In any given country,labor laws and human rights are addressed by that country's people and government. This is a local issue. The article makes it clear that m

In any given country,labor laws and human rights are addressed by that country's people and government. This is a local issue. The article makes it clear that multinationals are not directly part of the problem but their supply chain vendors are. What is the expectation here? Should a company headquartered in a different country enforce it's views on labor,hiring practices and human rights on local vendors? With what rights? That is an absurdly arrogant way of viewing the problem. If the local govermnet cares more about economic prosperity than decent treatment of humans then they have every right to do so,it's their country and their people. I don't like it but I have no right to tell someone else how to run their country. It would have been the same way if the tables were turned. Western standards can't be enforced without western prosperity. I think,just maybe,western individuals don't apperciate enough just how much western rights and liberties depend on a stable prosperous economy. In my opinion,the best way to solve this is by aiding the local economy,by giving more work and business to the local vendors/supply chain. The more they prosper,the easier it is for the local working class to demand and get better treatment. There is change and there is sustainable change. Isn't China a good example of how working conditiond have somewhat improved over the past 10years or so?