The American Dream often goes hand-in-hand with owning stuff. We are so infatuated with new cars, new phones, and new clothes that we work our whole lives in order to afford them. Like it or not, we live in a materialistic society with an economy built on capitalism. The consumer class consists of only 20% of the world’s population, yet we use more than 86% of the planet’s resources (McGregor 16). A myriad of products sold in the U.S. are made by children and adults in developing countries who are underpaid, overworked, and often abused. When we hear stories of sweatshop conditions and child-labor, we cannot fathom how companies could allow this to happen. The truth is, we allow this to happen. Company executives and low-cost economies play a role in the system that treats people unfairly, but we, the consumer, are the most important and influential factor. The fashion industry is infamous for encouraging the abuse and exploitation of workers, but without consumers, there is no industry. Through awareness and boycotting, consumers have the ability to influence and change industry standards in order to improve the lives of sweatshop workers. 

In order to understand what we can do to change the world, we must analyze how we operate in it. This faces us with the question: why do we consume? We buy products in order to improve ourselves and the quality of our lives. Advertisers convince us that certain products will make us happier, healthier, loved, and desired. We develop a sense of richness when purchasing new clothes or make-up. This feeling of richness and joy is especially fleeting in the fashion industry, with ever-changing styles mandating that companies create something new every week of the year. “Fast Fashion,” as it is known, is the second largest industry in the world (The True Cost). With the United States being the number one importer of clothes, we are consuming a lot of them, and at cheap prices (The True Cost). This is all good news for the consumer. We can purchase clothes for cheap, wear them until we get tired of them and then buy more. Comparing Nike sneakers or Marc Jacobs purses with our friends brings us a sense of happiness, status, and community. Shopping for new clothes feels like a breath of fresh air; but for every breath of fresh air we take, a sweatshop worker breathes in harmful toxins as they slave over making our products. 

According to the Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, consumption is often thought of as “a simple, static, individual action that is disconnected from anything and anyone except [the shopper]” (McGregor 18). We fail to see how our shopping decisions will affect anyone outside our immediate circle. Companies rely on our ignorance and enforce a literal “out of sight, out of mind” business model.  In the 1960s, 95% of clothes were made in the United States (The Real Cost). Today that statistic has almost flipped completely, as only 3% of clothes are made in America and the other 97% are outsourced to other countries (The Real Cost). This “globalized production” is said to make our clothes more affordable by outsourcing labor to low-cost economies. When companies can pay less for production, they can charge less to consumers. Instead, they keep the prices artificially high, put them on “sale” and convince the consumer they are saving money. This allows companies to purchase cheap material and labor, sell products for high prices, and gain enormous profits. It does not take an economist to see that consumers and workers are getting ripped off. This iniquitous act is designed only to increase profits. Factories are set up in impoverished countries where there are no wage or safety regulations. Children work 18 hour work days, sometimes for 15 cents an hour (McGregor 17). The documentary The Real Cost shows footage of Rana Plaza, a factory in Bangladesh that collapsed and killed over 1000 people who were forced to work even after reporting signs of cracks in the building. Many oppressed workers in Bangladesh, India, and Haiti give firsthand accounts of the horrifying conditions of the factories. One woman worked for a salary of $10 a month, breathing toxic chemicals in a building with no ventilation or A/C. She tried to form a union with other workers and compiled a list of demands for the safety of the workplace. When they gave this list to management, they were locked in a room and beaten by their employers (The Real Cost). The very products we buy can be traced back to factories just like this. We are supporting sweatshops if we choose not to act against them. But despite the vast array of human rights violations and a constellation of environmental issues, we still need clothes right? People in these factories choose to work there and need a source of income, right? 

In the midst of controversy emerging about sweatshop conditions and unethical companies, many economists and journalists have developed arguments explaining the need for these factories. The main arguments propose three outlooks: 1.) Alternative jobs for these workers are much worse than garment factories. 2.) These people are happy to be working, because they still need jobs. 3.) There is always another buyer, so boycotting does not work (Ikeda; Hsiung). At first look, these arguments seem valid. If a woman in India needs a job and can choose between mining for coal, prostituting herself out, and sewing in a garment factory, there is an obvious choice. There might not be better options for her, and us silly Americans are too blindsided by our privilege of choice to recognize this. This answers everything and almost has you waving the “I Support Child Labor” banner until you realize who creates these jobs: American companies. We create the alternatives to the worse jobs, so why not give them better alternatives? We as consumers can no longer accept that people are getting beaten, killed, over-worked, and underpaid because companies claim that this is their best option. Companies will not change policies or conditions until we take responsibility and hold them accountable. Surely multi-billion dollar companies can afford to pay workers a living-wage and provide them with air that is safe to breathe. Many people argue the second point, that these people are happy to be working and would prefer these jobs to no jobs. Economics professor Sandy Ikeda defends this notion in his article “How Not to Help Sweatshop Workers” (Ikeda). Ikeda argues that these workers are not slaves, and no matter how terrible the conditions are they choose to work there. According to Ikeda, an attempt to boycott or shame the company could result in many workers losing their jobs. To reiterate the previous point, just because these jobs are better than others, does not make them morally or ethically acceptable. We as consumers can take our business to companies that treat humans fairly. Our money (and more of it) will still go to workers who are getting paid fair wages to make our products. Factories might temporarily shut down but if enough companies move in the direction of fair labor, eventually these workers will have jobs again when companies realize they will not make money off of sweatshop-produced goods. The third argument deals with boycotting and its inefficiency. Wayne Hsiung argues against boycotting with his article “Boycotts Almost Surely Will Never Work.” In this he states that there is always another buyer, so the consumer’s impact of boycotting is insignificant. He fails to mention that there is also always another seller. We live in a market full of competing brands and products, and this competition leads brand superiority and mudslinging. Think of any phone commercial and what first comes to mind is the comparative rates and statistics of other companies. Imagine if we were to include the production of clothing, shoes, and makeup as a factor of our purchasing decisions. We choose where our money goes, and if we exclusively support ethically-sound brands, other companies will follow suit in order to gain customers. Companies do not want their name slandered, and will do anything to keep business. Throughout history there have been many successful boycotting campaigns that exemplify the power of the consumer. 

In 1996, Life Magazine released an issue depicting child labor in a Nike factory (Baker). The powerful image of a young boy stitching soccer balls led to boycotts, protests, and a tarnished reputation for Nike. The brand became almost synonymous with labor violations and child-abuse. Since 1998, Nike has almost worked tirelessly to ensure that its products were made in safe and fair environments. The company has since provided consumers with transparency by releasing the names and locations of its factories (Nike). They also increased auditing and inspection, and became conscious of reducing hazards in production. According to a TED Talks titled “Making Global Labor Fair”, Nike has partnered with the Fair Labor Association, which monitors company practice and improves working conditions (Heerden). Nike now places as one of the top ten companies on Fortune Most Admired Companies list (Baker). This rapid transformation did not occur because Nike realized it was the right thing to do; it occurred because consumers realized it was the right thing to do. A company’s responsibility is to make money. Our responsibility as the consumer is to know where our money goes. We can choose to support sweatshops, or we can fight them. The only thing we need to demand from companies is transparency, and the rest will fall into place. Nike now opposes discrimination, child-labor, and hazardous working conditions while still generating profits off of affordable products.  

Another historical boycott had different outcomes. “Free Produce” was a movement created by abolitionists in the early 1800s in order to find an alternative to an economy based on slavery (Glickman 6). These activists opened stores and sold products like sugar and cotton that were not harvested by slaves. Well known supporters included Frederick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Lloyd Garrison. The influence of these activists and writers spread rapidly. Even though the free produce stores were unsuccessful as a business venture, they were pivotal in sending a message to consumers about their power. This movement “laid a foundation for consumer activism” (Glickman 15). Free produce advocates developed a strategic campaign slogan that is relevant to workers’ rights today: “If there were no consumers of slave produce, there would be no slaves” (Glickman 23) While it may be nearly impossible for a single boycott campaign to end the institution of slavery, the influence and rhetoric are not to be underestimated. This boycott was far from unsuccessful and certainly opened the eyes of many consumers. The problem with the Free Produce campaign was that plantation owners were not directly held accountable for any malpractices. Now, due to improved technology, laws, and institutions, consumers demand absolute transparency and can get it by clicking a button.

We live in a society dominated by the internet and social media. In this world of ubiquitous connectivity, nothing can be covered up. When information leaks about Gap outsourcing labor to factories that employ children, we can count on it to spread as quickly as “What Does the Fox Say?” With everyone connected online, scandals and news appear in our pockets as soon as they emerge. We as consumers now have the responsibility to take action by recognizing issues, demanding transparency, and sharing information. If we are not happy with the way Walmart produces its goods, we now have a voice that can be heard by millions. The idea of traceability and transparency are shared by many in the social media world. Amisha Ghadiali is the cofounder of a website called Provenance, which aims to share the truth about the making of a product. Provenance’s website assures consumers that “your purchases have an impact on communities and environments near and far. Provenance is your gateway to information about the people, places, processes and materials behind the products you buy” (McClellan).With this level of consumer awareness, we should be able to buy the products we like with a clear conscience. We need to change our standards in order for businesses to change theirs. With methods to obtain transparency and accountability in the palm of our hand, consumers should be responsible for knowing exactly what they are buying, and therefore what they are supporting. 

When consumers make the choice to give their business to one company, they are sending a message to that company’s competitors. When mothers see cereals in the grocery store that all contain “whole-grain” and “no high-fructose corn syrup,” it is unlikely that they will purchase the cereals without these labels. This concept applies to the fashion industry as well. If we started demanding a level of transparency that food or even cigarette companies use, we might think twice before buying a $3.00 pair of leggings. Imagine shopping in a store where certain pairs of shoes have giant warning labels that read “MADE IN A SWEATSHOP BY AN 11 YEAR OLD.” Consumer choice would be more black and white. People do not want to be seen buying things that are “bad.” Once companies decide to advertise the safe and ethical production of their products, other companies will have to follow suit in order to keep business. They will eventually have to compromise where their competitors do if they want to remain competitors. Consumers have always had the power of choice, and if a company refuses to change until its profits decrease, consumers can decrease their profits by shopping elsewhere.  

So where can we shop? Many companies have already heard the voices of consumers and responded with haste. Rick Ridgeway, the Vice President of Environmental Affairs at Patagonia was interviewed about consumerism in the documentary “The True Cost.” He claims that Patagonia is against the idea of consumption, and encourages its customers to be aware of the environmental impacts of their shopping choices (The True Cost). Patagonia’s website shows that the company is dedicated to promoting corporate responsibility, environmental awareness, and fair labor. Outdoor apparel company, REI, has also promoted many anti-consumerism campaigns, most notably the #OptOutside. This annual internet hashtag urges shoppers to boycott Black Friday, and instead spend time outdoors. REI also contains information about their transparency and awareness on their website. Consumers are allowed to choose where they shop, a power that no corporation can take away. When companies step up and decide to be the best choice, they will make the most profit. Through market research, Patagonia’s competitors will realize the trend of shoppers caring about ethical production and make changes to keep up. We can count on a ripple-effect changing our world, but it must start with the consumer. 

The garment industry is synonymous with cutting corners; a privileged few to reap the benefits that come from the exploitation of others. Changing this entire system is no easy task, and there are no easy solutions. Consumers must recognize the colossal issues that exist and do their part in solving them. This means being aware of the problems. This means fighting the urge to buy the shoes all our friends are buying. This means doing our homework on brands that support fair trade. Boycotting works. Demanding fairness works. Every time we shop we have the opportunity to change the world by caring about the other people in it.
