Thanks for the comment Dmitriy!

I agree it's a heck of a puzzle. The ideal solution would be one that happened at the level of consumer choice, where we got better at communicating what was "clean" and what was "dirty," effectively leading to a pure free market solution. Unfortunately there's evidence that only matters to consumers who already care [https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3cs0b66v].

And as you say, a legal ban on imports from countries with issues is impractical from a lot of perspectives. Not only would it be a tough sell, but the humanitarian crisis it produced would likely be worse than the one it was designed to fix.

Fortunately a complete solution isn't necessary to make progress, and individual companies can do a lot of good just by being conscious of where they source their raw materials. I think that's the most effective vector for the investment community to engage with for a lot of reasons, not least because companies are likely to listen to their investors.

But really the conversation doesn't evolve until it shifts from "oh gosh, these bad things are happening!" to "not doing these bad things produces a ton of good effects!" I'm hearing promising chatter about studies that are being done in low-wage factories in less developed countries which point to direct financial return from behaviors that are good in general: better wages for workers and better working conditions.

Turns out people are more productive in those circumstances. A hopeful finding.

Thanks again for reading!

Will