Sweatshops? What Sweatshops?

As many of you have heard by now, millions of trains in the “Thomas the Tank Engine” collection were recalled when it was discovered that many of the toys, a perennial favorite for toddlers throughout the United States — including my own — were colored with lead paint at one of the plants in China where Thomas trains are made. If you haven’t heard about it, I recommend a brilliant piece by David Leonhardt in yesterday’s edition of The New York Times.

The article examines the architecture of the manufacturing sector and reminds us of the perils of offshoring, outsourcing, subcontracting, piecework and other “flexible labor” arrangements. All of these sourcing strategies have been developed to help companies reduce production costs, increase or maintain profit margins, and insulate themselves from risk and liability in the actual production of the things they sell. They also make it nearly impossible for us as consumers to find out where the stuff we buy comes from. In most cases, this is a happy coincidence for the brands in question, since many of the cost savings they generate through these sourcing strategies are due to labor conditions or environmental practices that many U.S. consumers would find intolerable. That’s why we have sweatshops. And that’s why the brands whose products are produced in sweatshops are able to ask, “Sweatshops? What sweatshops? We don’t own any sweatshops.”

The lead-paint Thomas train scandal reminds us why this lack of transparency is problematic, and why companies should not be able to mitigate their legal or moral responsibility by simply putting more distance between their corporate headquarters and manufacturing centers.

Why am I writing so much about a toy train on a Fair Trade blog? OK, I admit it – I feel indignant since my kids have been handling and teething on toys coated in lead paint. But I am spilling so much ink on this story here because I think it is a powerful cautionary tale about the Faustian bargain that most consumers have made with the dominant U.S. retailers: keep lining the shelves with an endless array of cheap stuff, and we won’t ask you where it comes from. It is the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to consumerism, and the Thomas parable helps us understand why it is so problematic.

In the case of the lead-paint Thomas trains, of course, the concern is about public health here in the United States. But the Thomas scandal was caused by the increasing anonymity and declining accountability of our production systems — things that also represent an affront to the values of conscious consumers whose concern extends beyond our own welfare to embrace the people who create the things we buy. When modern production systems make it impossible to even know who those people are, let alone verify the conditions under which they work, its logic runs counter to the core social principles of our faith — the sanctity of human dignity, the unity of the human family, the ardent desire to work for the common good and live in solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world. It is also the exact opposite of the logic of Fair Trade.

In Fair Trade, revealing the identity of the artisan who weaves a basket or the farmer who plucks a cocoa pod is not a liability, but an asset. Knowing more about where our products are created, by whom and under what conditions is precisely what makes Fair Trade so powerful and so attractive. Isn’t that why you buy Fair Trade?

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 21st, 2007 and is filed under Fair Trade . You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Sweatshops? What Sweatshops?”

Michelle Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 am
Just another great reason to buy fair trade. My boys are too big for Thomas toys, but I have a friend whose son has an entire room full of them. I would hate to think that his health may have been jeopardized by immoral practices such as this. Maybe this scandal will help bring to light the downside of all of the outsourcing, subcontracting and other methods used by U.S. corporations to pull the wool over our eyes and to take advantage of the disadvantaged.
Scott James Says:
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am
I too have a room full of these trains; my son inherited them from several of his older cousins. It infuriates me when I think about my son and nephews handling the lead paint for years.

I believe this strikes a chord with most North Americans exactly because it involves our children. We’ve had other public health concerns in the States, but when it comes to protecting our children, it seems (thankfully) to make a splash in publications like the New York Times.

For me personally, this is a driving factor behind my involvement in the Fair Trade movement - to better the lives of children and families - not just here in the States, but worldwide. This was one of the passions that drove me when I was marketing Fair Trade coffee for several years - helping children in coffee-growing countries. And it drives me now with marketing our Fair Trade soccer balls - helping children in Pakistan where 80% of all sports balls are hand-stitched.

Perhaps we can take an infuriating problem like lead-paint trains and use it to spur more North Americans to ask where their consumer goods come from…

- Scott James
Fair Trade Sports
http://www.fairtradesports.com
Fair Trade Soccer Balls with FSC Certification!
Serena Says:
June 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Why don’t they check this stuff before 1.5 million get sold?
Michael Says:
June 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Thanks for your comments, friends. I should have noted in my original post that there are options out there for folks who want to give gifts that are made under Fair Trade conditions and don’t contain lethal substances: Fair Trade toys from Work of Human Hands! Our partners at A Greater Gift have a small but lovely collection of Fair Trade toys from around the world. Check it out at: http://www.agreatergift.org/Gifts/Children/GiftPlayTime.aspx.

Sweatshops? What Sweatshops?

4 Responses to “Sweatshops? What Sweatshops?”

Leave a Reply