Pricewater-shed

'U' needs to use independent monitors

In an investigation partially funded by the University, the auditing firms that examine factories overseas to determine whether they are sweatshops have come under scrutiny themselves. A report by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Prof. Dara O'Rourke claims that Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the firm investigating these factory abuses, is biased towards management, failed to expose unsafe working conditions and generally paid more attention to things like timecards and relative wages than to human rights abuses.

The University was initially one of the five institutions to ask Pricewaterhouse, along with several other groups, to inspect the plants that manufacture its official apparel. The study was conducted in this way: Inspectors from Pricewaterhouse toured two randomly chosen factories in each of the seven countries that produce the most trademarked collegiate merchandise.

At one factory in each country, they were joined by other consultants, including O'Rourke. His independent report, scheduled to be published this week, reveals many problems with the Pricewaterhouse inspectors' analysis - and consequently some alarming things about the University's involvement with sweatshop labor.

Clearly it is unacceptable for the University to allow human-rights abuses to be perpetuated by selling products made in sweatshops. And it is also clear that the University knows this, as it has taken steps to end the problem, such as joining the Workers' Rights Consortium and financing investigations of factories. But it has also put its money behind a firm with a conflict of interest. Pricewaterhouse has unmistakable corporate ties - it is the world's leading inspection firm for companies investigating their own practices. This connection with corporate interests makes Pricewaterhouse's evaluations inherently problematic.

Another problem of the Pricewaterhouse investigation is its inspectors' failure to recognize some of the dangerous practices at these factories. For instance, inspectors at one plant in Seoul, South Korea, overlooked the fact that workers used a spot remover containing benzene, which is a carcinogenic chemical. They also failed to note the lack of proper protection for workers performing dangerous tasks and relied primarily on management for information rather than the people who are subjected to such hazardous conditions.

Oversights such as this prove that effective factory monitoring requires more than just examination of wages and hours worked. The University's efforts in the fight against sweatshop labor are certainly commendable; however, to do this effectively it must ensure that those chosen to monitor factories are attuned to the conditions for those who work in them.