Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 689-727, October 2007
40 Pages Posted: 31 May 2006 Last revised: 25 Jul 2010
This paper argues that a sweatshop worker's choice to accept the conditions of his or her employment is morally significant, both as an exercise of autonomy and as an expression of preference. This fact establishes a moral claim against interference in the conditions of sweatshop labor by third parties such as governments or consumer boycott groups. It should also lead us to doubt those who call for MNEs to voluntarily improve working conditions, at least when their arguments are based on the claim that workers have a moral right to such improvement. These conclusions are defended against three objections: 1) that sweatshop workers' consent to the conditions of their labor is not fully voluntary, 2) that sweatshops' offer of additional labor options is part of an overall package that actually harms workers, 3) that even if sweatshop labor benefits workers, it is nevertheless wrongfully exploitative.
Keywords: Sweatshops, exploitation, choice, consent, markets, coercion, poverty, economics, philosophy
JEL Classification: A11, A12, A13, D63, F01, F23, I30, I31, J30
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Zwolinski, Matt, Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 689-727, October 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=901689