While evidence suggests a potential market exists for "no sweat" labels that guarantee certain work conditions were present during the production of a garment, most consumers would rather put their own needs first than worry about the working conditions of the factory workers who produce apparel for U.S. markets. Marsha Dickson, an associate professor of apparel, textiles and interior design at Kansas State University, said most consumers are "self-interested" and have been taught to shop for bargains, rather than to be socially responsible when making purchases.
"Most consumers are going to do the things that are right for them," Dickson said. "If it's right for them and it helps somebody other than them, that's great. But if it comes down to choosing between their personal interests and aiding someone they don't know who lives in another country, then more times than not consumers are going to make decisions based on their budget, tastes and things like that."
Defined by the U.S. General Accounting Office as "an employer that violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers' compensation or industry registration," sweatshops often employ workers — young and mostly female — who frequently live in squalor and earn next to nothing. According to Dickson, since the mid-1990s, government officials, consumer activists, labor representatives, industry leaders and the media have focused increasing attention on working conditions surrounding the production of apparel. She said an argument made by some of these groups is that much apparel is produced in sweatshops and that consumers and others must take action to halt the practice.
The idea of a "no sweat" label was first proposed by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich when he launched the Apparel Industry Partnership, now known as the Fair Labor Association. Dickson, the founder of Educators for Socially Responsible Apparel Business, first became fascinated with the general public's interest in clothing made in sweatshops after seeing Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, hold up a sweater during a televised Senate hearing and question if consumers would purchase it if they knew it was produced in a sweatshop by child labor. With no evidence to support the idea consumers would use this sort of information when shopping, Dickson set out to do her own research, which was chronicled in a recent issue of The Journal of Consumer Affairs.
Dickson conducted a conjoint analysis using data gathered from a survey of 547 randomly sampled people from around the country. Participants were asked to read a list of descriptions of several men's dress shirts, including characteristics such as color, fiber content, etc., and to rate the probability they would purchase each shirt. A characteristic of some shirts was the no sweat label.
For most people the label guaranteeing production conditions were fair, was not a high priority. The 16 percent of consumers who would make purchase decisions on the basis of the labels were more often women who expressed concern for apparel workers. Dickson said while the results say a lot about "self-interest" in American consumers, she also can empathize with consumers who explained their actions as being "forced" to fit their specific economic situation.
"I can certainly empathize with consumers who have told me, 'you know, I'd like to help but I can't. I've got four children of my own; I have a budget,'" Dickson said.
Dickson thinks the apparel industry might react in a few different ways as a result of the information from her study.
"On the one hand, 16 percent of consumers might be viewed as an attractive market that companies will strive to satisfy," Dickson said. "On the other hand, some businesses might view the size of the market as one not worth the trouble and expense of factory monitoring that would be needed to use the label. For now, it remains to be seen whether consumers' views on no sweat labeling will cause the apparel business to change their business practices."
Journal
Journal of Consumer Affairs