Journal of Business Ethics 156 (1):59-69 (2019)
AbstractMutually beneficial exchanges in markets can be exploitative because one party takes advantage of an underlying injustice. For instance, employers of sweatshop workers are often accused of exploiting the desperate conditions of their employees, although the latter accept the terms of their employment voluntarily. A weakness of this account of exploitation is its tendency for over-inclusiveness. Certainly, given the prevalence of global and domestic socioeconomic inequalities, not all exchanges that take place against background injustices should be considered exploitative. This paper offers a framework to identify exploitation in mutually beneficial exchange, focusing on the case of sweatshop labor. It argues that an employer can be viewed as taking unfair advantage of an underlying injustice if and only if the employer’s surplus from the exchange in the unjust state of affairs exceeds the surplus it could maximally obtain in a just state of affairs. The paper illustrates the applicability of this framework using three different conceptions of justice and argues that it is superior to microlevel accounts of exploitation that regard background justice as irrelevant. The paper concludes by describing some normative implications that follow from judging an exchange exploitative.
Similar books and articles
Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues.Jeremy Snyder - 2010 - Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (2):187-213.
Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.Matt Zwolinski - 2007 - Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (4):689-727.
Exploitation as a Path to Development: Sweatshop Labour, Micro-Unfairness, and the Non-Worseness Claim.Michael Randall Barnes - 2013 - Ethics and Economics.
Global Labor Justice and the Limits of Economic Analysis.Joshua Preiss - 2014 - Business Ethics Quarterly 24 (1):55-83.
The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment. [REVIEW]Benjamin Powell & Matt Zwolinski - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (4):449-472.
Better to Exploit Than to Neglect? International Clinical Research and the Non‐Worseness Claim.Erik Malmqvist - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (4):474-488.
The Case for Markets in Citizenship.Christopher Freiman - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (1):124-136.
The Ethical and Economic Case for Sweatshop Regulation.Mathew Coakley & Michael Kates - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 117 (3):553-558.
Exploitation and Demeaning Choices.Jeremy Snyder - 2013 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (4):345-360.
Free Exchange for Mutual Benefit: Sweatshops and Maitland’s “Classical Liberal Standard”.Thomas L. Carson - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 112 (1):127-135.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Sweatshops, Structural Injustice, and the Wrong of Exploitation: Why Multinational Corporations Have Positive Duties to the Global Poor.Brian Berkey - 2021 - Journal of Business Ethics 169 (1):43-56.
Modern Slavery in Business: The Sad and Sorry State of a Non-Field.Genevieve LeBaron, Stefan Gold, Andrew Crane & Robert Caruana - 2021 - Business and Society 60 (2):251-287.
A Nozickian Case for Compulsory Employment Injury Insurance: The Example of Sweatshops.Damian Bäumlisberger - 2020 - Journal of Business Ethics 173 (1):13-27.
References found in this work
Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.Martha C. Nussbaum - 2000 - Cambridge University Press.