The Sweatshop Business in India - Research Paper Example

? The Hidden Truth behind Sweatshop Business in India The Hidden Truth behind Sweatshop Business in India Today, the increasing trendof globalization has provided countless opportunities for third-world countries, while also leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by large corporations. Globalization has also allowed big brands to function as a licensing business and to outsource their production and warehousing to lower-cost nations (Ross 2010). India, being a third-world country and having the second largest population in the world is bound to have issues relating to worker’s exploitation by western brands. Gap which is a successful and high street brand which has sweatshop factories operating in India depicts the hidden truth and true prevailing conditions of the sweatshop business in India. Globalization has allowed multinational corporations to lower their costs by outsourcing as many functions as possible to low-wage countries (Ross 2010). It has also allowed these low-cost countries which are mostly located in Asia to attract these corporations for investment and employment. As long as these corporations bring in the required investment and provide for employment, the governments of these nations are willing to amend their laws for the benefit of these companies. One of the main reasons that these brands select a particular country for outsourcing is either because of favorable labor laws or an inefficient system for imposing these labor laws. In the case of China, the labor law bans trade unions and strikes which favor many companies. On the other hand, in the case of India an inefficient system and corrupt law enforcement favors corporations to shift their production to benefit from child labor, low wages and exploitation of working conditions (Winston 2005, Ross 2010). The Indian government cannot afford to interfere with the operations of these multinational apparel brands since there is a chance that these companies may move their production to other competitive countries, like China, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Vietnam, where the laws and regulations are lax (Ross 2010). According to an estimate provided by United Nations, India employs around 55 million children, under the age of 14 years, and producing around 20% of India’s GDP (Foster 2007). India, along with Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, is part of a low-wage, Big Asia bloc exporters of apparels to the United States and Europe. These countries account for 55 percent of the U.S. import market, which amounts to 95 percent of the U.S. apparel market (Ross 2010). The increasing trend of customers demanding low-cost, high-quality apparel has forced large apparel brands to outsource their production facilities to low-cost countries to stay competitive in terms of pricing, without compromising on profits. Companies such as Gap, Nike, Marks & Spencer, Primark, Next, Mothercare and Wal-Mart have been found involved in the exploitation of the workforce (Mail Online 2007, Winston 2005, Chamberlain 2010). The management of these large brands lobbies with powerful economic and political forces of their nations to promote imports from lower-cost countries by lifting import quotas on apparel (Winston 2005). Large brands like Gap have been found exploiting the Indian workforce more than once. The first case of exploitation was discovered in 2007 after which Gap had promised to put in extra effort to rid their factories of forced labor and exploitation. In 2010, however, Gap was again found involved in child-labor and exploitation activities in India (Foster 2007, Chamberlain 2010). Exploitation of workforce is only possible when both parties in an employment contract agree to the wage levels and working conditions. It is important to appreciate that poverty in India is widespread. According to a study, almost half of all children in India are malnourished (Foster 2007). This extreme poverty forces parents, living in poor localities, to either sell their children to contractors for work, in return for a better life and livelihood, or to compel their children to work at a factory. In either case, parents are given fake promises about how their children will make it big in the cities. In reality, the wages and conditions of these factories are pathetic. In the case of Gap, the children were not paid any wages for the first year of their work, since they were ‘trainees’ (Foster 2007). They, however, continued to work in these factories for food only. Furthermore, the children were forced to sit on the floor and work. Any child who was found crying or not working properly was subject to harsh punishments (Associated Press 2007). Exploitation by Gap is not limited to child labor. The working conditions in the factories of such large brands are well below the minimum level set by the international labor standards. The workers are locked on the factory floor which has no ventilation, no fire safety and no first-aid kits. Anyone found speaking is beaten and insulted whether male or female (Winston 2005). Females are subject to an additional torture of sexual harassment by their supervisors (Mail Online 2007). Workers are also forced to work up to 16 hours a day which includes around 8 hours of overtime without being paid the legal rate for overtime. Workers cannot complain since they can be fired (Chamberlain 2010). Furthermore, the workers do not have any choice but to work in these conditions since exploitation has become a common practice in India. Gap and all other brands do not outsource directly to these nations. There is a complex web of suppliers and sub-contractors which allows Gap to be shielded away from the conditions at the workplace. Gap employs a supplier who would outsource the order to various contractors who would give the final work to numerous sub-contractors. Once an exploitation case is identified, Gap would ask its supplier to fire that particular sub-contractor to prove to their customers that they are socially responsible. They would, however, find another sub-contractor who would be doing the same thing (Winston 2005, Associated Press 2007). After the incident in India Gap confirmed that it had fired a total of 159 suppliers for not complying with Gap guidelines. Through this action they would be portrayed as responsible corporations working for the eradication of child labor and exploitation. Gap also claims that it has hired international inspectors to ensure that contractors follow the guidelines set by the company. Winston (2005), in his paper, has cautioned that these large brands preselect a few better contractors that are compliant to carry out their monitoring and inspection. The reports published by these brands are biased towards a few compliant contractors and do not depict the complete picture. Gap, and other major high street brands, is known for spending huge amounts of money on charitable activities. They are also known for claiming to fire non-compliant contractors and forcing all suppliers to follow strict guidelines set by the company. While these guidelines help in slightly improving the working conditions and lessening the exploitation, they rarely increase the wage levels or overtime rates. These activities are not of much help for the workers in the apparel industry. They mainly serve as public relations exercises for these large brands which are designed to deflect criticism from consumers and NGOs in US and Europe (Winston 2005). Gap or any other major brand cannot be expected to improve the conditions in the factories in India. This is because improving working environment, increasing wages and lowering working hours would translate into higher costs and lower profit margins. The reason that Gap is able to exploit the workforce in India and other third-world countries is that its customers are not socially responsible. Customers do not question Gap on its operations and conditions. Customers should be sophisticated enough to look deeper before spending their money on a particular brand. The only way such high-street brands can change is through pressure applied by their customers (McDougall 2007). If only a small percentage of customers become socially responsible and start boycotting these irresponsible brands, they would automatically ensure that all guidelines are met in every factory around the globe. Many multinational companies from around the world are using globalization to justify the shift of factories from more developed to less developed countries. These companies, however, are not benefitting from low-cost alone. Due to the inefficient governments in many of these less developed countries the lax regulations permits these brands to exploit the workforce and reduce their costs of operations. These brands use cosmetic activities to portray their brands as being socially responsible whereas actually they are equally responsible for all the wrong-doings as their contractors are. Customers need to understand that every dollar that is being reduced from a product results in more inhumane working conditions for the people of these third-world countries. Unless the customers of brands like Gap use their power to influence these companies, these brands will keep on exploiting the poor nations for their own profits. References The Associated Press. (2007, October 28). “Children found making gap clothes at sweatshop in India.” CBC News. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2007/10/28/gap-sweatshop.html Chamberlain, G. (2010, August 8). “Gap, Next and M&S in new sweatshop scandal.” The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops Foster, P. (2007, October 29). “Gap sweatshop children' saved in India raid.” The Telegraph. Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1567849/Gap-sweatshop-children-saved-in-India-raid.html Mail Online. (2007, September 03). “The high street sweatshops: Primark and M&S factories in India 'pay 13p an hour”. Daily Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-479571/The-High-Street-sweatshops-Primark-M-S-factories-India-pay-13p-hour.html McDougall, D. (2007, October 27). “Indian slave children found making low-cost clothes destined for gap.” The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/28/ethicalbusiness.retail Ross, R. J. S. (2010). “The rag trade as the canary in the coal mine - The global sweatshop, 1980-2010.” New Labour Forum, 20(1), 42-49. DOI: 10.4179/NLF.201.0000007 Winston, M. E. (2005). “Monitoring sweatshops: Workers, consumers, and the global apparel industry.” Human Rights Quarterly, 27(3), 1124-1128. DOI: 10.1353/hrq.2005.0046 Read More