That is what Dani Rodrik calls them. His post is commenting on a NY Times article describing how a NY utility company and government agency recently became aware of the conditions under which their manhole covers were made:
Seemingly impervious to the heat from the metal, the workers at one of West Bengal’s many foundries relied on strength and bare hands rather than machinery. Safety precautions were barely in evidence; just a few pairs of eye goggles were seen in use on a recent visit.
Rodrik then notes the company's response:
An embarrassed Con Edison says that it is now rewriting its international contracts to include safety requirements.
But the issue may not be that easy to solve, Rodrik points out:
Fine, but what if these requirements now raise the cost sufficiently for the utility to want to switch its supplies to another source? And what if these West Bengali workers now find themselves out of a job, or earning less in even worse working environments? Would we have we done them any favors by becoming outraged at their condition?
I've always thought this was one of the most powerful arguments against decisions not to trade with countries that have less stringent domestic regulations (labor, health, etc.) than ours: Are the workers really better off without their current job? Presumably they took the job because it put them in a better position than whatever they were doing previously.
On the other hand, perhaps it is possible that such actions will induce governments of these countries to take action on behalf of the workers who might lose their jobs due to a boycott, by passing laws that improve their working conditions.
Rodrik also mentions this solution:
Libertarians and fair-traders, which make an odd couple, do have a solution: they would say let consumers have information about the full hedonics--all the characteristics of a good, including the manner in which they are manufactured--and then let markets take care of it. So if Con Edison believes its customers value the welfare of West Bengali workers, it ought to be willing to pay for the extra costs its suppliers incur for running safe factories. No regulation is required; just better information.
It seems to me this is kind of a middle ground solution. We're not going to go for full out coercion to get you to change your laws through a government-led boycott, but we will provide information to the public to allow them to conduct individual boycotts, which will have a lesser, but perhaps still significant, impact.
