was that it came in glass bottles. Consumers then recycled the bottles, bringing them in and getting fresh milk in them.

It is easy to see that there are many options for locally created products in local areas, especially in Kent. Simply walking into a store and asking questions or looking at tags can be an answer. Many clothing articles in Fig Leaf were made in the USA, and there are also other used stores in the downtown area, one which sells records, one, Rehab, which sells used clothing. Nearby is also a Goodwill and local restaurants and coffeehouses which aren’t chains. The idea of being an ethical consumer is one that can easily be put into action: it simply requires a little forethought and maybe a couple of questions.

By: Hailee Monk, Alison Darr, Monique Brunatti, Hannah Potes

Always Low Prices…But What About Cost?

We’ve all seen those commercials – the ones where a tantalizing burger is topped perfectly with crisp lettuce, the bun looks like it just was just baked, and everything is stacked up perfectly. Those are the commercials that make you crave that Big Mac. Yet when you finally pull away from the drive-thru window, the lettuce on your sandwich is wilted, the bun is squished into a pancake, and you have to restack everything before you dare to bite into it.

So what about those other commercials that we’ve all seen? A Wal-Mart associate smiles back at you from your television, beckoning you with the ultimate family image and low prices. Just like that Big Mac, you assume that what you see is what you’ll get at the supercenter, but when you wander through the doors past the Wal-Mart greeter, you wonder how all their employees seem to be in a perpetual bad mood.

The answer is simple, and it lies in the Wal-Mart 2010 Financial Report.

As of the 2010 fiscal year ending on January 31, the 8,416 Wal-Mart stores spread worldwide had racked up net sales just over $405 billion dollars – more than any other corporation. The company’s gross profit margin has been on the rise for at least the last five years, coming in at 24.8%, and net sales also continue to increase.

With astronomical numbers like these, you’d think Wal-Mart’s employees would be thrilled to come to work every day. But instead of enjoying the success of their employer, the majority of Wal-Mart’s associates face wages falling below the poverty line and less-than-adequate healthcare.

The average, full-time Wal-Mart employee, as of 2008, made only $20,774 per year, translating into almost $1,500 under the poverty level. At the opposite end of the scales, CEO Mike Duke pulled in over $12.2. $12.2 million dollars, that is. With increasing profits and record sales, the company could certainly afford to be paying their sales associates adequate wages (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

As if these wages aren’t bad enough, Wal-Mart mentions nothing of its overseas suppliers, which sometimes pay their sweatshop workers mere pennies a day to work in monotonous, unsafe conditions. Does the phrase “Made in China” sound all too familiar? The biggest supplier, not surprisingly, is China, which exported $18 billion in goods to Wal-Mart alone in 2004 (Wal-Mart’s China Inventory). Additionally, the Wal-Mart corporation is “legendary for quite straightforwardly telling [suppliers] what it will pay for their goods (The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know). But with the power it wields, the only thing worse than meeting the company’s demands might be not doing business with it in the first place.

Wal-Mart clearly stands at the top in ruthlessly dictating every aspect of business, right down to the rights of the corporation’s own workers. Countless allegations have been made by Wal-Mart’s employees that they were never compensated for work done on their breaks or other off-the-clock intervals (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

And it doesn’t stop there. On the Health and Wellness Fact Sheet, Wal-Mart’s Website boasts that their healthcare plan has some of the lowest premiums, ranging from $9 to $27 dollars per pay period. However, what they don’t tell you is that the annual out-of-pocket sum is over $5,000 before Wal-Mart begins to pay anything, and for families whose income is generated from the corporation alone, it comes close to one quarter of the earned income. Instead, Wal-Mart employees are turning, or even encouraged, to take advantage of government-funded programs like Medicaid. In 2009 alone, this cost taxpayers slightly less than $45 million dollars (Wake Up Wal-Mart). Should we be spending our hard-earned dollars just so that CEO Mike Duke can enjoy his profits? I think not.

So what does this all amount to? Unfriendly Wal-Mart greeters, cashiers, and sales associates. And who can blame them?

Wal-Mart’s empire revolves around low wages, worker exploitation, outsourcing, and inadequate healthcare so that they can bring you the lowest prices. Always. Ultimately, the decision is yours, but I, for one, refuse to be another enabler.

By Alyssa Parnaby

Top Ten Things You Can Do To Better Your Ethical Footprint

1. Support Local Businesses

If you find yourself in a Starbucks every morning to buy that morning cup of coffee, consider making a stop at a nearby local coffee shop or a family-owned restaurant for that caffeine part of your daily routine. By supporting these local businesses, you are ensuring that they will able to stay afloat despite the larger chains such as Starbucks.

2. Boycott
There are some obvious companies that are unethical in the way they make their products. If you simply stop shopping at these places you will be decreasing the demand for a product that was made outside of the United States.  By making it a priority to shop at places that are ethical, you are actually encouraging those companies to stay that way. This will make it easier for them to continue their ethical ways and not resort to exploitation of labor. You can also try shopping at thrift stores. Even though the clothes might have come from unethical companies originally, by buying it from secondhand stores you are helping decrease the demand.

3. Educate Yourself

Learn some facts before you go shopping by doing research on sites such Know More and Responsible Purchasing Network.

4. Question Your Clothing

Ask retailers about where their closing was made and what the conditions were like in those factories. Even if they don’t know the answer, if enough people question their closing, it will generate interest.

5. Recycle

Just because something breaks does not mean you have to throw it out. If something is not usable anymore, try to find a new niche for it before getting rid of it. Get creative!

6. Only Buy What You Need

Just because something is a great deal does not necessarily mean you need to buy it. Excessive purchases waste money and only damage your ethical footprint.

7. Buy American

American products are not always as inexpensive as foreign made products, but you can almost be sure that the product you are buying was made for a fair wage by unionized labor.

8. Write Letters

Writing letters to your state representatives about the exploitation of labor in popular companies can help inform the leaders of the nation about these important issues. If Congress gets enough letters, there is a good possibility that something will be changed. In addition, you can write letters directly to the unethical companies themselves and inform them you are aware of what is going on and that you will refuse to shop at their stores. With enough letters, you will get the leaders thinking and it could result in some decrease of exploitation of labor.

9. Make it Your Mission

An interesting and extreme option to help the situation is to do mission or social work in the places that have a high percentage of exploited laborers. By coming to these countries to help the laborers with their daily lives and help teach them new skills, they could get out of their situations.

10. Organize Protests
Protesting against unethical companies is also an idea that will get them informed about how the public feels about the way they make their goods and possibly convince them to start changing their ways.

By: Kati Oberle, Joe Cancelliere, and Agata Jagusztyn.

Unethical Companies: Coca-Cola

Coca-Cola is the largest soda provider in the world. Although it is widely consumed, many people are unaware of its labor violations.

The company has come under fire in the last few months for the way in which its workers are treated in Guatemala. The primary source of all the violence is the workers’ union. On February 25, 2010, Coke was sued by those Guatemalan laborers, who claim that they, “endured a campaign of violence” from the people who worked for the bottling or processing plants owned by Coke (Business Week).

This violence took place in Guatemala City. The perpetrators were employed by Incasa, which operated the bottling plant (Business Week). One of the plaintiffs is Jose Palacios, who faced violence after rejoining the workers’ union in 2004. Not only was he shot at and threatened at the bottling plant, but armed men broke into his home and threatened his family (Atlanta Business News). A few weeks after this invasion, in 2005, he was fired without a cause (North American Congress on Latin America).

Another plaintiff in the case is Jose Chavez, a prominent union leader. In 2008, after he participated in collective-bargaining activities in Guatemala City, returned home to his waiting family. Upon his arrival, Chavez’s son and nephew were brutally murdered in front of his eyes and his 16 year old daughter was gang-raped (North American Congress on Latin America). This violence was a response to his activity in the union.

Coca-Cola has faced legal action by workers before. In 2001, it was sued by union laborers in Colombia for violence against unionized workers. In a statement at Coke’s annual meeting of shareholders in 2005, the company claimed,“Our company and our bottling partners have been accused of complicity in the murder of union members and the ongoing intimidation of union members and of the suppression of union activity in Colombia. The allegations are not true” (PBS). The company paid more attention to the problem only after an international boycott began in 2003 (Business Week). Ultimately, Coca-Cola and its bottlers were found not guilty and cleared of any wrong-doing by Colombian courts (PBS). When the case was brought to the United States, Coca-Cola fought to have its name removed from the lawsuit and got its wish.

Although this has not been widely publicized, the labor violations of Coca-Cola are a prominent issue. Consumers of Coke, and other items produced by corporations with foggy labor practices, have to ask themselves how they can make a difference. Students at colleges across the United States, one being Rutgers Univeristy, have started boycotts of the soda. Rutgers students were successful in their activism, and the university has switched its contract to Pepsi (Killer Coke).

A new documentary was released in 2009 called “The Coca-Cola Case.” It was filmed by German Gutierezz and Carmen Garcia to highlight “the reality of union busting at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia, Guatemala and Turkey” (Green Muze). This movie reveals the practices of just one of the many multi-national corporations and upon watching it, the consumers will hopefully be inspired to better inform themselves about the products they consume (Green Muze). Here is a link to the trailer for this documentary: The Coca-Cola Case.

Coca-Cola is one of the most powerful corporations in the world. Its business practices have to be questioned by the consumer to ensure that labor violations are not being committed. The consumers can learn more about the issue at http://killercoke.org/.

Local Businesses vs. Big Businesses

It’s a common occurrence happening in many small towns all over America throughout the recent years. Big national and international businesses such as Target and Wal-Mart move into suburbs and smaller towns and steal away consumers from Mom-and-Pop stores. These smaller stores and Mom and Pop generally employ fewer than 100 employees compared to bigger businesses that employ anywhere over 500 employees. Wal-Mart currently has 2.1 million associates overall throughout the world, with 1.4 just in America. It is one of the top employers of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. (http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/FactSheets/?sourceid=diversityfacts&ref=http%3a%2f%2fwww.google.com%2fsearch%3fsourceid%3dnavclient%26aq%3d0h%26oq%3dhow%2b%26ie%3dUTF-8%26rlz%3d1T4ADFA_enUS343US344%26q%3dhow%2bmany%2bemployees%2bdoes%2bwalmart%2bhave#EmploymentandDiversity)  Of course, it would seem to many Americans that such businesses are a benefit to towns because of the amount of people they can employ. However, there are many more disadvantages when you lose local businesses that have been around for many years.

In many small cities all over America, family and small businesses ruled the downtowns in first half of the 20^th century. However with the introductions of supermarkets, malls, and big box stores, these businesses fell to the wayside. Big box stores are larger chain stores that establish physically large branches. The most popular examples are Wal-Mart and Target. With the loss of local stores, the town also loses the feelings of community and interaction with your neighbors. In big stores such as Walmart and supermarkets people behave very differently than they do in family and local businesses that have the “environment that slows the pace of life and encourages people to loiter and converse.” Whereas in big stores, there is less room for this type of interaction. People are more likely to just do their shopping and leave than stay for awhile and chat with their neighbors. Studies have shown that an environment with small local businesses lead to a livelier and more active community than one in a city monopolized by big businesses.  These citizens are more likely to join civic and social groups and even more likely to vote. (http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/local-economies-close-the-distance-between-us)

Another disadvantage of a big business monopolized town is how these businesses treat their workers, both the workers in the individual stores and the workers who produce their products.  The reason that many Americans prefer to shop at stores such as Walmart is because of how cheap they can buy all of products. However these stores are only able to provide their goods as cheap as they are by using unethical methods. According to Wake-Up Wal-Mart: The Real Wal-Mart Facts, most of this mistreatment is felt by the Chinese.  70% of the products on Wal-Mart’s shelves come from China. One such example is a factory in Guangzhou, China that made Christmas ornaments for Walmart. Reports stated that these workers were paid way below minimum wage and would work beyond legal limits such as 95 hour weeks and months without a day off. In addition, there were often dangerous situations at this factory such as children as young as 12 employed there and workers handling hazardous chemicals without protection therefore causing serious health risks. (http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/)

As for the associates in America, they are not safe from Wal-Mart’s mistreatment. The average Wal-Mart worker earns an annual income of $19,165 which is below the federal poverty line. It is nearly impossible for a Wal-Mart worker to support a family. For example, the national family budget for a family of four in 2005 was $39,984, more than double the yearly income of the Wal-Mart worker. The most surprising aspect is that Wal-Mart could afford to raise this yearly income up an additional $1,800 raise for each employee by raising prices of their products only one half of one penny per dollar. (http://wakeupwalmart.com/facts/)

Now compare all of this mistreatment to the local small businesses, which only employ few workers and therefore can afford to give higher wages. In addition, because there are so few employees, employers have a relationship with their workers and therefore provide a safe and ethical workplace for them. Reasons such as these are why America should return to the days of local family businesses and reject the businesses practices of businesses such as Wal-Mart.

Kati Oberle

Globalization and the “race to the bottom”

With increasing globalization comes the new economic phenomenon dubbed “race to the bottom.” This concept is a direct result of developing countries’ desires for direct foreign investment to boost their own GDP per capita (gross domestic product per person). According to Dr. Manfra, a professor at SUNY Queensborough, “The current boom in FDI flows… underscores the increasingly important role played by multinational corporations in both developed and developing countries” (Manfra).Another cause of this new trend is the passage of NAFTA and other Free Trade Agreements that “weakened the U.S. trade rules to protect workers” (USLEAP). Global trade rules enacted by the World Trade Organization do not protect the worker (USLEAP). Therefore, the “race to the bottom” primarily deals the exploitation of workers by multinational corporations.

A Multinational corporation, or MNC, can be defined as “any corporation that has its headquarters in one country and operates wholly or partially owned subsidiaries in other countries” (Britannica). There are many multinational corporations that exist today. A few examples of MNCs are: The Gap, Nike and Walmart.

The MNCs and their desire to achieve the highest profits have led to the “race to the bottom” in the third world. According to USLEAP, a group that campaigns for effective global trade rules to protect workers, “Globalization without rules to protect workers who try to improve their wages and working conditions creates a race to the bottom for workers in any industry” (USLEAP).

The corporations seek out countries that do not have strict labor regulations so that they are able to build their factories and quickly begin producing goods for almost nothing. Some countries even offer tax incentives to the MNCs for a certain amount of time to entice corporations to build factories. Therefore the tax rates paid by MNCs operating abroad varies greatly, depending on what country the corporation is operating in (All Business). With these tax breaks or exemptions, the corporation’s overhead costs are cut in that country and therefore it is more inclined to continue producing its product there for a higher profit.

After a certain amount of time, however, the MNC begins to look elsewhere for a place to produce. Countries compete and each government offers the MNC different advantages to operating there. With the arrival of an MNC comes more GDP for the country and therefore it is desirable in the various government’s eyes to host an MNC. Thus, a vicious cycle begins of lesser-developed-countries promising less regulation for MNCs and therefore worse conditions for workers. Although this “race to the bottom” is highly profitable for the multinational corporations, the workers are continually exploited. In addition to horrible working conditions and low wages, the workers also face unemployment when the MNC decides to take its business elsewhere.

One country in which this “race to the bottom” is especially rampant is China. According to Business Week, “American businesses continually demand lower prices from their Chinese suppliers, allowing American consumers to enjoy inexpensive clothes, sneakers, and electronics.” Politics also plays a role in this economic trend, as “Guarantees by multi-nationals that offshore suppliers are meeting widely accepted codes of conduct have been important to maintaining political support in the U.S. for growing trade ties with China” (Business Week).

Not only are many multinational companies that deal with clothing exploiting workers, but there have been violations surfacing in, “factories supplying everything from furniture and household appliances to electronics and computers” (Business Week). This expansion is an indicator of the increasing fraud dealing with the incorrect reporting of payroll for factory workers in China from 46% to 75% (Business Week).

It is said that this race to the bottom will ultimately lead to “lower wages, weak, poor countries yielding to unreasonable demands from the stronger corporations” (Manfra). To curb this trend and the resulting exploitation of workers, international trade agreements need to take a stronger stance on workers’ rights.

Codes of Conduct

One of the purposes of this blog it to try to help consumers make ethical purchasing decisions. By teaching others to ask questions about what they purchase, we might limit the amount of exploitation that goes in creating those products. However, finding out which companies leave the smallest ethical footprint is not an easy task. Corporations purposefully and consistently gloss over and distort not only the presentation of their goods, but also the way in which they display, or fail to display, the origins of said goods. For example, take a look at Nike’s Website.

Plastered everywhere are colorful shoes, clothing, accessories, all of the athletic products offered by Nike incorporated. Crafted with the sole purpose of increasing profits, these images try to influence the purchasing decisions of consumers. But where do these products come from? Does Nike ever hint to the conditions under which its shoes are made? I tried to answer these questions by navigating around and searching on Nike’s website. However, no matter where I looked, there seemed to be no information on how Nike obtains its items for sale. All the information on the site was related to advertising and consuming—any search inquiry lead to the most nearly matched name of a shoe. I could not locate anything that outlined Nike’s guidelines as a company, the code of conduct with which the company tries to operate.  So I tried an indirect approach: I used Google to search for Nike’s code of conduct. I found  only a two page PDF file from 2007 that, admittedly, did describe the company’s stance on issues such as Forced Labor, Child Labor, and Compensation. However, some questions still persisted in my mind. Why did I have to use a search engine to find Nike’s code of conduct–why is this code not somewhere on Nike’s main website? How many people actually see it? And finally, does Nike actually live up to the standards proposed by its own ethical code?

First, I looked to see how well Nike follows its own standards. I found an article describing recent findings on Nike. According to the article, ” … between 50 and 100 percent of Nike factories require more working hours than those permitted by the Code of Conduct. In 25 to 50 percent of factories, workers are required to work 7 days a week, and in the same percentage of factories, workers are still paid less than the local minimum wage”. Not very well it seems.

For my other questions, I again turned towards Google, this time Google trends. Because a Google search of this term seems to be the fastest way to find it, I tried to compare the search trends of Nike versus Nike code of conduct, to get a grasp of how many people take a concern over Nike’s supposed rules of conduct. Here are the results:

nike nike code of conduct

As you can see, the amount of searches for Nike code of conduct does not even compare to the number of searches for Nike. In fact, it is too small to be pictured. Obviously, the question of the ethics of Nike does not present itself very often in the minds of consumers, at least those who use Google. Try repeating this procedure–looking on company websites, then using a Google search–with other companies. Adidas, Puma, Under Armour—all seem to glance over the issue of origin and ethics on their websites.

All of this highlights an important aspect of the corporations that produce the things we wear, eat, and use daily. The very question of “who and where” in assembling the stuff that makes our society possible is concealed, hidden behind veils of flashy advertising, public figures, and humorous commercials.

Effects of Free Trade

NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was ratified in 1994, and it allows tariff-free trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The US joined the World Trade Organization the following year, which creates a similar pact with many other countries, most notably China, which joined the WTO in 2001. The United States’ participation in these agreements has had a negative impact not just on our country itself, but the other participants in free trade.

This act has had a particularly adverse effect on Mexico. While the country has drastically increased its exports, it’s only due to maquiladoras, those sweatshops on the US-Mexican border, which exist only to bring Americans cheap products, and exploit and dehumanize workers. Further damaging to Mexico’s economy was the America’s participation in the WTO which has caused many American factories to move from Mexico to Asian countries, such as China, which are even cheaper. According to Malkin’s New York Times article, Mexico now faces rising unemployment, lowered foreign investment, and depreciation of its currency. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/worldbusiness/24peso.html)

While the pact has had a negative impact on Mexico, due to all the many free trade agreements the US is part of, our country has suffered as well. Even though Barack Obama promised to negotiate NAFTA during his campaign, according to his trade advisor, the agreement doesn’t need to be revised or reopened. Regardless, millions of American jobs have been lost over the last decade and a half after these free trade agreements were ratified, only to be sent to Mexico or Asia, so that American products can be manufactured in sweatshops. According to James Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters union, “These so-called trade deals are killing American jobs. The aren’t about trade, they’re about helping countries move their factories to countries with cheaper labor.”

Though there are many effects of free trade, such as environmental problems (other countries don’t have as stringent environmental policies as the US), child labor, sweatshops, the one the most people can identify with is the loss of jobs. Nearly everyone in this country has lost a job, or has a family member that has lost their job due to outsourcing, which is the practice of corporations moving their factories to foreign countries because of the much lower production costs. An estimated 2.4 million American jobs were lost to China alone, during 2001-2008. (http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/counting_the_jobs_lost_to_china/) While throughout history trade tariffs have balanced trade and made it more expensive for companies to produce in foreign countries, thus giving them incentive to keep their factories in America, that is no longer the case. With free trade, there are no barriers to moving products from country to country, so more advanced countries with environmental restrictions and labor laws suffer, while countries like China and Mexico are exploited. Workers there, because of the lack of humanizing laws, can be forced to work for just a few cents an hour. Though most people seem to overlook free trade policies as the reason for these discrepancies, it’s a direct cause of the change in America’s economy, which most people agree has only been getting worse. (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173/)

By: Alison Darr

Google and China

One piece of news that has shocked the business world this year was the decision for Google to stop censoring its searches in the People’s Republic of China. In a changing business environment where morals are increasingly thrown out of the window in exchange for profits, this move is a breath of fresh air. But is this move just a public relations ploy, or a true stand on behalf of the human rights of the consumers?

China has long been notable for its policy of Internet censorship. As a result of what has been dubbed “The Great Firewall of China,” access to websites or images relating to the Tiananmen Square incidents or the Chinese spiritual movement Falun Gong has been restricted. As a one-party state, the Chinese government uses such measures to avoid stirring up the people to challenge their rule. As such, when foreign companies want to secure a share in the Chinese telecommunications market, they find they have to play by the rules of Chinese censorship. Despite this being contrary to the principle of freedom of speech that many these companies were built upon, many companies have sold their proverbial souls in order to compete for the fast emerging consumer market in China.

In 2006, Google began its own Chinese language search service that followed the censorship laws of the People’s Republic of China, at google.cn. Many people accused Google of selling out and violating it’s own supposed motto of “Don’t be evil” (This motto is actually a simplification of the sixth of ten corporate philosophies of Google: “You can make money without doing evil”). While Google did agree to censor its results, it could be applauded for its efforts as compared to rival Yahoo.  According to a 2006 article from Fortune magazine’s online service (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/15/news/international/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes), Google claimed it would not allow the Chinese government to use its user information by locating its servers outside of the nation. This data could be used to punish those who performed activities that the government considered subversive. In comparison, Yahoo has stated that it cannot promise the confidentiality of those who use its services from the officials. In certain instances, the corporations has turned over information about dissidents that led to them being incarcerated, though the company claimed to have no knowledge of the nature of the demands.

In January of 2010, Google announced that it would no longer censor its search engine according to the People’s Republic’s censorship laws. This was in response to an attempt by hackers to access e-mail information of noted supporters of human rights within China. This move was earth shattering within the business community. It is very rare for a corporation to give up a potential lucrative market out of principle. However, it must be noted that Google was not the market leader in China. According to the BBC, prior to Google pulling out, it held only around a third of the market share, while the Chinese search engine Baidu accounted for over 60% of the market. According to article from CNN, less than two percent of Google’s revenues come from China (http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/13/google.china.analysis/index.html), making this move have a fairly soft financial impact on the corporation. And one cannot ignore the good publicity this is awarding the company, which has arguably secured its spot as a golden child of the Internet in the eyes of many.

Despite this, Google’s action has turned the attention of the public to the lack of Internet within China. And rather than quietly withdrawing from the market, it has called upon other corporations to withdraw from the market and supported legislation in the U.S. Congress that would create an annual list of nations that restricted Internet freedom (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2010/tc20100324_284005.htm). In an interview, Google co-founder Sergey Brin asserted that all businesses should make it a “high priority” to publicize China’s poor human rights record. Some other Internet companies also followed Google’s lead by withdrawing from the industry. For instance, GoDaddy.com stated it would no longer sell domain names within China.

Whether or not the move was solely due to a commitment to their ethics, Google’s move has to commended. It seems that it is becoming increasingly rare for companies to put human rights as a high priority, much less pass up potential profits for them. While this move will likely do little to change human rights and Internet freedom in China, it has to be seen as a good first step. Hopefully other corporations can follow their lead and work to improve human rights in foreign nations and for their own workers. As Google is trying to show, “You can make money without doing evil.”

Gary Rose

About Sweatshops

A sweatshop is considered an employer who violates more than one state or federal labor law that governs minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, worker’s compensation or industry regulation. They prevail both domestically in the U.S. and internationally. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that more than 50% of sewing shops in the US are considered to be sweatshops. Most of the worker in sweatshops are usually young women and immigrant workers that are poor and thus have to work long hours. They earn as little as 1/2 to 1/4 of what they need to feed and shelter, including energy, clothing, education and transportation, for their families. (BusinessWeek) Some sweatshops don’t even allow workers to use the bathroom and force them to go through pregnancy tests and take birth control pills so that they don’t have to pay maternity leave costs.

The workers also have to tolerate verbal and physical abuse, since managers want them to complete their quotas each day. Women workers especially have to tolerate sexual abuse, which are common in sweatshops. Workplace injuries are also very common. These worker have to go thorough all of these just so they can earn their low wage. However, most of them don’t have any other option other than to work at these sweatshops, in these conditions. When these workers try to organize to defend their interests, their efforts are always suppressed by various forces, such as the police, managers, etc. As an example, workers in Mexico who are making jeans, have been forced to work all night shifts, and have been prevented from leaving the factory by armed security guards.

“I spend all day on my feet, working with hot vapor that usually burns my skin, and by the end of the day my arms and shoulders are in pain,” a Mexican worker told labor rights investigators. “We have to meet the quota of 1,000 pieces per day. That translates to more than a piece every minute. The quota is so high that we cannot even go to the bathroom or drink water or anything for the whole day.”

In the exhausting atmosphere of cost cutting by firms, work is given little value and thus workers are provided with little respect. Sweatshops can be viewed as production units than people who make them. (NYTimes) They suffer abuse and intimidation for their supervisors. Verbal abuse is the most common that these workers have to deal with. Workers also report that they have been harassed and persecuted by shop managers. These managers especially target those who they think aren’t working fast enough, and thus use shouting or yelling towards them. Physical abuse is also common. For example, workers at a factory in Mexico, who are making apparel for Nike have said that managers frequently hit and slap them, according to the Workers’ Rights Consortium. Most garment workers are young women who are in their teens and early twenties, who have left their homes so they can earn money to send back to their families. They have especially had to endure sexual abuse.

Nearly 75% of the retail price of a garment is profit for the retailer and manufacture. The garment industry in not the only scandalous industry for their involvement in sweatshops, but other industries include tires, auto parts, shoes, toys, computer parts, electronics, etc. Sweatshops exists in almost every country in the world, but are especially found in those where there are poor, desperate, exploitable workers. There seems to be a correlation between how poor a country is and how exploitable its people are, as they have no other option since they have to support their families. Also, to keep costs low, apparel shop owners normally pay workers based on how many units they make. The amount of money they get depends on the number of shirts, shoes, etc., they complete in their shift. (VeganPeace) Due to this, if they want to make enough money to support their families, then they have work hard and long, including longer then their shifts.

Exposure to toxic chemicals and workplace injuries also pose as a risk to apparel workers. In most of these sweatshop factories, these workers are not given masks to put over their noses and mouths, which expose them to tiny cloth fibers that could get stuck in their lungs. This is only one example of one type of industry and there are many more. In order to prevent these workers from stealing the items that they make, the factories sometimes have their doors and windows locked, creating a fire hazard.

By: Haren

Welcome to Ethical Footprint!

This is a blog about making moral purchasing decisions run by members of the Post-Colonial Literature colloquium at Kent State University. We appreciate you taking the time to look at our blog. We hope what you find will be interesting and informative to you!