The 1890s was a time when industrialization in the United States burgeoned, where workers eked out an existence on starvation wages. Corporations -- replacing family firms, partnerships, and proprietorships -- showed little interest in those they employed. Cheap labor made higher profits, and profit was the name of the game.

      "It is the duty of consumers to find out under what conditions the articles they purchase are produced and distributed and to insist that these conditions shall be wholesome and consistent with a respectable existence on the part of the workers." Josephine Shaw Lowell, founder New York City Consumers League, 1891.

      For ninety-eight years, the National Consumers League has represented consumers who are concerned about the conditions under which products are manufactured. To illustrate the philosophy, an early League motto was the following: To live means to buy, to buy means to have power, to have power means to have duties.

      In July 1940, Mary Dublin described the League's work as "an expression of the conviction that consumers have a far-reaching responsibility to use their buying power and their power as citizens to advance the general welfare of the community. Substandard wages and depressed industrial conditions impose a burden not on labor alone but on consumers as well. What is not paid in wages, the community is called upon to pay in relief; in wage subsidies; in contributions to meet the cost of illness, dependency, delinquency, and numerous other social ills which these conditions produce."

      Since those early years, the consumers movement has blossomed into many areas of interest -- from food/product standards and quality to consumer rights to consumer protection and more. New consumer organizations have expanded the scope and definition of consumer. But the consumer movement's history and mission (for some like the National Consumers League) reflect the continuing commitment and sense of responsibility for the conditions under which products are produced and for the decisions consumers make in the marketplace.

"Fifty years ago today a brilliant, though basically simple, idea was born. This was that the people who buy goods in stores could have a say as to the conditions under which those goods were produced. By their economic and political pressure they could fight child labor, they could protect women against exploitation, they could make the ideal of the minimum wage a living fact." (editorial excerpt on the NCL from The New York Times, December 9, 1949).

1. Consumers should not expect a problem to be solved just because a law has been passed. When various industries, responding to the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 established codes prescribing maximum hours, minimum wages, collective bargaining, and abolition of child labor, the National Consumers League hoped its major work was accomplished. When the codes went into effect, the League kept in close touch with workers to find out how they were affected. It was soon apparent that in industries where unions were strong, workers benefited through higher wages and shorter hours. But in unorganized industries, while there was improvement in hours and wages, unscrupulous employers used every possible device to rob workers of what was due them legally. (On May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional.)


2. Consumers want an uncomplicated, easy means to identify products made under decent conditions. As consumer demand increased for such products during the early 1900s, the League developed and oversaw the use of the White Label. The label was attached to women's and children's stitched cotton underwear if the factory guaranteed that it obeyed all factory laws, made all goods on the premises, required no overtime work, and employed no children under age 16. Representatives of the League inspected factories to assure compliance. Originating in New York City, use of the label spread to 13 states. In 1918, the League discontinued the label as union leaders began developing labels that guaranteed labor standards enforcement. Consumers see labels as an easy point-of-purchase tool to use in the marketplace.

Global Expansion of Social Responsibility: Consumers avoiding personal collusion in repression:

      Consumers who are educated about exploitative working conditions and feel a sense of responsibility to act upon this knowledge find frustration in the marketplace. As a reaction to a lack of information and labels to help the conscientious consumer identify products made under decent conditions, many consumers are taking personal action -- to include even personal boycotts of certain products, companies, and countries.

      Some detractors claim that personal boycotts are doomed to failure through lack of massive consumer participation. The facts however, suggest that consumers choose a personal boycott as a means of expression because they find a company's, industry's or nation's policies or behavior morally objectionable. In other words, their personal action is based on their commitment to not be an accomplice, even with a few dollars, in support of offensive policies. Thus it is not the consumer's worry whether their action will similarly motivate other consumers, but it justly can be the worry of the offending company, industry, or country.

      According to the 1997 Human Rights Watch survey, "Because the goods purchased in one country may be produced by victims of repression in another, the very act of consumption can be seen as complicity in that repression." The expansion of the global economy is creating "new and immediate connections among distant people," and is thereby spawning "a surprising new source of support for the human-rights cause." To avoid personal complicity, many consumers "are insisting on guarantees that they are not buying the products of abusive labor conditions."

      Similarly, before the early 1990s, who had ever heard of "environmental-friendly" labeling? Or, "not tested on animal" labeling? These were both an often reluctant industry response to consumer demand.

      And, the list goes on. Consumer pressure for more healthy alternatives in fast food restaurants has culminated in consumers being able to go into any McDonald's today and get a salad. Consumers wanted more nutrition information on packaged foods -- especially detailed fat and saturated fat information -- and they got it.

      These examples reinforce the tremendous power that consumers have over industry. The same influence has been and can continue to provide improvements in social issues such as child labor and sweatshop exploitation.

      Karl E. Meyer raised an interesting analogy to today's consumer efforts at social responsibility (Editorial Notebook, The New York Times, June 28, 1997).

      "As Hong Kong reverted to China on July 1, 1997, we were reminded of a bit of history known as the Opium War between Britain and China from 1839 to 1842. Western protests against the war mark it as the beginning of a concern with international human rights. Along with the slave trade, the traffic in opium was the dirty underside of an evolving global trading economy.

      In America as in Europe, pretty much everything was deemed fair in the pursuit of profits. In 1839, the Emperor of China responded to the epidemic addiction to opium in his country by naming an Imperial Commissioner to end the trade, which in a large part was conducted by American companies, which brought opium from India to China through Turkey. Outrage was expressed by British and American press and the pulpit, forcing the businesses to pull out of the opium trade.

      We no longer believe that anything goes in the global marketplace, regardless of social consequences. It is precisely this conviction that underlies efforts to attach human rights conditions to trading relations -- to temper the amorality of the market."

Industry Codes of Conduct: Evolution, Reality, and Shortcomings

      On several levels, the company codes of conduct proved problematic. They fell short of their intentions, and thus lost their credibility among consumers.

• Variation between company codes and standards bred confusion: Using child labor as an example as it is one of the issues most commonly addressed in codes of conduct, compare these differing definitions and perceptions of child labor:

• Levi Strauss says child labor is not acceptable and defines a "child" as a person under the age of 14 or who is under the compulsory schooling age.

• Wal-Mart will not accept the use of child labor in the manufacture of goods which it sells. Suppliers/subcontractors must not recruit persons under the age of 15 or below the compulsory schooling age. If national legislation includes higher criteria, these must be applied.

• JC Penney will not allow the importation into the U.S. of merchandise manufactured by illegal child labor.

• The Gap states that no person under the age of 14 may be allowed to work in a factory that produces Gap Inc. goods and that vendors must comply with local child labor laws

• The FIFA (soccer ball governing body) code refers to child labor in the terms of ILO Convention 138 (i.e., children under 15 years of age, as well as provisions for younger children in certain countries).

• In word only, not in deed: Despite the introduction of codes of conduct, company implementation has been ill-conceived and ill-executed. Media reports, worker complaints, and persistent consumer concerns have underscored the ineffectiveness of the company monitored codes of conduct. It has become evident that words on paper and even the best intentioned internal monitoring is unreliable and inadequate.

• Lack of transparency: Absent assurances from independent monitors and publicly available reports, consumers have little guarantee that company codes of conduct are being meaningfully implemented and overseen.

The Apparel Industry Code of Conduct -- An Overview of One Global Problem Addressed: Child Labor

      The problem is growing along with the expansion of the global marketplace. Child labor is cheap labor. Children are targeted for non-skilled, labor intensive work. Docile and easily controlled, employers have no fear of children demanding rights or organizing. Child employment instead of adult employment creates a climate where many children support their unemployed or underemployed parents and the entire family and their future families remain in poverty, ignorance, and exploitation.

      Child labor flourishes under many conditions -- cultural traditions; prejudice and discrimination based on gender, ethnic, religious or racial issues; unavailability of educational and other alternatives for working children; and no or weak enforcement of compulsory education and child labor laws. Globalization is strengthening child labor through providing ready access to areas of cheap labor that are rife with the above described conditions. Child labor increasingly offers an attractive incentive to keep labor costs down in a highly competitive global market.

      Many U.S. companies have included child labor in their codes of conduct, due to persistent evidence of child exploitation in the industry. Although no definitive figures are available on the number of children working in the garment industry, the U.S. Department of Labor's Child Labor Study (1994) identified children working in the garment industry in most of the countries they reviewed. A direct connection was evident between these countries' exports and the United States, the world's largest importer of garments from 168 countries. "Child labor" does not refer to children working on the family farm or in the family business. It refers to employment that prevents school attendance, and which is often performed under conditions which are hazardous or harmful to children.

      The Apparel Industry Partnership's negotiations and first report revolved around the development of an industry standard code of conduct. The code blends elements of existing corporate codes into a set of standards which may be adopted by the apparel industry as a whole. Definitions of each prohibition related to child labor, maximum work weeks, harassment and abuse, forced labor, and other issues, were hammered out. Integral to the code is definitive monitoring, including both internal and external (i.e., independent) evaluations of compliance.

      The Partnership is working on forming a permanent association that will provide membership to companies that adopt the code of conduct, as well as setting the parameters of monitoring. It will also standardize and control the use of any symbol, label or other mechanism employed to provide information to the consumer about decent working conditions.

      To ensure consumer confidence and the integrity of the governing association, several elements must be maintained in this initiative:

• Consumers want a "sweatshop free," "good labor practices," or "member of" claim that applies to both domestic and international production. Consumers are not going to react favorably to a company which is applauded for a sweatshop-free stand in the U.S. while doing business overseas with sweatshops.

• Consumers want a claim that is credible. Legitimate external, independent monitoring is essential for consumers to have confidence in any company claim.

• Consumers want the industry to work with their subcontractors who are found to be out of compliance with the code of conduct to assure that the problems are solved and restitution to the workers is made. Canceling contracts does not help workers.

• easy consumer access to information to enable ethical decision making, preferably at point of purchase.

• Full disclosure of manufacturers' performance in relation to the code of conduct.

Labels...Easy Access to Information for Consumers

      The most obvious response of the savvy shopper is their burgeoning demand for labels. Consumers wanted more nutrition labeling on food and got it. The ever evident recycling symbol was a response to consumer concerns about environmental issues. Some consumers wanted dolphin safe tuna or products not tested on animals and the affected industries scrambled to provide assurances to consumers.

      In the last few years, there has been a resurgence in interest for a label that identifies decent labor conditions. Country of origin and Made in USA labeling is an important beginning point. But, such labels do not provide the complete story behind the labor. Consumers want information, guarantees, and a choice in products made under decent conditions.

      Whether to educate consumers about nutrition, environmental impact, product testing, or labor conditions, consumers expect labels to be meaningful and honest. A meaningful label for products made under decent labor conditions must delineate precisely what is meant and met by the use of the label. Consumers expect an honest label, where the veracity of the claim is assured through independent evaluation and oversight of the company or industry using the label.

      One of the most credible labeling programs is RUGMARK. This trailblazing initiative certifies carpet manufacturers who meet stringent requirements to assure that no child labor is used in handmade carpets from India and Nepal. Consumer confidence in the label is gained through systematic independent monitoring and unannounced inspections of manufacturers by non-industry RUGMARK representatives. There are more than 1,000 children in RUGMARK-supported schools in India and Nepal. RUGMARK carpets represent nearly 15 percent of all Indian production and nearly 70 percent of Nepalese production. Pakistan is expected to form a RUGMARK program next year.

      "No sweatshops" has gained new energy as public officials, city councils, and united consumers force the issue into the limelight in their hometown. Recognizing the advantages of citizen action and the greater responsiveness of local government, a new pressure point has been added to end sweatshop abuses. "If we can envision ourselves as a community of consumers rather than autonomous shoppers," says the Clean Clothes Campaign, "some remarkable things can happen."

      Bangor's Clean Clothes Campaign: A city of nearly 31,000 residents, Bangor, Maine is working toward "sweatshop free" clothing within its city limits. Led by Peace through Interamerican Community Action, the Clean Clothes Campaign wants the city of Bangor to support a simple principle: Clothes sold in our community should not be supplied by manufacturers who violate established international standards regarding forced labor, child labor, poverty wages, and decent working conditions. They accomplished this in 1997 by banning the sale in Bangor of any item of clothing produced in violation of these most basic standards of ethical practice.

      The campaign will next build upon the community consensus against sweatshops with a retailer campaign. Retailers will be pressed to take a pledge of corporate and social accountability to the Bangor community. The Clean Clothes Campaign insists that "ordinary people should have something to say about the behavior of businesses, large or small, that operate in our community. We would never permit local vendors to sell us rotten meat, or stolen property, or illicit drugs because such behavior offends our community values. Likewise, we do not condone international corporations supplying our retailers with items made under conditions that equally offend our sense of decency."

      "FoulBall" spurs Los Angeles: The City Council of Los Angeles, California approved a resolution in December 1996, requiring the city to only purchase sporting goods that have been certified by a reputable independent organization as having been manufactured without the illegal use of child labor. The resolution has received tremendous support from youth soccer leagues, parents, and schools.

      The effort was a response to the FoulBall Campaign to end the exploitation of children in the manufacture of sports equipment. It has become a model resolution for other cities.

      Innovative Law in North Olmsted, Ohio: In February 1996, the North Olmsted City Council approved an ordinance forbidding the purchase, rent, or lease of goods which have been manufactured under sweatshop conditions. The law refers to the following when determining sweatshop conditions: child labor, forced labor, wages and benefits, hours of work, worker rights, and health and safety. A Cleveland suburb with a population of 35,000, North Olmsted's purchasing amounts to approximately $150,000 per year on items commonly produced in sweatshops.

       Suppliers must sign a new clause on all contracts and purchase requisitions stating that their products are not made in sweatshops. If the city discovers a supplier does sell sweatshop products, the contract will be canceled or other appropriate action taken.

      Twelve other cities in Ohio, including Cleveland and Dayton, have passed the same resolution. In Pennsylvania, Allentown has passed a law and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are pending. Cities elsewhere who have the same law are San Francisco and Lansing. The North Olmsted model will be presented as a resolution urging all cities to adopt this policy at the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in January, 1998.

       The clarifying language and subsequent enforcement by U.S. Customs is expected to impact nearly $100 million of imports. The effect it will have on the garment industry -- and other industries -- remains to be seen. There is not doubt, however, that this clarification poses a significant first step in closing down the U.S. market to products made through child labor exploitation.

      Meanwhile, two other bills have been introduced in this Congress related to imports of products made by children. The Child Labor Free Consumer Information Act of 1997 (H.R. 1301 and S. 554) establishes a voluntary labeling system for wearing apparel and sporting goods made without child labor. The Child Labor Deterrence Act (H.R. 1328 and S. 332) would prohibit the importation of manufactured and mined goods into the United States which are produced by children under the age of 15.