• Denial of responsibility: telling self not to feel responsible because the factors are beyond one’s control.
• Denial of Injury: telling self that no party was directly affected by the purchase.
• Denial of Victim: telling self that the affected party deserved the situation in which they are.
• Condemning the condemners: pointing out that those who criticize engage in other disapproved activities that are alike.
• Appeal to higher loyalties: telling self that the unethical behaviors are the results of an attempt to help or be involved with a higher order ideal or value in mind.
However, in the case of child labor and sweatshops, those who knowingly buy the brands, tend to be less inclined to rationalization when the troubles come closer to …show more content…
This is mostly due to people who don’t feel like they can change a similar situation by simply buying from a more ethics oriented company. A Brazilian TV show infiltrated Zara workshops in Sao Paulo with a camera. A Bolivian worker explained that a pair of Zara jeans was selling for about 120$ in Brazil, and cost 1,14$ to produce. The workers average monthly income is about 570$ for daily shift longer than 12 hours. Additionally, safety didn’t seem to be a concern for the owners of the manufacture as the producers of the TV show found a fire extinguisher that had an expiration date of 1998 (Bandeirantes Brazil, 2011). Zara’s response was to apologize in front of state deputies at Sao Paulo’s Human Rights Commission, and paid fines totaling more than 350000£ as well as compensations to the workers (Osborne, 2013). Zara took position on the allegations much faster than Nike did and than other brand such as Victoria’s Secret, which completely ignored the criticism they received concerning similar allegations (Pundit, 2012). Harvard Business Review has conducted a study on what individuals can do to internally change the firm. Intervention strategies …show more content…
Looking into the Bangladesh building collapse of 2013 has demonstrated that even though many firms who are hiring third party production companies in developing countries who have very rough work conditions is, in many cases, still better than not hiring them. As organizations such as Oxfam explained: closing down a factory in a country like Bangladesh leads to many workers who will not be able to find another job and thus not be able to feed their families. Many actions have been taken by Oxfam to encourage people not to boycott clothing brands, and are often successful; this is a reason to why companies don’t see their sales lowered following events such as the collapse of 2013. Another reality concerning sweatshops is the proximity of the scandals to the customers. People are less inclined to use one of the 5 types of rationalization when child labor and slave labor effects, among others, are closer to them; that is the reason why Nike’s allegations were given more attention in the United States. Moreover, people don’t feel like they can change the situation only by not buying from those stores and since they are often cheaper, they will see the benefit from the reduced price higher than the benefit they would get from supporting an ethical cause. That is the case especially
• Denial of Injury: telling self that no party was directly affected by the purchase.
• Denial of Victim: telling self that the affected party deserved the situation in which they are.
• Condemning the condemners: pointing out that those who criticize engage in other disapproved activities that are alike.
• Appeal to higher loyalties: telling self that the unethical behaviors are the results of an attempt to help or be involved with a higher order ideal or value in mind.
However, in the case of child labor and sweatshops, those who knowingly buy the brands, tend to be less inclined to rationalization when the troubles come closer to …show more content…
This is mostly due to people who don’t feel like they can change a similar situation by simply buying from a more ethics oriented company. A Brazilian TV show infiltrated Zara workshops in Sao Paulo with a camera. A Bolivian worker explained that a pair of Zara jeans was selling for about 120$ in Brazil, and cost 1,14$ to produce. The workers average monthly income is about 570$ for daily shift longer than 12 hours. Additionally, safety didn’t seem to be a concern for the owners of the manufacture as the producers of the TV show found a fire extinguisher that had an expiration date of 1998 (Bandeirantes Brazil, 2011). Zara’s response was to apologize in front of state deputies at Sao Paulo’s Human Rights Commission, and paid fines totaling more than 350000£ as well as compensations to the workers (Osborne, 2013). Zara took position on the allegations much faster than Nike did and than other brand such as Victoria’s Secret, which completely ignored the criticism they received concerning similar allegations (Pundit, 2012). Harvard Business Review has conducted a study on what individuals can do to internally change the firm. Intervention strategies …show more content…
Looking into the Bangladesh building collapse of 2013 has demonstrated that even though many firms who are hiring third party production companies in developing countries who have very rough work conditions is, in many cases, still better than not hiring them. As organizations such as Oxfam explained: closing down a factory in a country like Bangladesh leads to many workers who will not be able to find another job and thus not be able to feed their families. Many actions have been taken by Oxfam to encourage people not to boycott clothing brands, and are often successful; this is a reason to why companies don’t see their sales lowered following events such as the collapse of 2013. Another reality concerning sweatshops is the proximity of the scandals to the customers. People are less inclined to use one of the 5 types of rationalization when child labor and slave labor effects, among others, are closer to them; that is the reason why Nike’s allegations were given more attention in the United States. Moreover, people don’t feel like they can change the situation only by not buying from those stores and since they are often cheaper, they will see the benefit from the reduced price higher than the benefit they would get from supporting an ethical cause. That is the case especially