We are a public forum committed to collective reasoning and the imagination of a more just world. Join today to help us keep the discussion of ideas free and open to everyone, and enjoy member benefits like our quarterly books.
We are a public forum committed to collective reasoning and the imagination of a more just world. Join today to help us keep the discussion of ideas free and open to everyone, and enjoy member benefits like our quarterly books.
This issue’s forum takes on the poorly compensated, mind-numblingly tedious, physically demanding, sometimes-dangerous jobs that persist around the world in factories supplying Apple, HP, Nike, and other leading global brands.
Richard Locke, professor of political science and management at MIT, has spent the past decade studying companies’ efforts to improve working conditions in their supply chains. These private programs—spurred initially by the determined efforts of activists and sustained, he believes, by good intentions—have filled a void left by governments that fail to regulate labor markets. When he began this research, Locke hoped that the most effective programs could be identified, shared among companies, and used to create more just working environments in the overseas factories that produce so many of the goods we consume.
Locke gained unprecedented access to corporate audits, and he interviewed hundreds of managers. He finds the results of private, voluntary regulation disappointing. And he concludes that, while corporations should do what they can, improving labor standards is ultimately a public responsibility.
In the debate that follows, some respondents express skepticism that foreign governments have the requisite regulatory capacity. Others disagree, offering promising examples and strategies for enlisting governments—as well as NGOs, companies, and workers themselves—to help solve the problem. Still others call for a more comprehensive conversation involving labor rights, sustainability, and new business models. Who is responsible for ensuring decent standards for workers? Read the forum and decide.
Also in this issue: Peter Godfrey-Smith stretches our thinking about the human mind by exploring what it is like to be an octopus. And don’t miss Deborah Stone’s meditation on the compulsion to discriminate and categorize. She hopes that “because we can feel our creative powers as we sort and classify, we can transcend categories, too.”
Finally, we’d like to acknowledge Alan Stone, who started writing film essays for BR twenty years ago, in the spring of 1993. He has not missed an issue since. Alan’s compelling sense of life’s moral adventure has won him many fans, starting with us. We are grateful for his contribution to BR and for all that we have learned from him.
Deborah Chasman is co-editor of Boston Review.
Joshua Cohen is co-editor of Boston Review, member of the faculty of Apple University, and Distinguished Senior Fellow in law, philosophy, and political science at University of California, Berkeley.
Contributions from readers enable us to provide a public space, free and open, for the discussion of ideas. Join this effort – become a supporting reader today.
Vital reading on politics, literature, and more in your inbox. Sign up for our Weekly Newsletter, Monthly Roundup, and event notifications.
Companies are unreliable allies in the fight for queer rights and social justice. We must rebuild a working people’s movement.
Decades of biological research haven’t improved diagnosis or treatment. We should look to society, not to the brain.
Though a means of escaping and undermining racial injustice, the practice comes with own set of costs and sacrifices.
A political and literary forum, independent and nonprofit since 1975. Registered 501(c)(3) organization. Learn more about our mission