Their analysis of consumer concern about sweatshops is simplistic. This leads to a misunderstanding of how firms respond to publicity about abusive conditions. They have an overly optimistic view of how monitoring works in practice and, finally, they ignore the crucial question of rights and power. Let's start with the limits of ethical consumerism. The authors do not understand that consumer demand for good and bad conditions is asymmetric.
Firms do have a lot to lose if they are seen as sweatshop producers.
The demand for goods produced under sweatshop conditions is inelastic. What firms will not do is grant workers basic rights to organize or change the sweatshop structure of the industry. This is because firms have limited ability to raise prices for products made under good conditions. The loss of revenue from consumers unwilling to pay more for a garment produced under good conditions is not offset by those willing to pay more. The authors present an optimistic view of the relationship between monitors and companies.