The Jerseys and the Factory
St Brigid's is a co-educational school of 720 students with strong GAA and soccer teams. Over three years it has bought 900 playing jerseys from KitPro, a sportswear supplier whose shirts cost €18 each, compared with €45 from a Fairtrade-certified alternative. The school's annual sports budget is €30,000, of which €12,000 goes on kit. A local sponsor, Burke Motors, pays €8,000 a year and has asked for 'value for money'. This week the student council watched a documentary alleging that a KitPro subcontractor in Uttar Pradesh employs children as young as 14 on 11-hour shifts and blocks union organising. KitPro denies the allegations and says it audits its suppliers. Parents are divided: some say they cannot afford €45 shirts for children who outgrow them; others say the school should not profit from exploitation. The student council wants an immediate boycott and a public statement. The board of management meets in three weeks.
1. Explain two principles of Catholic social thought relevant to this decision and show how they pull in different directions here.
Read the worked answer
Principle 1: Human dignity and the option for the poor. Every person is made in the image of God and has a dignity no contract can erase (Gaudium et Spes, 1965). Work is not a commodity; the worker is a subject, not an instrument (Laborem Exercens, 1981). The option for the poor asks that the most vulnerable - here, child workers in a subcontractor's factory - be given priority. This points towards ending the contract.
Principle 2: The common good and subsidiarity. The common good is the sum of social conditions that allow people to flourish (Gaudium et Spes, 26); subsidiarity holds that decisions belong at the lowest competent level (Quadragesimo Anno, 1931). The school community's common good includes affordable access to sport for 720 students, and the board, not the student council, is competent to decide contracts. This points towards a careful, staged decision rather than an immediate public boycott.
How they pull apart. Solidarity with the distant child worker competes with solidarity with the local family who cannot afford a €45 jersey, and with the school's dependence on Burke Motors' €8,000. The principles do not produce an automatic answer; they set the terms of the argument. A defensible resolution must protect both the worker and the student, not sacrifice one for the other.
Additional check. Stewardship and participation: the students have a legitimate voice even though they do not hold the decision.
2. Distinguish a boycott from a buycott and evaluate the likely effects of each in this case.
Read the worked answer
Definitions. A boycott is a refusal to buy from a supplier, usually to pressure it to change. A buycott is the positive counterpart: deliberately choosing a supplier because of its practices.
Boycott: likely effects here.
- Symbolic: a public statement by a 720-student school signals a norm and may attract media attention.
- Material: 900 jerseys over three years is a tiny share of KitPro's output; the supplier may not notice. The school's €12,000 kit budget is small leverage.
- Unintended harm: if orders fall, the subcontractor may dismiss workers or move to a less visible factory; the children are not automatically helped.
- Cost: switching to the certified supplier adds €9,000 a year, which the sports budget cannot absorb without cuts or a sponsor.
Buycott: likely effects.
- Real but limited: it shifts the school's own purchasing, protects its reputation and builds a relationship with a certified supplier.
- Risk of 'clean-washing': certification schemes vary; a Fairtrade label on sportswear is not the same as an audited living wage.
Combined judgement. A boycott alone is expressive but weak; a buycott alone is quiet and slow. The strongest option is a phased buycott with a deadline and public criteria: request a written audit and remediation plan from KitPro within 60 days, place the next order with the certified supplier, and phase KitPro out over two years while seeking a sponsor or a price negotiation to cover the €9,000 gap. This uses the school's limited leverage as a signal and as a purchasing decision at the same time.
3. Recommend a decision to the board of management and justify it, with reference to at least two principles and one practical constraint.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation.
- No immediate public boycott; instead, a written request to KitPro for its audit report, the name of the subcontractor and a remediation plan, with a 60-day deadline.
- Switch the next order (about 300 jerseys) to the certified supplier, funded by a €2-per-shirt levy on sports clubs, a renegotiation with Burke Motors and a reduction in the number of new designs.
- Adopt a procurement policy: human rights and labour standards as tender criteria, published on the school website.
- Publish a statement that names the standards, not the accused company, to limit legal risk.
- Review in 12 months against named indicators: audit received, remediation evidenced, cost per shirt.
Justification.
- Solidarity and the option for the poor: the school's leverage is small, but its purchasing power should still be directed away from alleged child labour, and its voice used to demand remediation rather than punishment.
- Common good and subsidiarity: the board, not the students, must decide the contract; but the students' participation has shaped the criteria, which is subsidiarity working properly.
- Stewardship: the €30,000 budget is finite; a phased switch and a levy protect sport for all students, including those who cannot afford the €45 shirt.
- Practical constraint: an immediate boycott risks defamation proceedings and a €9,000 hole in the budget, and may harm the workers it aims to help.
Why not the student council's plan. It is ethically right in aim and imprudent in method: it maximises the school's exposure and minimises its leverage. A deadline, a switch and a published policy achieve the same moral purpose with less collateral damage.