From: LIVINGWAGES@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 08 2001 - 16:23:13 EST
In a message dated 11/7/2001 2:18:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
obrerist@ptd.net writes:
<< I always thought that the term "socially responsible business" is a
contradiction in terms. >>
Although the term has been hijacked by companies who certainly have less than
"socially responsible" business practices, the idea is not one to abandon.
In my involvement with the anti-sweatshop campaign over the past four years I
have heard from many people outside the "movement" who are concerned that we
(the movement) do not offer viable alternatives. Although I am in full
agreement with you that we can and should seek out new alternative models
(i.e. the co-op you mentioned), we also must recognize the reality of current
situation. I again would agree that we should be cautious in our assessment
and endorsement of companies that claim to be socially responsible. But I
would suggest that one do some level of research into an initiative before
dismissing it out of hand. Perhaps you should contact the Hot Fudge Fund and
ask to speak with Pierre and review the business plan that is in place. The
bottom line is, we all need clothes to wear. If there is a company that
wants to start from the bottom up in a way that includes workers rights as a
key component of their business model, that is a group that should be heard
out by those in "the movement." If we truly hold as a goal the opportunity
to have "sweatfree" apparel in our bookstores, we should be excited about the
prospect and work with this group until such time as we see that they are not
upholding the values that we believe in and defend.
Peace,
Jim Keady
Educating for Justice
Nike Campaign
www.nikewages.org
USAS webpage: http://www.usasnet.org
Unsubscribe from USAS list:
email blank message to usas-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 02:52:31 EST