At class today, the
reporting group presented the case about the ethical issues faced by Gap Inc.,
when they were charged with sourcing from Central American suppliers that had
human rights violations and subsistence-level wages in their factories. The Gap
Inc. or commonly known as Gap, is an American clothing and accessories retailer
that was founded in 1969 and has headquarters in San Francisco, California. The
company has several well- known brands such as Old Navy, Banana Republic as
well as its namesake.
In this case, Gap was beset
with claims that they used factories that resisted union efforts to organize,
utilized minors in its production lines and exceeded the maximum workweek hours
that were allowed by law. Internal assessment of these factories showed “[Gap’s] investigation has not uncovered any
significant evidence…or serious violations of sourcing guidelines”, which
is contrary to what was being reported by the National Labor Relations
Committee and by the mass media.
At the end of the case, it
asks that “Is a company like the Gap
morally responsible for the way its suppliers treat their workers?” In my
analysis of the case, the answer is in the negative as Gap and its apparel
supplier have no employer-employee relationship. However, Gap is morally responsible
to implement ethical procurement practices and ensure that their merchandise
are not products of sweatshop factories with dubious manufacturing processes.
As a result of this labor
controversy, Gap implemented more stringent steps to address this situation and
implemented rigorous standards in supplier selection. This is affirmed in their
website wherein the company states that:
“We
partner with suppliers to build a sustainable value chain that improves
workers’ well-being and our business performance.
We
assess working conditions and human rights at over 95
percent of the factories — more than 800
facilities — that make our branded apparel at least once per year. We work with
factories to fix issues that need to be resolved to meet the international
standards in our Code of
Vendor Conduct and Human Rights
Policy. These often lead to corrective actions that improve working
conditions and protect workers’ rights.
Our
field team visits factories to meet with workers and managers and assess
working conditions. Most team members are locally hired, live in the country or
region where factories are located and speak the local language. They often get
to know specific factories and workers well over a period of years and take a
sincere interest in looking out for workers’ well-being.”
