Although officially slavery ended in the nineteenth century, and international legal agreement currently prohibits it, the world still struggles with the need to solve employment (mainly, but not only, by MNEs) in exploiting conditions, taking place particularly in “Third World” countries, perceived as modern slavery.

MNEs and other employers, accused of such exploitations, argue that had they not employed them, these employees would have no way to earn their living at all, and that what seems as exploiting employment terms in a Western context is reasonable in local terms. MNEs invest in campaigns aiming at depicting them as positive contributors to less and least developed countries.

While this discourse continues, on the other end of the global scale – the modern Western world – intensive research on and development of artificial intelligence takes place. Robots designed to replace human beings in many professional functions threaten to increase unemployment rates, making many current occupations irrelevant. Countries aware of this threat, for example, Finland, already have started an experiment of giving their citizen a monthly low “salary,” or rather maintenance allowance, regardless their employment (Finland trials basic income for unemployed, 2017). In a world where robots perform most labor, Western countries’ citizens soon may find they are not immune to a reality similar to that “Third World” citizens’ experience: Might most of us be unemployed, or have to compromise lower terms of employment than robots, just to stay employed? Will we have to learn to make a living with much lower salaries or maintenance allowances? Would we be forced to agree installation in our bodies of artificial devices that would turn us more efficient workers? Eventually, if robots develop higher intelligence than us, would most of the human population globally face a risk of turning into such robots’ “slaves”?

After reviewing the current situation and the conflicting narratives explaining it, this chapter will examine whether ethical dilemmas connected to the activities of MNEs in the “Third World” (which most of Western society conveniently overlooks, preferring to believe their campaigns and consume their products) may meet the Western sophisticated society down the road, as modernization progresses. It will examine further whether the current “Third World” exploiting reality may serve as a good laboratory for the development of ethical rules that may be valid to restrain and regulate the development and use of such robots, to prevent human slavery in the robots’ era.

“Slavery” is usually associated, in our minds, with pictures from previous centuries, in which people were abducted from their home countries and transferred in inhumane conditions, by slave ships, to other continents, where they were sold as slaves, thus losing their independence completely and becoming the property of their owners, or people who colonialists dominated in their countries of origin, forcing them by violent means to become their slaves.

International agreement, embodied into many declarations and conventions, ratified by the majority of states globally (e.g., ILO, 1930, 1957, 1999; and UN, 1989, Arts. 35 and 36),¹ currently prohibits slavery and servitude.

Article 4 of the United Nations’ (UN) Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UN, 1948) provides:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) provides:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Both these broad prohibitions do not define “slavery.” Article 1 of the Slavery Convention (UN, 1926) defines slavery narrowly as “the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised.”

The US Department of State (US, 2017) associates modern slavery with trafficking in persons and human trafficking,² used as “umbrella terms for the act of recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion.”

The US Federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (US, 2000) and the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000) use additional terms, including “involuntary servitude,” “slavery,” or “practices similar to slavery,” “debt bondage,” and “forced labor.”

Broadly defined, Thomson Reuters estimates this global industry at some US$150 billion per year (How can data help bankrupt the billion-dollar slavery industry, 2017).

The Global Slavery Index (2017) estimates that in 2016, 45.8 million people, including children, in 167 countries, are “subject to some form of modern slavery.” According to this assessment, the countries with the highest estimated prevalence of modern slavery by the proportion of their population are North Korea, Uzbekistan, Cambodia, India, and Qatar, while the countries with the highest absolute numbers of people in modern slavery are India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan.

In sum, modern slavery may take advantage of vulnerable places and people, involve criminal acts, force, and debt bondage to obtain extreme exploitation in the employment and living conditions of men, women, and children who find themselves unable to change their situation, either physically or for other reasons. While most of slavery legal prohibitions presuppose forced work, some of these cases may simply result from a lack of other work choices that drives people to work voluntarily in exploiting terms. Moreover, while some of these workers, or slaves, or both, end up in criminal industries such as the commercial sex industry, others engage in manufacturing common commercial products that most of us consume on daily bases.

Indeed, several poor countries “provide the low-cost labour that produces consumer goods for markets in Western Europe, Japan, North America and Australia.” Most of these countries try to somehow combat this phenomenon or at least provide some service to its victims (Global Slavery Index, 2017).³ Nevertheless, the devastating number of victims reflects this treatment’s relative insufficiency, or inefficiency, or both (e.g., Jansson, 2014).

The reason may be the dilemma countries hosting industries relying on modern slavery face: Insisting adherence to common standards of employment (as well as environmental and other standards) may deter MNEs from investing in them, thus prevent the creation of desperately necessary jobs. MNEs may subject their investment in a country to government’s consent to settle for low environmental standards, labor standards etc. Governments’ surrendering to such demands, undermining their sovereign power to a certain extent (Woods, 2000, p. 3), occurs particularly – but not only – in relatively economically weak countries.

Possibly, a well-coordinated global effort may solve this dilemma, creating a strong bargaining position to the governments involved in negotiating new terms of operation with MNEs. Unfortunately, governments seem to face a “prisoner’s dilemma” in the global competition over MNEs, thus avoiding, or watering down, such initiatives.

MNEs become major players in a global economy. International trade liberalization improves their access to cheap inputs, such as labor and raw materials, facilitating distributed production, and the operation of supply chains. Globalization enhances MNEs’ access to tax havens and to regimes offering favorable rules on intellectual property. MNEs exhaust comparative advantages accruing from rapidly changing circumstances, for example, governments’ decisions, consumers’ preferences, and new technologies (Trebilcock & Howse, 2005, pp. 441, 443).

Consequently, many accuse them of encouraging a standards race to the bottom, for example, by operating sweatshops where workers work in exploiting conditions in terms of hours, space, salaries, etc. Such sweatshops are an issue for global social debate (e.g., International Labor Rights Forum, 2013).⁴ The hosting countries of such sweatshops often prevent the intervention of labor unions and NGOs to change this reality, to prevent MNEs withdrawal from their market that might increase unemployment and deter potential investors.

According to the Fair Labor Association (2017), at least 18 countries are operating sweatshops, including Bangladesh, Costa Rica, El Salvador, China, the Dominican Republic, India, Vietnam, Honduras, Indonesia, Armenia, Brazil, Haiti, Taiwan, the Ivory Coast, Nicaragua, Mexico, the USA, and its territories.

Exploiting patterns of employment are common in industries such as clothing, shoes, plastic, electronics (Qiu & Lin, 2017), agriculture (e.g., cotton and cannabis), foods, and even in the chocolate industry.

In Western Africa, one of the major resources of cocoa beans from which chocolate is produced, supplying cocoa to international giants such as Hershey’s, Mars, and Nestlé, cocoa farmers earn less than $2 per day, an income below the poverty line. Thus, they often resort to the use of child labor to keep their prices competitive.

The children of Western Africa are surrounded by intense poverty, and most begin working at a young age to help support their families. Some children end up on the cocoa farms because they need work and traffickers tell them that the job pays well. Other children are “sold” to traffickers or farm owners by their own relatives, who are unaware of the dangerous work environment and the lack of any provisions for an education. Often, traffickers abduct the young children from small villages in neighboring African countries, such as Burkina Faso and Mali, two of the poorest countries in the world. Once they have been taken to the cocoa farms, the children may not see their families for years, if ever.

Most of the children laboring on cocoa farms are between the ages of 12 and 16, but reporters have found children as young as 5.

(Food Empowerment Project, 2017)

These children work for many hours, using chainsaws to clear the forest and heavy dangerous knives to cut the cocoa pods from high trees they must climb, and then carry 100 pounds pods sacks. The children are under-fed and live in bad conditions (ibid.). In this example, unlike the former one, chocolate producers mentioned may not directly run these ventures, but yet consciously enjoy the cheap raw materials (cocoa powder and butter) so produced. Some chocolate firms prefer to brand themselves as “ethical chocolate companies,” proud of using cocoa from other, more ethical resources (e.g., Slave Free Chocolate website, 2017).

MNEs focus on economic choices (unlike states, focusing on political choices) (Veseth, n.d., p. 1). Globalization facilitates these choices, breaking down barriers separating “nation states, cultures, labor markets or national economies” (ibid, p. 12). To handle issues, globalization may affect, such as human rights, intellectual property rights, and the environment, states must coordinate their policies. That erodes their sovereign power (Woods, 2000, pp. 3, 10).

Governments’ abstention from regulation or enforcement may obtain the same effect as effective deregulation to lower standards, to attract MNEs. Global Commodity Chains (GCCs) provide one example. These are “complex webs of global business that link independent businesses into a coordinated production and distribution process…GCCs gain and exercise power through their ability to mobilize and coordinate global market forces” (ibid., p. 12) including labor. An Oxfam report reflects how such GCCs encourage the exploitation of workers. Based on workers’ experiences in 12 countries,⁵ the report describes how tariff reductions over the last decades encouraged the establishment of Export Processing Zones (EPZ) enjoying tax holidays and incentives for investment, in particular in developing countries (Oxfam, 2004; Women, 2004). Large global retail companies, such as El Corte Inglés controlling 90% of Spanish department stores, or Wal-Mart, particularly in the garment and food industries, take advantage of these zones, controlling local producers through “real time” means of global communication to achieve short-lead time at the expense of the latter, who respond by imposing the costs on their workforce. The substantial reduction of transport costs, emanating from globalization and technological innovations, facilitates these practices. Governments of the countries where laborers suffer from these practices abstain intervention to protect workers, settling to sustain economic activity and jobs MNEs create.

In recent decades, MNEs gradually shifted from viewing their political environment as given to acting as political players, involved in bargaining with their host countries and with international organizations responsible for shaping the regulatory environment (Dahan, Doh, & Guay, 2006, pp. 1574, 1578–1595). Political economy is “concerned with the distribution of two scarce resources, money and authority” (ibid, p. 1578). Enhanced interaction with other players in the global arena – i.e., governments, international organizations, and NGOs – helps MNEs affect global political economy.

MNEs promote their interests in the global arena in different ways, including the use of strong lobbyists; initiation, or participation in existing, policy networks; assuming “soft power” by “spreading ideas, shaping cognitive frames through discursive strategies and symbolic actions, and participating in the promotion of certain social norms and values” (Anderson, 2005, p. 27).

MNEs collaborate with partners supporting the same ideas to build coalitions (Dahan et al., 2006, p. 1576). Possessing resources that other seek (individually or with other members of their coalition) may serve as another potential source of pressure, to affect policy decisions (ibid., p. 1586).

Unlike governments, MNEs are not committed to voters. However, where public opinion may bear economic implications, affecting consumers’ choice, it may affect MNEs’ behavior. To obtain positive public opinion, MNEs brand themselves as non-discriminating against workers.

In order to gain positive public opinion, MNEs publish on their Internet websites data reflecting their non-discriminating approach toward their workers; participate in international forums discussing ethical issues; and symbolically fund global activities supporting the improvement of labor conditions and rights (Munin, 2013).

MNEs may confront issues involving political (national or international) pressure to determine standards by opting for voluntary codes of conduct they⁶ or others⁷ initiate. Publishing their commitment to such codes may spare others’ anticipation that they join codes of conduct globally phrased, for instance by international organizations, which may impose on them stricter terms of behavior.

MNEs will naturally choose the most comfortable arena (national, regional, or multilateral) to maximize their success chances.

Simultaneously, they would prefer low publicity of the preferred status they may obtain by any of these methods, to minimize competition (Dahan et al., 2006, p. 1584).

MNEs deny the direct link between their global activity and the “race to the bottom” in certain countries, using, among others, the following arguments:

• The choice of their investment locations does not depend on low wages and taxes as much as it depends the requirements of knowledge-intensive production (Woods, 2000, p. 5), or on the relations between productivity and labor-cost (depending on many factors, including, e.g., labor availability, infrastructure, health care, public investment in education and training) (Trebilcock & Howse, 2005, p. 560). Domestic regulation restricts the free market, increases the production and costs, thus enhancing poverty. Surprisingly, developing countries find this argument very convincing, thus opposing to any attempt at the WTO to link market access with labor standards (ibid., p. 451). The wage gap between developed and developing countries may merely reflect differences in the cost of living, rather than necessarily reflecting MNEs’ non-compliance with labor standards, as employers in developing countries (ibid., p. 560).

• Any choice of standard gives an artificial advantage to countries that already adopted this standard, working as an implicit subsidy to firms operating in these countries (ibid., p. 284).

To the extent MNEs actively or passively contribute to the “race to the bottom” in terms of labor standards, thus enhancing modern slavery, these actions raise questions regarding corporate culture, truth, integrity, value, and differentiation:

Corporate culture – Do we, as consumers, want to encourage such extreme capitalist corporate culture, bluntly ignoring workers’ interests for the sake of profit? To what extent cheap products “bribe” us, thus turning us indifferent to the true social price? To what extent do we passively accept this culture due to its geographically distant implications? To what extent is our indifference or even worship of MNEs’ economic and financial success a result of the Western capitalist culture?

Truth and integrity – Could consumers globally (e.g., through social networks) join hands (thus circumventing their governments) to require that such MNEs respect truth and integrity as a condition for buying their products?

Value – What are the values that we, as a global consumers society, share? International agreements and declarations as well as national legislation and regulation seem to enshrine some of these core values. Yet, for the reasons specified above, their enforcement seems to be insufficient. To what extent and at what price are we – as a global society – ready to defend them? Should society in strong countries take measures to defend society in weak countries, or might such acts be perceived by the latter as patronizing acts with adverse effects?

Differentiation – Is differentiation between labor conditions in weak, poor countries and strong, rich countries discriminating against the former, or does it have an economic justification?

Of all international legal instruments mentioned above, only the European Convention on Human Rights accords individuals the right to file claims against signatory countries to the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, France, for infringing this convention (including the slavery and servitude prohibitions). Access of individuals to this court may form a strong enforcement instrument, since it circumvents political considerations that may prevent states from filing such claims, or from enforcing such legal prohibitions. Surprisingly, however, ECtHR cases reflect that most of the complaints individuals file refer to private, individual employers, rather than to employing MNEs (Shachor-Landau, 2015, pp. 61–70; cf., European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, 2005).

The robots’ age is not science fiction anymore. Autonomous cars will be in common use by 2020 (10 million self-driving cars will hit the road by 2020, 2017). Robots with artificial intelligence, already performing bank tellers’ functions and even medical operations, threaten to completely replace many common professions, for example, drivers, lawyers, and doctors (Will robots replace human drivers, doctors, and other workers?, 2017).

Robots’ developers market them as solely developed to improve human standards of living by releasing humans from the duty to perform many exhausting and sometimes boring tasks, freeing them to perform tasks that demand high-level human skills like critical thinking, problem solving, etc., and freeing time for enjoyable human interaction and leisure.

Assuming that in the future, MNEs may be no less driven by capitalist motivation than currently, they may find the use of robots very tempting: For a relatively cheap cost (avoiding pension funds, insurance schemes, vacations, rest breaks, etc.), they would be able to obtain obedient laborers who are not affected by feelings and human needs, who do not go on strikes, who’s performance is stable and predictable, and as artificial intelligence develops, may offer far greater effective and efficient output than humans. MNEs thus may prefer robots over human workers. Globalization is expected to enhance and support this process.

The Global Slavery Index website (2017) notes that vulnerability to modern slavery is

affected by a complex interaction of factors related to the presence or absence of protection and respect for rights, physical safety and security, access to the necessities of life such as food, water and health care, and patterns of migration, displacement and conflict.

(n.p.)

The robots’ age may blur current reality to create more such uncertainties that might trigger new forms of slavery.

This future prospect implies great concerns to the human race. Does current regulation and legislation offer any comfort?

As the development of robots and their capacities probably will be gradual, analysis should address short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios separately.

Economic considerations form MNEs major motivation. Globalization has opened tempting opportunities for MNEs to increase their profits, taking advantage of the comparative advantages of different countries. This practice has encouraged a “race to the bottom,” serving economic and political interests at the expense of laborers experiencing modern slavery.

While future optimist prospects promise more convenient human life, as robots will perform most of current human labor, one cannot ignore the prospects for severe ethical challenges such developments may involve.

Current regulation and legislation prohibiting modern slavery, which is already insufficient and insufficiently enforced, does not cover many of these future challenges.⁹

Without global restraint, there is no reason why MNEs would not take full advantage of the technological developments to assume more economic and political power globally, without any ethical commitment to the communities that such aggressive behavior may severely hurt.

Without immediate action, communities in economically strong countries soon may find themselves in a position quite similar to that of communities in economically weak countries: poor, suffering unemployment, and vulnerably exposed to exploitation. Thus, communities globally should better join forces to assume political pressure on governments and MNEs, to reach global agreement regarding the ethical constraints that should regulate these developments, balancing the global interest of benefitting from modernization with the global interest to protect human beings from future, large-scale forms of modern slavery.

• 1    What might be the due balance of these interests?

• 2    What checks and balances may ensure that this balance of interests is respected globally?

• 3    How can consumers’ power work to make MNEs respect this balance of interests globally?

• 4    How can consumers’ power work to engage MNEs in making a real, substantial contribution to the global effort to abolish modern slavery, servitude and other forms of laborers’ exploitation?

Munin, N. (2018). Slavery, chocolate, and artificial intelligence: Brands ethical dilemmas in a modern world. In H. Gringarten, & R. Fernández-Calienes (Eds.). Ethical branding and marketing: Cases and lessons (pp. 143–158). Routledge Management and Business Studies Series. London and New York: Routledge.

1. 10 million self-driving cars will hit the road by 2020. (2017). Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliviergarret/2017/03/03/10-million-self-driving-cars-will-hit-the-road-by-2020-heres-how-to-profit/&refURL=https://www.google.co.il/& referrer=https://www.google.co.il/

2. Anderson, G. W. (2005). Constitutional rights after globalization. Oxford, England, and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. doi:10.5040/9781472559715

3. Coca Cola. (2018). Integrity: The essential ingredient: Code of business conduct. Retrieved from https://www.coca-colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2018/Coca-Cola-COC-External.pdf

4. Dahan, N., Doh, J., & Guay, T. (2006). The role of multinational corporations in transnational institution building: A policy network perspective. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi, India: Tavistock Institute and Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726706072854

5. European Commission. (2017). White paper on the future of Europe: Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/white_paper_on_the_future_of_europe_en.pdf

6. European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. (2005). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168008371d

7. European Convention on Human Rights. (1953). Retrieved from http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

8. Fair Labor Association. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.fairlabor.org/

9. Finland trials basic income for unemployed. (2017, January 3). The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland- trials-basic-income-for-unemployed

10. Food Empowerment Project. (2017). Child labor and slavery in the chocolate industry. Retrieved from http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/

11. The Global Slavery Index. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/

12. Harari, Y. (2015). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Tel Aviv, Israel: Kinneret, Zmora, Bitan, Dvir Publishing House Ltd.

13. How can data help bankrupt the billion-dollar slavery industry. (2017, February 3). Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from https://blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/data-bankrupt-slavery-industry/

14. ILO Abolition of Forced Work Convention, no. 105. (1957). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C105

15. ILO Convention no. 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, no. 182. (1999). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB: 12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C182

16. ILO Forced Labor Convention, no. 29. (1930). Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C029

17. International Labor Rights Forum. (2013). Sweatshops. Retrieved from http://www.laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/sweatshops

18. Jansson, D. B. (2014). Modern slavery: A comparative study of the definition of trafficking in persons. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004281073

19. Kyriazi, T. (2015). Trafficking and slavery: The emerging European legal framework on trafficking in human beings – Case law of the European Court of Human Rights in perspective. International Human Rights Law Review, 4(1), 33–52. doi:10.1163/22131035-00401002

20. Munin, N. (2013, Spring). NGOs, multinational enterprises, and gender equality in labor markets: A political economy of conflicting interests? Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(1), 5–26. Retrieved from http://www.jmrpublication.org/portals/jmr/Issues/JMR5-1.pdf

21. Nestle. (n.d.). Code of business conduct. Retrieved from https://www.nestle.com/asset-library/documents/library/documents/corporate_governance/code_of_business_conduct_en.pdf

22. Nike. (2017). Commitment is everything: The Nike code of conduct. Retrieved file:///C:/Users/%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%93/Downloads/Nike_ Code_of_Conduct_2017_English.pdfOxfam. (2004). Trading away our rights: Women working in global supply chains. Retrieved from https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/trading-away-our-rights-women-working-in-global-supply-chains-112405

23. Oxfam. (2004). Trading away our rights: Women working in global supply chains. Oxford, England: Author. Retrieved from https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/rights.pdf

24. Qiu, J., & Lin, L. (2017, February 23). Foxconn: The disruption of iSlavery. Asiacape: Digital Asia, 4(1–2), 103–128. doi:10.1163/22142312-12340070

25. Shachor-Landau, C. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – A Guide including a comparison with Israeli law. Tel Aviv, Israel: Bursi [Hebrew].

26. Slave Free Chocolate. (2017). Ethical chocolate companies. Retrieved from http://www.slavefreechocolate.org/ethical-chocolate-companies/

27. Tilden, M. W. (2017). Robotics can – and will – change our lives in the near future. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/zurichfuturology/story/0,1920335,00.html

28. Trebilcock, M. J., & Howse, R. (2005). The regulation of international trade (3rd ed.). Oxford, England, and New York, NY: Routledge.

29. Ucnikova, M. (2014). OECD and modern slavery: How much aid money is spent to tackle the issue? Anti Trafficking Review, 3. Retrieved from http://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/article/view/68. doi:10.14197/atr.20121437

30. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx

31. United Nations Millennium Declaration. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm

32. United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children. (2000).

33. United Nations Slavery Convention. (1926). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/SlaveryConvention.aspx

34. United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

35. United States Department of State. (2017). What. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/j/tip/what/

36. United States Federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act. (2000). Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/61124.htm

37. Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207. Retrieved from doi:10.2307/1880689

38. Veseth, M. (n.d.). What is international political economy? An excerpt from an article. University of Puget Sound, p. 12. Retrieved from http://www2.ups.edu/ipe/whatis.pdf

39. Will robots replace human drivers, doctors, and other workers? (2017). VOA News. Retrieved from https://www.voanews.com/a/will-robots-replace-human-drivers-doctors-workers/3810706.html

40. Women. (2004, February). World Socialist. Retrieved from http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/wome-f25.shtml

41. Woods, N. (2000). The political economy of globalization. In Woods, N. (ed.), (2000), The political economy of globalization. Basingstocke, England: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/Political%20Economy%20of%20Globalization.pdf

42. Zara investigated for sweatshops, slave labor practices in Brazil. (2011). The Gloss. Retrieved from http://thegloss.com/fashion/zara-investigated-for-sweatshops-slave-labor-practices-in-brazil/