Read the below info then anwers the Qustion 1 to 4 then do part 2,please.

“To Sew or Not to Sew”

Kathy Lee Gifford is very popular in America.She decided to launch a clothesline for low-income families in America. Like other clothing businesses, she decided to seek an oversees business where she can get the garment made, while at the same time give jobs to citizens of a poor county.In her research, she discovered that she could have the clothes made the less costly in Thailand.She contacted her attorney who then entered into an agreement with a Thailand manufacturing company, who then negotiated with a local Thai garment employer to make the clothes. The employer then opened 10 sewing shops in various cities within Thailand to accommodate her monthly supply orders.

The agreement was faxed to the company and neither she, nor her attorney ever made a visit to the shops within the four years that they were in business.One day a reporter was tipped off that one of the sewing centers was a well-known sweatshop in the garment area where the workers were forced to work under unhealthy conditions (no air condition and leaky roofs) and had to work 14 long hours with only two breaks?As a matter of fact, it was later discovered that all of the shops were considered “sweatshops”.

Please discuss and explain the following questions.

1. Who are the affected stakeholders?

2. What should Kathy Lee do with this new revelation?(Remember that she is under a contractual duty at this time).

3. Would you continue to wear clothes if you knew that they came from a sweatshop?

4. Why wasn’t this a “win-win” situation like Mrs. Lee thought it would be? ( Low costs clothes for low income people)

Part 2- Discuss and define Sweatshops- Research a case dealing with sweatshops and discuss it. Who were the party (parties) who were involved in the sweatshop situation. and describe why was it considered a sweatshop.  Only 1 person can do the same case so please look and see what case your classmates have already submitted and find another case that dealt with the issue of Sweatshops.