Fast fashion has become a defining feature of the growing modern clothing industry. This shift has occurred due to a high demand for latest fashion paired with limited budgets, leading to the creation of cost-effective, mass-produced clothing. Brands like Zara, Shein, and so on have capitalised on this trend by delivering new, fashionable items to consumers at record speed.
But how do these brands manage to produce so much at low costs? The answer lies in outsourcing production to developing countries where cheap materials, labour and land are available. However, this trifecta of cheap factors of production creates a negative outcome for the human capital involved in this process: the creation of sweatshops. A controversial topic, the debate surrounding the existence of sweatshops is wide, however this blog focuses on its two opposing ends and analyses whether a middle ground can be established.
To understand this debate, it is important to define the term ‘sweatshop’. While there are many ways to define this term, for this blog we define a ‘sweatshop’ as a tiny manufacturing establishment employing workers under unfair and unhygienic conditions. These establishments are characterised by extremely low wages (often below subsistence), loose regulations, long working hours in unsanitary conditions and often the existence of child labour. For fast fashion brands, these factories seem to be the perfect tool to achieve their profitability goals. Accordingly, most sweatshops are established in developing countries with weak workers rights, like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.
The controversy surrounding this issue arises between those who believe in the positives of these factories, and those who cannot overlook the negatives. Much of the benefits from sweatshops is capitalised by consumers buying cheap clothing. However, there may be some benefits for the workers in the factories too, which proves to be a compelling argument in favour of sweatshops.
Supporters argue that working in a sweatshop is the best alternative for a person in developing countries and that workers, in fact, choose to work there. Their alternatives include subsistence agriculture—deemed one of the three most dangerous industries, prostitution, and extreme poverty. Besides, research shows that sweatshop wages, particularly in the apparel industries, are often higher than local alternatives and can exceed nation average incomes when adjusted for hours worked. In many cases, they could lift workers out of poverty and offer better opportunities compared to the next best employment option.
A popular point of argument arises on the use of child labour in factories, which many believe will cease upon the shutdown of sweatshops. Acting upon this belief, U.S senator Tom Harkin proposed banning imports from countries using child labour. A consequence of this was a Bangladeshi factory dismissed 50,000 workers leading to many displaced children turning to prostitution as an alternative, as reported by Oxfam. In other cases, factory work has been proven to provide women an escape from traditional gender roles and has played an important role in delaying marriage.Thus for a person living in comfort working in a sweatshop might be a terrible outcome but for those actually working there it is their best option.
Still, sweatshops are filled with vices. Both the sweatshop worker and the corporations may benefit but it doesn’t erase the exploitation the workers face. While they choose to work in the factory, it can still be morally wrong if they take unfair advantage of the worker’s poverty. This is termed as beneficent exploitation, where workers benefit but corporations unfairly take a large share of the profits. Further, it is impossible to overlook the unsafe, unsanitary and uncongenial working conditions that the employees have to work in, often at the risk of physical harm. The tragic Rana Plaza collapse in Bangladesh in 2013, which claimed 1,134 lives is the horrific reminder of the faulty standards in these factories. Alarmingly, cracks in the building walls had been discovered just the day before, yet these warnings were ignored and workers were pressured to work the next day. This was a perfectly preventable disaster yet limited choice and coercion under the guise of better opportunities cost many a future.
So, the moral problem here is not whether the workers benefits, but whether the benefits are distributed fairly. When the affirmative stance says that the workers have a choice, it isn't necessarily a good and bad choice that they choose from, rather the least bad option. The defence that ‘workers choose the job’ overlooks the fact that these choices are made under severe economic constraint, limiting real autonomy. Parents do not necessarily want their children to work in factories, but they simply don't have a choice. As philosopher Michael Kates points out, sometimes respecting workers’ autonomy means introducing regulations—minimum wages, safety standards, limited working hours—that allow them to make a meaningful choice without the fear of losing their livelihood due to collective action problems.
In order to find a middle ground, it is important to recognise both the benefits and harms of sweatshops. Completely banning them takes away the best available option for many of the workers, pushing them toward worse alternatives. However, leaving them unregulated perpetuates a cycle of exploitation. Legal solutions such as international labour standards, unionisation and legally enforced safety standards should be put into place. For instance, the EU has adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directives which requires companies to identify, address and prevent human rights and environmental risks across their supply chains and operations. Further, buying more items made in sweatshops might increase the demand for these goods leading to a domino effect of rise in worker demand and wages. In short, a combination of standard economic solutions paired with a moral lens could make sweatshops a truly ethical and beneficial place to work.
This debate is not just a simple choice between continual and unrecognised exploitation and total abolition. It is about finding a balanced approach that preserves the economic lifeline that sweatshops offer to consumers globally while also safeguarding the human lifeline involved in making fashion accessible. By addressing economic realities and moral concerns in tandem, it is possible to shift to a more ethical form of global production which focuses on providing affordable clothing without the thread of injustice.
Ananya Gaunekar
