Framework
Exploitation and valid-consent test
The question it answers
When a business owner reviews outsourced suppliers where workers "freely accept" poor conditions, is the firm exploiting them, and is that consent valid?
- Origin
- Zwolinski, 2007; Kates, 2015
- Diagram type
- Decision flow
- Level of analysis
- Firm
Diagram
Exploitation and valid-consent test
- VIs the choice free (no coercion or threat)?Consent is invalid: stop and consider the duty of assistance.
- RDo workers have enough information and a meaningful alternative?Consent is weak: go to step 4.
- IDoes the other party gain from the vulnerability gap, and does that gain violate rights?If yes: a sign of exploitation (treating others as a mere means).
- NDoes each person's acceptance harm the group's ability to bargain together?If yes: regulation may respect autonomy rather than violate it.
Not enough basis to conclude exploitation; still check the collective effect.
When to use it, and when not to
Use it when
Assessing outsourced supply chains and labour contracts in weak markets.
Pitfalls
Pitfall
Ignoring the empirical objection: many factories involve coercion or deception, so the 'voluntary' premise already fails; and treating the verdict as a judgement on individual workers.
Sources
References
Listed A–Z by author surname, Harvard style. A source with a DOI links to https://doi.org/…; one without links to its page or says plainly that it has no DOI.
- Kates, M. (2015) ‘The ethics of sweatshops and the limits of choice’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2), pp. 191–212.doi:10.1017/beq.2015.9Source page
- Zwolinski, M. (2007) ‘Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 689–727.doi:10.5840/beq20071745Source page