EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Answer by John Salter6
3
0

I've thought about this a little. I think a business that helps eliminate the subset of managerial practices that are simultaneously bad for workers and the company is worth considering. 

For example, there seems to be an inverted U relationship between productivity (in many fields) and hours worked. For some businesses, reducing worker hours would both more them more productive and happier. Companies would likely pay to have external consultants identify such problems and rectify them. 

You could then reinvest the profits into scaling the business. 

Like any startup, I think this would have a 99% chance of failure, but I think it might still be worth giving it a shot because of how much good you could do if it worked (without a single philanthropic dollar invested)

Reply
See in context
by Maxim Vandaele
1 min read6 answers 1

26

Global health & developmentPhilosophyEthics of personal consumptionEconomicsFair trade
Frontpage
Show all topics

The most controversial part of William MacAskill's Doing Good Better is probably the book's eighth chapter, 'The Moral Case for Sweatshop Goods'. There, MacAskill argues that:

We should certainly feel outrage and horror at the conditions sweatshop labourers toil under. The correct response, however, is not to give up sweatshop-produced goods in favour of domestically produced goods. The correct response is to try to end the extreme poverty makes sweatshops desirable places to work in the first place.[1]

However, I don't think that if extreme poverty was eradicated, this would automatically also abolish sweatshops. MacAskill continues:

What about buying products from companies that employ people in poor countries [...], but claim to have higher labour standards [...]? By doing this, we would avoid the use of sweatshops while at the same time providing even better job opportunities for the extreme poor.[1]

We could say that buying products from companies that employ people in poor countries while offering adequate labor conditions is an interesting alternative to either boycotting sweatshop goods and buying domestically produced goods instead (which could harm the world's poorest by pushing them into work with even worse labor conditions) or continuing to buy sweatshop goods (which harms the world's poorest by not improving their working conditions).

Disappointingly, MacAskill doesn't really further examine this alternative in his book. He merely proceeds to criticize Fairtrade goods, but offers no discussion of any possible alternative to currently existing Fairtrade goods that actually would improve labor conditions in the world's poorest countries.

So my question is: how could effective altruists help improve working conditions in low-income countries? Have there been relevant cause areas or interventions that effective altruists have discussed? If it's possible to find cost-effective global health charities, could there then also be cost-effective charities or consumption choices that aim to ameliorate, in one way or another, the working conditions of the world's poorest (especially if they work in sweatshops)?

 

  1. ^

    William MacAskill, Doing Good Better (ebook version) (London: Guardian Books and Faber & Faber, 2015)

26

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


6 Answers sorted by
Top

Sanjay

8
2
0

Hi Maxim, welcome to the EA Forum :-)

Before answering how, people in EA tend to first ask if. I.e. is the cause area of improving working conditions really a better use of our resources than something else (e.g. tackling poverty). To assess this, we could use the ITN framework. To illustrate this extremely quickly (i.e. without doing the analysis justice)

  • Importance: Poverty appears to be a bigger issue than working conditions in the developing world.
  • Tractability: At least some forms of tackling poverty are tractable, notably cash transfers. Improving working conditions does not appear tractable.
  • Neglectedness: I don't know how much work is happening on tackling working conditions, but I would be surprised if it were neglected, given how much attention there has been on this topic. After all, it affects clothing and items that those of us in the rich world buy, which raises its profile much more than extreme poverty.

Indeed, some economists (e.g. Jeffrey Sachs) have suggested that we should want more sweatshops, as they are a valuable step in economic development.

I haven't looked carefully at the question of whether tackling working conditions in the developing world is high impact, but as the above illustrates, I would guess it probably isn't.

--

However, what I've said thus far risks sounding unhelpful. You didn't ask for challenge on the premise of your question, you asked for how to go about making things better for workers. 

Again, I haven't thought about this carefully, but some thoughts off the top of my head:

  • With this outcome (as with many others) it's easy to think of things that sound relevant, but likely hard to find ones where the intervention actually has evidence of working
  • A full assessment should consider unintended consequences. For example, if you successfully improve working conditions for one group of people in the short term, other outcomes (either in the longer term or for other people) include:
  • Firms may decide that if they are offering a higher wage, they should demand more qualifications, which may exclude the poorest people, for whom access to qualifications may be harder.
  • Firms may decided that the purpose of locating their facilities in that country is no longer applicable, and may move (future) factories/offices elsewhere, potentially depriving the poorest people of job opportunities.

I guess if I were tasked with turning a substantial amount of philanthropic money into better outcomes for workers in the developing world, my first step would be to commission further research.

If I were really pressed to come up with an answer without researching it further, I guess I would suggest GiveDirectly. I don't think it directly solves the problem, and recipients of cash transfers may still end up working in sweatshops, but it's at least easier to decide whether you want to put up with it if you have savings.

Maxim Vandaele5
2
0

Hello Sanjay, thank you for your response. I understand that improving working conditions in low-income countries is much harder to achieve than reducing extreme poverty, but that on its own doesn't imply that there are no effective relevant interventions possible whatsoever. I can definitely believe that more research would be needed to understand which interventions (if any) could be effective in improving working conditions in poor countries.  Indeed, one big reason I made this post is to ask whether anyone on this forum is aware of relevant resear... (read more)

Reply

John Salter

6
3
0

I've thought about this a little. I think a business that helps eliminate the subset of managerial practices that are simultaneously bad for workers and the company is worth considering. 

For example, there seems to be an inverted U relationship between productivity (in many fields) and hours worked. For some businesses, reducing worker hours would both more them more productive and happier. Companies would likely pay to have external consultants identify such problems and rectify them. 

You could then reinvest the profits into scaling the business. 

Like any startup, I think this would have a 99% chance of failure, but I think it might still be worth giving it a shot because of how much good you could do if it worked (without a single philanthropic dollar invested)

Eevee🔹

6
0
0

There are workers' rights organizations in developing countries such as Bangladesh, like the Bangladesh Centre for Worker Solidarity. I don't know if it's possible to donate from a developed country though.

Eevee🔹3
0
0

Update August 2023: I've discovered China Labor Watch, a 501(c)(3) organization that investigates working conditions in Chinese manufacturing companies, educates workers on their labor rights, and "engages in dialogues" with the companies responsible for those conditions. They've exposed horrid working conditions at the companies that make products for Apple, Mattel, and others - which include sexual harassment and exposure to toxic chemicals.

You can donate to CLW via PayPal Giving Fund here; as of the time of writing, all transaction fees are covered by P... (read more)

Reply

Amber Dawn

4
1
0

I also think about this, so thank you for raising the question! 

Radical Empath Ismam

4
1
1

I personally donate to groups like APHEDA https://www.apheda.org.au/ on a hunch that they are effective.

My suspicion is that this community neglects promising opportunities in this space - and exploring it myself.

Larks

2
2
5

In aggregate workers' compensation is set by the marginal productivity of labour, and working conditions are a form of compensation, so you're probably looking for policies that will increase the productivity of workers. This could mean policies to encourage more investment or policies to increase the efficiency of existing capital (e.g. legal protections against expropriation, trade deals to help exports, reducing regulatory overhead, improvements to management practices, reducing crime, etc.)

Comments1
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
NunoSempere8
2
0

This old post of mine, about international supply chain accountability, could be of interest: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ME4zE34KBSYnt6hGp/new-cause-proposal-international-supply-chain-accountability

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
Relevant opportunities
2
Join Pathways to Progress's Book Discussion on Jeffrey Ding's Technology and the Rise of Great Powers
lmessner, Keishi Kimura, dominicsobhani
· · 1m read
0
0
77
80,000 Hours for Global Development
Benh713
· · 4m read
5
5
98
Can for-profit companies create significant, direct impact?
T.K., Ambitious Impact, Jacintha Baas
· · 9m read
6
6
View more