Levi Straus in Third World Economics

Lately, more and more U.S. Companies are moving operations to “Third World” countries where labor and other resources are much cheaper than in the United States. Unfortunately, this trend raises some important questions about the morality of these companies. For this paper, I would like to focus on the company Levi Strauss, which like many others in the garment industry, has decided to close many of its domestic plants to take advantage of cheap labor found in many “Third World” countries:

Companies such as Levi Strauss have closed down domestic plants, discarding their American workers and moved their manufacturing plants to countries where labor and other resources are cheap to increase profits. There have been reports that the company subjects its workers to inhumane working conditions, such as abuse, excessive overtime, excessively low wages and even child labor. Can Levi Strauss treat its workers (new and old) unfairly?

It is considered an unacceptable business practice, or even illegal, for a company to discard workers and or subject them to inhumane working conditions.

There is a contradiction between the maxim and the principal here. This shows that Levi Strauss is acting immorally and thus shouldn’t discard its American employees to open manufacturing plants in countries where it can subject new workers to inhumane treatment to increase profits.

This moral argument, which was taken from a Kantian point of View [1], reveals several important issues regarding the morality behind Levi Strauss’ decision to move its operations abroad. To support my debate that the company acted immorally, I will provide some underlying motive, its violation of universally accepted business practices, and its insincerity in dealing with its social responsibility at home and abroad collectively led to my conclusion that the company has indeed acted immorally.

I will begin by discussing how the company’s motives prove that the company acted...