Question

Kathy Lee Gifford is very popular in America.She decided to launch a clothesline for low-income families in America. Like other clothing businesses, she decided to seek an oversees business where she can get the garment made, while at the same time give jobs to citizens of a poor county.In her research, she discovered that she could have the clothes made the less costly in Thailand.She contacted her attorney who then entered into an agreement with a Thailand manufacturing company, who then negotiated with a local Thai garment employer to make the clothes. The employer then opened 10 sewing shops in various cities within Thailand to accommodate her monthly supply orders.

The agreement was faxed to the company and neither she, nor her attorney ever made a visit to the shops within the four years that they were in business.One day a reporter was tipped off that one of the sewing centers was a well-known sweatshop in the garment area where the workers were forced to work under unhealthy conditions (no air condition and leaky roofs) and had to work 14 long hours with only two breaks?As a matter of fact, it was later discovered that all of the shops were considered “sweatshops”.

1. Who are the affected stakeholders?

2. What should Kathy Lee do with this new revelation?(Remember that she

is under a contractual duty at this time).

3. Would you continue to wear clothes if you knew that they came from a sweatshop?

4. Why wasn’t this a “win-win” situation like Mrs. Lee thought it would be? ( Low costs clothes for low income people)

Answer 1

1. Affected stakeholders are Ketthy Lee, investors in her business, the contractor in Thailand as well as the workers working in the factory among many like the customers of Ketthy Lee clothing line

2. She should have entered into the clause in the agreement where if any unethical practice is followed she may quit the agreement, however if there is no such clause she should ask contractor to change the working conditions or she may leave the contract and give legal fight for his acts.

3. As a matter of humanity, I shall not endorse such practice by wearing the brands which follow such malpractices

4. It was not a win win situation because of the reputational damage the revelation would cause. People of higher income group who apparantely are the main source of income for her our very conscious of the practices the brands they use follow.

Hope this helps, if not please let know in comments. Please mark the answer as helpful for the efforts put, it will mean alot. Thanks