Are Sweatshops Pretty?

 by Victoria de Bruijn

‘There’s nothing pretty about wage theft’ proclaimed the protest critiquing the PrettyLittleThing (PLT) runway show led by influencer Molly-Mae Hague in February 2022. An investigation in 2020, brought scandals with the release of poor working conditions within Boohoo’s - parent company of PLT - Leicester supply chain, which was promptly branded ‘one of the worst environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) scandals in modern UK history’ by one of their MPs. Boohoo’s shares immediately plummeted by 23%, £1.1 billion was wiped from its AIM value in London and its shares have dropped a further 70% in the last year. Although Boohoo's board are committed to rebuilding its reputation - heavily investing in new premises and supply chain issues - claiming it’s grossly inaccurate that workers are paid below minimum wage, scepticism still stands. 

As a developed, first world country with strong labour laws and governance requirements, English sweatshops should have been abolished long before the 21st Century. Personally, I believe that Boohoo has a lot of atoning to do before I would consider buying their brands again. That said, after reading ‘The Undercover Economist’ by Tim Harford, I learnt that the view amongst a few economists regarding sweatshops in developing countries is more debatable.

The argument against sweatshops: Alongside the basic horrors we have all become desensitised to - poor ventilation, inadequate workspace, insufficient lighting, dangerous temperatures, the breaking of wage and child labour laws, the ramifications of sweatshops are far deeper. Before becoming employed, women, who make up 80% of workers, are forced into pregnancy tests (something the law neglects to dampen) when frugal owners refuse to pay the 98-day maternity pay. This harassment even breaches the walls of their factories. Once forced into overtime - a regular occurrence, women are unable to have access to safe transport home; they are left vulnerable to violence and sexual harassment.

The argument for sweatshops: ‘The Undercover Economist’ argues that sweatshops are a symptom of extreme poverty and that, as workers attend them voluntarily, they must beat the previous alternatives, thereby an improvement for poverty-ridden countries. Harford mentions Paul Krugman as an economist who - rather uniquely - argues that ‘bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at all’; he suggests that globalisation has aided China’s progression. In the 1980’s, people were able to have the choice to move away from their arid farmland to cities. They were offered job security and a lifestyle that not only was guaranteed to not get worse but could get better. Long hours and poor conditions were preferred over scraping a living - factories brought a short-term utopia. Furthermore, in South America, children are begging for work in mines and factories beating their alternative of being trafficked for sex trade which again, as Harford argues, suggests that sweatshops are a step on the road to something better.

Overall, I feel that the support of sweatshops rides on comparison, yet we need to accelerate the process to something better. We need to tackle inequality - allowing everyone to have the opportunity to improve their standards of living, working without exploitation. We need to boycott and pressure companies who lack the basic empathy to even obey the laws. If they lose sales, surely they will be encouraged to notice the issue? Labour Behind the Label is a great organisation that works to improve conditions and empower workers in the global garment industry; they raise awareness, work with trade unions and lobby governments. The garment industry makes $3 trillion annually yet workers face poverty pay and a lack of compensation after tragedies (such as the Rana Plaza Collapse, 2013). There is nothing pretty about sweatshops, they need to be consigned to history.