The production and consumption of goods is a global phenomenon that has significant social and environmental impacts and challenges. In 2016, the International Labor Organization (ILO) estimated that 25 million people were victims of forced labor. Forced labor is defined as “work that is involuntary and subject to penalty.” It is a subset of modern slavery, and is a complex problem that affects all three pillars of sustainability. Fair labor, on the other hand, is voluntary, requires fair compensation, and is free from penalty. With one in five jobs tied to global supply chains, it is vital that companies and organizations are committed to sustainability within the supply chain (Thorlakson et al., 2018). One critical aspect of this commitment includes a focus on fair labor practices.
ASU’s Trademark Licensing Department currently utilizes third-party vendors to verify that any licensed product, those marked with an ASU logo or trademark, have been sourced and produced under fair labor conditions. Our project focuses on steps that can be taken to elevate fair labor practices across the ASU supply chain for both licensed and unlicensed products. The Fair Labor Solutions Team has developed two primary deliverables: an overarching report and a fair labor problem identification presentation with a script to act as an education tool for ASU staff. The report contains the following elements: a landscape analysis of fair labor, ASU’s current procurement practices, a collection of exemplary case studies, and a tiered vision towards transformational change. Our team understands that ensuring fair labor throughout the ASU supply chain is not a linear process. The goal of our deliverables is to offer a strong foundation for the university's transition to sustainable procurement.
The challenge with actualizing justice in many contemporary societies is the broad and often conflicting individual beliefs on rights and responsibilities that each member of a society maintains to describe the opportunities and compensations they attribute to themselves and others. This obscurity is compounded through a lack of academic or political alignment on the definition and tenets of justice.
The result of the deficiency of commonality of the definition and tenants of justice often result in myopic decisions by individuals and discontinuity within a society that reduce the available rights, obligations, opportunities, and/or compensations that could be available through alternative modalities.
The paper begins by assessing the challenge of establishing mutual trust in order to achieve cooperation. I then examine utility enhancement strategies available through cooperation. Next, I turn to models that describe natural and artificial sources of social contacts, game theory, and evolutionary fitness to produce beneficial results. I then examine social norms, including the dual inheritance theory, as models which can selectively reinforce certain cooperative behaviors and reduce others. In conclusion, a possible connection among these models to improve the overall fitness of society as defined by the net average increase in available utility, rights, opportunities, and compensations is offered.
Through an examination of concepts that inform individual choice and coordination with others, concepts within social coordination, the nature of social contracts, and consequentialist justice to coordinate behaviors through social norms may illustrate an integrated perspective and, through additional examination, produce a comprehensive model to describe how societies could identify and foster just human coordination.
Globally we are struggling to match the need for development with the available resources. Kate Raworth’s (2012) developed the idea of a “safe and just space” as a balance between the planetary boundary approach and ensuring a level of basic needs satisfaction for everyone. O’Neill et al. (2018) argue that countries are currently not able to provide their populations with basic needs without concurrently exceeding planetary boundary measures. While attempts have been made to get people to change their habits through moral self-sacrifice, this has not been successful. Kate Soper (2008) argues that a change towards sustainability will only be possible if an alternative to high consumption is offered, without trade-offs in well-being. Technological improvements are often thought to end up providing solutions to the problem of overconsumption, but as Jackson (2005) shows convincingly, this is highly unlikely due to the overwhelming scale of changes required.
‘Alternative hedonism’ (Soper 2008) is a philosophical approach that has been proposed to solve this dilemma. By changing what humanity pursues to be less focused on consumption and more linked to community interaction and living healthy, fulfilling lives, we would simultaneously reduce stress on the globally limited resources and sinks. By developing and understanding satiation points – the point beyond which well-being no longer increases because of increased consumption - affluence that wastes resources without improving well-being could be reduced. This paper explores how ‘alternative hedonism’ and the development of ‘satiation points’ could be helpful in getting humanity closer to the ‘safe and just space’. The paper concludes with a discussion of some of the challenges that taking up of ‘alternative hedonism’ would entail.