Supply Chain Ethics: Gabriella's Dilemma at CJ Fashions Sweatshops

This discussion post addresses the ethical dilemma faced by Gabriella, an MBA graduate offered a Supply Chain Manager position at CJ Fashions, a company sourcing clothing from sweatshops. The response argues that Gabriella should prioritize the organization's objectives and the economic benefits the sweatshops provide to workers, particularly women in Bangladesh. It applies choice theory, autonomy, and utilitarianism to justify the existence of sweatshops, suggesting that workers rationally choose these jobs due to limited alternatives and the utility they derive from them. The post also references Kant's argument on self-determination and the invisible hand concept, supporting the idea that despite potential social injustices, the economic advantages and individual autonomy should be respected. It concludes that Gabriella should focus on ensuring the sweatshops remain operational, thus providing stable employment and meeting the workers' needs, while dismissing concerns about social injustice as ethically inadmissible in this context.

Running Head: SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE 1
Second Student response
Student Name
University

SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE 2
Second Student response
Life is about increasing utility to achieve the pleasure principle, this means that
everything that people engage in is based on increasing the benefits that the world presents to
them and how to ensure that they are able to meet their personal needs. Thus this job offers
Gabriella an opportunity to further her career and achieve the aspirations of her life. Thus the
fact that the organization has given her an opportunity to be in charge of the position means
Gabriella should focus on the needs of the organization and ensuring that the business objective
is achieved. Thus the priorities that she has in the sweatshops is the agenda of the organization
that has sent her there. The role that she plays should fall within the terms of reference for the job
that has been assigned to her and how the objectives will be achieved.
Proponents of sweatshops look at the value of the shops and the reasons why the people
who work there decide to take the jobs. Gabriella needs to tell Natasha that she supports her idea
of independence and the economic benefits that they bring to people from such countries like the
women in Bangladesh. From choice theory, human beings are rational beings who weigh the
options that are presented to them and the opportunity cost of taking the job or leaving it (Kates,
2015). Thus the women who work in sweatshops do so because they have weighed the
opportunity costs of taking the job. This implies that the women value the economic benefits that
they derive from the shops and how these shops are playing a relevance in their life.
Economically, the women are better off receiving whatever they get from the shops as compared
to the shops being closed because they have failed to meet the required condition. This also
presents the concept of autonomy where the women have the right to make their own choices.
According to Bailey (2010) Kant argues that individuals have the capacity to self-
determination and the desire for freedom in areas of their life. By choosing to work in the

SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE 3
sweatshops the women are exercising personal autonomy through pursuing a course of action
regardless of the moral content that it holds. Thus since the women have individually decided to
work in the shops, their autonomy should be respected by ensuring that the sweatshops are
operational for them to keep working there. This means that Gabriella should be concerned more
about the operations of the organization to ensure that the women can still enjoy the benefits of
the sweatshop being operational. This means that interference of any form like closing the
sweatshops to review the working conditions will lead to lost benefits and the interference with
the autonomy of the women.
On the other hand, the utilitarianism approach of sweatshops can be understood from the
concept of the invincible hand where organizations pursue their interests which in turn creates
utility for other people (Snyder, 2012). Thus by having sweatshops in Bangladesh, the women
can work there, earn and thus increasing their utility and attaining the pleasure principle. This
means that despite the fact that Nathan is trying to convince her differently, Gabriella needs to
understand that in a free and unrestrained market system individuals have the freedom to pursue
their interests as long as they achieve the pleasure principle. Thus despite the conditions, the
women seem to be benefiting more from the sweatshops as compared to sitting at home.
Gabriella needs to tell Nathan that the argument on social injustice that exists in these
sweatshops is not admissible since there is a need to look at the benefits that women derive from
the shops. Injustices can only be justified if the economic cost of working in the shops is not
realistic. I thus support the idea that the country is undergoing a stage of development that is
required in modernity theory before development can be achieved (Goodstein, 2011). This
justifies why the women have not complained about the sweatshops but rather they look at the
brighter side of working in the shops.

SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE 4
The role of Gabriella should, therefore, focus on ensuring that the women have work and
are able to meet their utility needs. Since their choice is based on autonomy, choice, and utility,
the women need to be understood in the context of their situation and ensure that they have
stable employment. Thus Gabriella needs to take up the job and ensure that the sweatshops are
operational for the women to be engaged. Changing the operational principles will reduce the
profits that the organization seeks to benefit and compromise the economic reasons for
establishing sweatshops. What the women need now from Gabriella is to ensure that the
sweatshops are operational allowing the women to work and ignore the concerns of Nathan since
they are not ethically admissible in the case of sweatshops and the state of the women without
the sweatshop job.

SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE 5
References
Bailey, T. (2010). Analysing the Good Will: Kant's Argument in the First Section of the
Groundwork. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 18(4), 635–662.
Goodstein, E. (2011). Chapter 2: Ethics and Economics". Economics and the Environment.
Wiley: New Jersey.
Kates, M. (2015). The Ethics of Sweatshops Limits of Choice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2),
191-211.
Snyder, J. (2012). Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 20(2), 187-213.