Here's a more in-depth review of the Sweatshop game I mentioned a while ago: http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2011/07/the-frightening-real-world-strength-of-channel-4s-sweatshop-game207.html
The review points out the subversive nature of the game: In order to get gold stars at each level, you have to adopt unsafe practices and exploit child labor. The reviewer thinks players will resent being forced into this position, but is not clear on what the ultimate impact on the player will be. Ideally, I suppose, the resentment towards the game for forcing you to be "evil", would translate into an understanding that the it is Western consumerism that is the driving force behind the rise of sweatshops.
I think it is equally likely that a player will simply see this as yet another game environment (and the unchallenged racist and misogynist humor in the game helps in setting up a world where actions have no consequence on real people), and will experiment with both being as evil and as good as possible. After all, finding different strategies to win is a major part of what makes games fun.
Another flaw mentioned is that it is quite possible to do reasonably well just by providing some basic amenities like a radio and bathroom. It's therefore quite easy to leave the game with presumably unintended impression that sweatshops are not such bad places after all, "Hey, as long as there's a radio in the factory, the worker's are happy, even the kids!"