Introduction
Everything we buy, whether that be a new iPhone, a pair of jeans from Primark or a bag of bananas from Tesco, is made accessible to us because factory and farm workers on the other side of the world are exploited. But who is responsible for this?
In this article, I will reflect on the geographies of the global economy and demands of supply-chain capitalism to explore where this responsibility resides. I will first provide a literature review which introduces key geographical concepts such as globalisation and global production networks, along with an introduction to the discourses surrounding exploitation and corporate social responsibility. This article uses case studies from around the world, such as, Foxconn in China and the African Horticultural Industry, to argue that a variety of agents within the global economy are responsible for labour exploitation within the Global South. This article examines responsibility at various scales from the international, right down to the individual level. I argue that the exploitation of workers in the developing world is something that we should all take accountability for and try to combat.
Economic Globalisation and Global Production Networks
Cook and Crang (2016:289) define globalisation in economic terms as, ‘the integration across national boundaries of markets, finance, technologies and nation-states.’ Coe (2016: 237) notes that due to economic globalisation, there has been a ‘dramatic increase in the number of transnational corporations (TNCs), organising their spatial divisions of labour at the international scale.’
As a result, we now have what Coe (2009, cited in Olds, 2014: 361) calls, ‘global production networks’ (GPNs) which refers to the ‘the globally organised nexus of interconnected functions and operations of firms and non-firm institutions through which goods and services are produced, distributed and consumed’ (ibid). In this article, I will analyse the complex nature of these GPNs to deduce where responsibility resides for the exploitation of workers in the developing world.
Exploitation and Shared Responsibility
Synder (2010:188) defines exploitation in two ways; ‘exploitation as unfairness’ and ‘exploitation as the mere use of others.’ Exploitation as unfairness refers to the ‘the unfair and disproportionally small wages that workers receive, compared to the profit achieved by their employers’ (Synder, 2010:196). Exploitation as the mere use of others, refers to how employers treat their workers with a lack of respect and as a means to an end, that end being profits. When we hear about labour exploitation, we often look for one particular entity to blame.
However, Young (2006:112) believes that rather than using a ‘liability model’ of responsibility which places all the blame on one agent, we should use a ‘social connection model’ of responsibility. This recognises that ‘all those who contribute […] to the structural processes producing injustice share responsibility for such injustice’ (Young, 2006 :115). In this article, I will demonstrate how we all share responsibility for labour exploitation, because through our actions, we are all a part of the process that causes it.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Crane and Matten (2004:43), define corporate social responsibility (CSR) as ‘the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic expectations placed on an organisation by society.’ Companies are expected to pay their workers’ wages, sell their products at a fair price, obey the law, and protect the well-being of their employees.
However, Hoque and Faruq (2009:122) argue that CSR is ‘defined from an American and European perspective, which may not be applicable in the context of the developing world’. We will explore this argument in further detail later in this article. I will also demonstrate that whilst it is important for TNCs to fulfil CSR, this does not mean that TNCs are the only agents responsible for exploitation.
Responsibility at the International Level
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank hold a degree of responsibility for the exploitation of workers within GPNs. In the 1970s and 80s, many countries in the Global South were unable to pay back their national debt and in response, the IMF and World Bank started offering funding to these countries, but only if they agreed to Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) that support neo-liberalism (Willis, 2014).
Most of these countries agreed to the SAPs and as a result, TNCs can now outsource production and labour from around the world, which has led to poor working conditions and a downward pressure on wages, commonly known as ‘the global race to the bottom’ (Sparke, 2009:516). Therefore, the IMF and World Bank are responsible for the exploitative conditions within GPNs as their policies have played a role in causing it.
However, this does not diminish the TNCs’ responsibility for the exploitation of workers in the developing world. A farmer from the Western Cape in South Africa, who supplies fruit to Tesco has said, ‘a buyer from Tesco picks up the phone and says x is offering me apples for £1 a carton cheaper; meet him or I take you out of the programme’ (Wjeratna, 2005: 3). This is an example of what Maye (2016: 307) referred to as a ‘a buyer-driven commodity chain’ in which there is a high amount of competition amongst suppliers. As a result, buyers then have the upper hand and can dictate the price at which goods are sold to them. Therefore, suppliers in South Africa must sell their goods to Tesco at the lowest price possible if they wish to stay in business. Consequently, these suppliers have started to rely on less costly and more flexible seasonal employment, keeping farmworkers in South Africa, ‘trapped on the edge of poverty with no job security, written contracts, or work benefits’ (Wjeratna, 2005:3). Therefore, the pressure that TNCs put on their suppliers, makes them responsible for the exploitative conditions under which many of the goods we consume are produced.
Furthermore, one would assume that TNCs enforcing ethical standards on their suppliers would help resolve the issue of exploitation within GPNs. This is not the case. According to Freidburg (2003), farms in Zambia and Zimbabwe that supply fruit to Tesco must have crèches for their employees' children. However, Tesco expect the suppliers to pay for these crèches themselves, which they cannot afford, especially when Tesco are demanding low prices for their produce. Therefore, to pay for the crèches (which most of the workers do not even use) suppliers must make cuts elsewhere, for example, through their employees' wages. This proves that CSR is not always feasible for small capital-constrained companies in the developing world. We can see that the pressure that have TNCs have put on suppliers to adhere to this concept, has been counterproductive. Therefore, TNCs are undoubtedly responsible for labour exploitation, because of the low prices and unrealistic standards they enforce on their suppliers.
The Role of the State: the UK and Bangladeshi Governments
Governments have a responsibility to protect the rights of workers and the power to make a difference. Wjeratna (2005) argues that farmworkers in South Africa continue to be exploited because the UK Government does not enforce strict enough laws on their TNCs. Company directors in the UK are only legally obliged to provide financial returns to their shareholders, which, according to Wjeratna (2005:6) allows them to make decisions, ‘that increase shareholder returns but […] harm the interests of employees.’ If Tesco were legally obliged to ensure that their actions were not having detrimental effects on their suppliers’ employees, this would help mitigate the exploitation of farmworkers in South Africa. Therefore, although it may initially seem reasonable to argue that the UK government has nothing to do with the exploitation of workers in a foreign country, when we look at the bigger picture and all the processes that lead to this exploitation, we can see that the UK government are partly responsible for this issue and should act accordingly.
Governments belonging to LEDCs, such as Bangladesh tend not to implement strict labour laws and standards within the clothing industry as they fear this will increase production costs and deter their buyers (Hoque and Faruq, 2009). Therefore, these governments are guilty of prioritising profits over the well-being of their workforce. However, we also need to recognise that LEDCs like Bangladesh rely on export-led economic growth and that their companies are trying to survive in a highly competitive global market that TNCs, the IMF and World Bank have created. Therefore, although the governments of developing countries are partly responsible for the issue of labour exploitation within GPNs, this does not mean that other agents within the global economy are not responsible as well. The global race to the bottom is something that a variety of entities should take accountability for as they all contribute to the problem in their own distinct ways.
The Wrongdoings of Suppliers: Foxconn in China
Although suppliers do not have the same level of power that TNCs have within the global economy, they are not entirely innocent either, especially the Longhua Foxconn Factory in China, which manufactures iPhones for Apple. In 2010, abuse from managers as well as long-working hours, unjust fines and unkept promises of benefits, drove fourteen Longhua Foxconn factory workers to suicide (Merchant, 2018).
Krugman (1997) argues that although the growth of manufacturing in developing countries comes with a lot of injustice, it provides employment and facilitates economic growth, pulling countries out of absolute poverty. For example, the manufacturing sector provided 99 million people in China with employment in 2009 and the country now has the second largest economy in the world. (Merchant, 2018). However, this success does not excuse the abuse and exploitation of factory workers.
But we also cannot forget that Apple know exactly what is happening in the Foxconn factories and choose to do nothing about it. Therefore, they are just as responsible for the exploitation of workers as Foxconn are. The Chinese government also have the power to intervene and put an end to this exploitation, yet they choose to prioritise economic growth over social sustainability. This case study reinforces my argument that various agents within the global economy are responsible for labour exploitation, as opposed to one singular entity.
The Role of Consumers within Fast-Fashion and Fairtrade
Garment factory workers in Cambodia work ten hours a day, Monday to Saturday, with only one day off every fortnight (Franceschini, 2018) for less than 200 USD per month (Castro, 2022). We, as consumers are partly responsible for that. In Western Society, we are constantly buying new clothes throughout the year, not because we need them, but because we want to be trendy and fashionable. Consequently, fast-fashion brands such as, Primark put pressure on their suppliers in Cambodia to produce large volumes of clothes in a short space of time for an unfair price, leading to the exploitation of factory workers.
Many middle and upper-class consumers in the developed world tend to shop from fast-fashion brands even though they could afford to buy more expensive, sustainable clothing. Furthermore, only 2% of UK consumers would pay extra for fair trade products, that guarantee suppliers a fair price for their produce (Freidburg, 2003). Therefore, privileged consumers who are not willing to change their behaviour and sacrifice some of their disposable incomes to improve the lives of workers in the Global South, are partly responsible for labour exploitation.
Conclusion
When we initially think about the exploitation of workers in the developing world, we look for one singular agent to blame. However, each one of us, whether we are a Member of Parliament, the CEO of Apple, manager of a Foxconn factory or simply a shopper within a Tesco aisle, share responsibility for this deep embedded issue. This article holds various actors within the global economy accountable and opens debates about what each one of us can do to combat the exploitative conditions under which many of the goods we consume are produced.
Reference List
Castro, M. G. (2022) 2023 Update: Average Salaries in Cambodia Available at: https://ips-cambodia.com/cambodia-average-salaries-2022/ (Accessed: 18/2/2023).
Coe, N. (2016) ‘Consumption and its geographies’ in Daniels, P et al (eds.) An introduction to Human Geography, 5th Edn (Harlow: Pearson): 321-342.
Cook, I. and Crang, P. (2016) ‘The geographies of global production networks’ in Daniels, P et al (eds.) An Introduction to Human Geography, 5th Edn (Harlow: Pearson): 379-396.
Crane, A. and Matten, M. (2004) Business Ethics: A European Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Franceschini, I. (2018) ‘Outsourcing Exploitation: Chinese and Cambodian Garment Workers Compared’ in Franceschini, I and Loubere, N. (eds.) Gilded Age (ANU Press): 84-89.
Freidburg, S. (2003) ‘Cleaning up down South: supermarkets, ethical trade and African horticulture’ Social and Cultural Geography 4 (1): 27-43.
Hoque, S. F. and Faruq, A. (2009) ‘Exploitation of labour in Bangladeshi ready-made garment sector: who is responsible?’ in Fukukawa, K. (ed.) Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia, 1st Edn (London: Routledge): 121-138.
Krugman, P. (1997) In Praise of Cheap Labour Available at: https://slate.com/business/1997/03/in-praise-of-cheap-labor.html (Accessed: 18/2/2023).
Maye, D. (2016) ‘Geographies of food production’ in in Daniels, P et al (eds.) An Introduction to Human Geography, 5th Edn (Harlow: Pearson): 302-319.
Merchant, B. Life, and death in Apple’s forbidden city Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract (Accessed: 18/2/2023).
Olds, K. (2014) ‘Spaces of Production’ in Cloke, P et al. (eds.) Introducing Human Geographies, 3rd Edn (London: Routledge): 353-367.
Sparke, M. (2009) ‘Outsourcing’ in Gregory, D et al (eds.) The Dictionary of Human Geography, 5th Edn (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell):515-516.
Synder, J. (2010) ‘Exploitation and Sweatshop labour: Perspectives and issues’ Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (2): 187-213.
Willis, K. (2014) ‘Theories of Development’ in in Cloke, P et al. (eds.) Introducing Human Geographies, 3rd Edn (London: Routledge):297-311.
Wjeratna, A. (2005) Rotten Fruit: Tesco profits as women pay a high price Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328335188_Rotten_Fruit_Tesco_Profit_as_Women_Pay_a_High_Price (Accessed: 18/2/2023).
Young, I. M. (2006) ‘Responsibility and Global Justice: A social connection model’ Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1): 102-130.
