The paper "Business Society Policy Triangle - GAP" is a perfect example of a business case study. Disagreements relating to global labor practices are at the center of modern debates with regards to globalization. Critics advocate for regulations limiting the use of sweatshop labor. On the other hand, economists argue that the imposition of such regulations will have an adverse impact on the poor nations of the world. Nevertheless, enough attention has not been given to corporations that global labor practices such as sweatshops. This paper aims at establishing why companies continue to use sweatshops and the impacts of this on society and business.
Next, the paper discusses a case study on the use of sweatshops and how this has had an impact on the business, society, and government sectors. Introduction Sweatshop refers to a working environment where workers are exposed to unhealthy conditions which are considered dangerous or difficult by many individuals of developed nations, normally in a situation where the employees have fewer avenues to address their problems. The unhealthy conditions may include hazardous situations, abuse from employers, extreme temperatures, or exposure to dangerous materials.
Sweatshop employers regularly work for long hours with very little pay, irrespective of any labor laws that advocate for minimum wage or overtime pay. Even though sweatshops are often linked to poor, developing nations, they can exist in any country. They have existed in numerous different cultures and countries, including Europe and the United States. In the meantime, economists and advocates of sweatshops such as Johan Norberg, Nicholas Kristof, and Paul Krugman, argue that individuals opt to work in sweatshops as they offer better working conditions and higher wages as compared to manual farm labor.
They also propose that sweatshops are the beginning of economic and technological advancement and are a process of turning a poor country into a rich one. Economists argue from a trade-off perspective whereby they ask whether it is better to be unemployed or be employed in unhealthy conditions.
Aisner, J 2002, ‘Competing in the global economy; an interview with Michael E. Porter’ Leading research, Vol. 2, no. 4. Viewed May 24, 2010
Arnold, D 2003, ‘Exploitation and the sweatshop quandary,’ Business ethics quarterly, Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 16-20.
Arnold, D & Hartman, L 2003, ‘Moral imagination and the future of sweatshops, Business and society review, vol. 108, no.4, pp. 426-458.
Bonacich, E & Appelbaum, R 2000, Behind the label; inequality in Los Angeles apparel industry. University of California press, Berkeley.
Cowe, R 2002, Developing value; the business case for sustainability in emerging markets, Sustainability, London.
Hartman, L, Wokutch, R & Arnold, D 2003, Rising above sweatshops; innovative management approaches to global labor practices, Praeger, Westport, CT.
Liza, F 2002, Students against sweatshops. Verso, New York.
Lombardi, R & Wilson, M 2001, ‘Globalization and its discontents; the arrival of triple-bottom-line reporting,’ Ivey business journal, pp. 70-71.
Maskus, K & Martin, W 2001, ‘The economics of core labor standards; implications for Global Trade Policy’ Review of international economics, Vol. 9, pp 318-326.
Moran, H 2002, Beyond sweatshops; foreign direct investment and globalization in developing countries, Brookings institution press, Washington, D.C.
Norman, B & Bowie, E 2003, ‘Sweatshops and respect for persons’ Business ethics quarterly, Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 222-240.
Pollin, R, Burns, J & Heintz, J 2004, ‘Global apparel production and sweatshop labor; can raising retails prices finance living wages?’ Cambridge journal of economics, pp. 154-169.
Rogers, J & Cohen, J 2001, ‘Can we put an end to sweatshops?’ Beacon press, Boston, MA.
Rosen, I 2002, Making sweatshops; the globalization of the U.S. apparel industry. University of California press, Berkeley.
WuDunn, S, & Kristol, D 2000, ‘Two cheers for sweatshops,’ The New York times magazine.
Wilson, A 2001, ‘Special report; business and human rights’ corporate social responsibility magazine, vol. 2, no.1, pp. 8.