How We Talk Ourselves Out Of Supporting Ethical Behaviour

Readers, if you're a regular visitor to this blog, you are the right sort of people. You care about the environment, about worker expoitation, about how to make the world a better place. You have a good soul.

Which, if you believe a new piece of research from the US, makes you more irritating. Respondents to a survey were asked to assess a limited amount of information about a pair of jeans before deciding whether to buy them. They were given a choice of two out of four factors: price, colour, style, and whether child labour was involved. Those who chose not to know whether the jeans were ethically produced were then asked to think about the people who would.

The result: the respondents who weren't bothered about the ethical factor thought that the people who did were "unattractive, boring and odd." Charming.

However, as Oliver Burkeman in The Guardian points out, this is more about sour grapes than social attitudes. Or rather, something called social comparison theory. We all know we should care about ethical issues. If we choose not to, for whatever reason, we make ourselves feel better by belittling the people that do care. They may be more virtuous, but they dress funny and smell a bit, so nurr.

The theory is reinforced by another part of the study, which allowed people to donate to an ethical charity at no cost before taking the survey. These participants instantly felt better about themselves, and felt no need to put down their more ethical shopping partners. Having been given a chance to act nobly, they felt less threatened and didn't lash out.

There's a deeper and more worrying issue at the heart of the research. Doctor Rebecca Reczek breaks down the core problem:

In a similar study—using backpacks instead of jeans and replacing child labor with unsustainable manufacturing—we asked participants how interested they’d be in signing a pledge to be more sustainable. We found that subjects who put down ethical people were less likely to want to sign the pledge. That act of denigration undermined their commitment and their ethical values. Because they saw themselves calling people who took the time to research the sustainability information “odd,” “boring,” or “not fashionable,” they said to themselves, “I guess I don’t care much about sustainability,” and then they weren’t as interested in the pledge.

There's a lot to unpack here. We know we should care about ethical issues, but it's tough so we choose not to find out more and at the same time sneer at people that do–all to shore up our own sense of inadequacy at not caring. It's a tricky cycle to break, and I don't have any easy answers. All I can suggest is that you read The View regularly. That way, you can be informed, entertained and feel good about yourself.

 

I recommend a look at Doctor Reczek's research. There's an interview with her over at the Harvard Business Review that's well worth a coffee-break read.

 

Action Aid: Change Lives. For Good.

For half of the world's population, it can be a tough life. Tough to find a job that pays fairly. Tough to get an education. Tough to be treated with any kind of respect or dignity. It's an awful truth that if you're a girl or woman, particularly in the developing world, your life is made more difficult based simply on your gender.

If you're a girl in a developing nation, you are much more likely to be expected to look after your family through childcare, early employment or arranged marriage than go to school. If you do work, without the education you were denied you don’t have the skills you need to earn a proper income. You'll be paid less than men for doing the same amount of hours, have no provision to worker's rights and face harassment. In some cultures, you're not allowed to work or own land or property so you'll have to depend on male family members for survival.

Meanwhile, you're much more likely to face physical or sexual violence, either at home, at work or even on the streets. Some cultures see nothing wrong in this, and wrong-doers go unpunished. Forced marriage and the awful prospect of female genital mutilation (FGM) mean that for many women and girls there is literally no safe place to go.

In a world where climate-driven disasters and conflict are becoming ever more common, women are hit hardest. It's tougher to get shelter, food and clothing for you and your children if you're a woman, and menstruation and pregnancy make it easier to pick up disease and infection in areas without sanitation or access to clean water. It's also been proven that in the periods after a cyclone or flood has hit, or in conflict zones, sexual violence against women increases.

All sounds pretty bleak, right? I'd love to say there's some magic button we can press to make all this horror go away. But we can, at least, support the organisations that try to help women worldwide. One of the biggest are our friends at Action Aid, who have been working for the last forty years to try to make a difference across the board.

They work with communities across the globe to help get girls into safe and secure school spaces, and more importantly keep them there. They campaign for women in the workplace, pushing for equal rights and pay and helping to get training in the skills they need to make a better life for themselves. They also offer support for women to get access to land and to farm it sustainably.

Action Aid campaign to curtail sexual violence against women in all its forms. They seek justice for victims of abuse, and fight for an end to FGM and forced marriage. Work continues at the community level to end domestic violence and child abduction.

Action Aid have been most visible recently in disaster and conflict zones, helping women to get the resources they need to survive in the most difficult of circumstances. Sometimes it can be as simple as ensuring access to sanitary towels. But Action Aid have also found that putting women, who often understand the needs of their community best, at the front line of local disaster relief efforts speeds the recovery of these often rural and isolated areas. Women community leaders actively enhance the rebuilding effort.

There is, unfortunately, no instant panacea for the way women are treated. You can't erase prejudices and cultural stereotypes that go back for centuries and are propped up by religion and societal norms. But you can push against them, as Action Aid do, and eventually that does start to make a difference. You can't just marginalise one half the planet's population. Here at the Pier, we're proud to support Action Aid, and the way they're helping to change lives. For Good.

For more detail's on Action Aid's work, visit their website: https://www.actionaid.org.uk

 

Tangled In The Global Web Of Fashion

A must-read article by Michael Hobbes in the Huffington Post takes a forensically-focussed look at the fast fashion world in 2015. His conclusions make for decidedly uncomfortable reading.
We are urged that one route to a more ethical shopping experience is to shop ethically–that is, to buy clothes with a clear provenance, where we can track the factories our items have passed through in order to make it to our racks. If we can't, then we're urged to boycott the obvious transgressors–the multinationals who save costs by farming out their work to sweated labour in dangerous working conditions.
The trouble is, that narrative isn't just flawed: it's backwards and missing some important parts of the puzzle. The fact is that most multionationals have robust inspection regimes in place, and comply to all sorts of international standards. But for the most part, they have no real idea where or by who their clothes are being made.
As lead times for new ranges shrink, the suppliers to brands like Nike and Walmart are farming out work to smaller factories, who in turn are sub-contracting that work to outfits down the chain, that can come down to home workers. These mom and pop operations frequently pull the kids into the mix as well. In places like Bangladesh, where legislation against child labour is spottily applied, there's no way to stop an 8 year old sewing your new set of yoga pants if she's doing it next to her mum in the kitchen.
This practice is standard in the new world of fashion we've built, and it relies on a web of supply that only gets more complex the more you look into it. Most factories no longer deal directly with the brands. They work with middle-men, who are giant conglomerates themselves. Megasuppliers like Li and Fung supply everyone from Disney to Spanx, and have a billion-dollar turnover. They take the orders and the work ripples down, from factory to workshop to kitchen table. It's impossible to track, and therefore impossible to regulate. The megasuppliers have their own standards and inspectors, but frequently report back after the orders have already been filled, and there's no guarantee that the next order will be fulfilled in the same way or at the same factories.
Perversely, it's the multinationals that are doing the best work regarding worker standards these days. Stung by twenty years of bad publicity, they have set up training for management, and enabled better communication between them and their staff. You're almost better buying from them than from a small concern, who can only afford to send their work to a smaller factory whose paperwork may be in order, but who have figured out how to fib to inspectors when they arrive for an audit. If they ever see them. Bangladesh has 125 labour inspectors, with responsibility for 75 million garment workers.
This all sounds terribly bleak, but change is happening. We should not expect a quick fix, or that by not buying that new pair of Converses we are somehow saving a child from a lifetime of perury and sweated labour. It doesn't work like that. The key, if pilot schemes in Brazil are to be believed, is to focus on core suppliers and compel them to sign up to honest working standards. Consumer advocacy simply won't do the job. Modern fashion is far more complex than that.
Enough from me. Go read Michael Hobbe's article, and see for yourself what we're up against.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-myth-of-the-ethical-shopper/

Scoring Slavery

No-one wants to think that their clothes are products of slavery. Regardless of how cheap the item is, if you offered it to customers with a big sticker saying that it was made under sweatshop conditions, it's likely that you'd get very little takeup... and possibly reported to the authorities.
There's a wilful blindness at the heart of fast fashion, an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" attitude that means consumers have to be clouted repeatedly over the head with the idea that there is a good reason that cheap clothes are so cheap. It's most likely going to be labour costs in the form of fair wages that have been crossed out of the costing analysis.
What we really need is a list of how different fashion brands stack up on this important issue. Maybe even something like a league table. The ability to see at a glance how they compare on this most basic of ethical issues could really enable we the consumers to put pressure on the underperformers.
Australian campaigner Matt Darvas has just released a report that does exactly that. Using a scoring system based on how open different brands are at documenting and implementing fair labour relations, they've come up with a league table that goes from A+ (for brands Etico and Audrey Blue) to a damning F for the PAS group. These scores are for the Australian market, but it gives a fair idea of how the global players are sitting when it comes to fair treatment of their overseas workforce. Here's the list:

Matt is careful to note that having good ethical practices in place is no guarantee that these practices are being adhered to. But at least we're in a position to make a judgement based on more than price or look.
For more, check out Matt's blog post: http://mattdarvas.com/2015/04/23/top-fashion-labels-ranked-on-use-of-slavery/

The Label Tells The Whole Story

We always check the labels on our clothes, for washing and drying instructions. But what if those labels could cary other information: like the stories of the people who made the clothes in the first place?
The Canadian Fair Trade Network and Rethink Canada have teamed up to do just that, with eye-catching and thought provoking results. Their labels might be a little unwieldly, but they certainly grab your attention. And the tales they tell will make you think twice about the sacrifices that fast fashion forces on its workers.

Take this attractive burgundy hoodie--a perfect choice for relaxed weekends. A harmless, blameless item. Until you read the label:

"100% cotton. Made in Sierra Leone by Tejan.
The first few times he coughed up blood he hid it from his family. They couldn’t afford medical treatment and he couldn’t risk losing his long-time job at the cotton plantation. When he fell into a seizure one day it could no longer be ignored. The diagnosis was pesticide poisoning. The lack of proper protective clothing has left him with leukemia at the age of 34. He has two daughters. One of them starts work at the factory next year."

Or how about this mustard-coloured jumper? A nice piece for layering on a crisp autumn day. But what does the label tell us?
"100% cotton. Made in Cambodia by Behnly, nine years old. He gets up at 5:00 am every morning to make his way to the garment factory where he works. It will be dark when he arrives and dark when he leaves. He dresses lightly because the temperature in the room he works reaches 30 degrees. The dust in the room fills his nose and mouth. He will make less than a dollar, for a day spent slowly suffocating. A mask would cost the company ten cents."

The notion of transparency ties into ethical fashion in so many ways, and this simple idea, of giving us as consumers more information about the workers that make our clothes, is at the heart of the struggle. The work that the Canadian Fair Trade Network are doing is advocacy, but it's based on a belief that in order to do right, we have to know what we're fighting against.

Next time you check the label of your newest purchase, it might just be telling you more than what temperature to wash it at.

For more information on the work the CFTN are doing, visit their website.

Organising The Future Of Fair Pay And Conditions For Global Garmet Workers

It's becoming clearer that the world of ethical fashion reached a watershed in 2013, with an event that, for awful and tragic reasons, brought the challenges and dilemmas of the sector firmly into the public arena. That event was, of course, the Rana Plaza collapse, which showed the world just how untenable the current model of fashion production has become.
The question is, what next? In a fascinating talk hosted by The Guardian and chaired by that paper's ethical living correspondent Lucy Siegel, experts and activists met recently to tease out a potential road map for future development.
Agreement was quickly reached on one issue: wages for garment workers needs to rise. They are frequently not paid enough to provide for their families, and portions of these meagre wages are often withheld or simply never appear in the pay packet. An agreed minimum wage structure would help, but even this is fraught with problems. For example, you can't simply apply it to one part of the workforce. Finding the right figure involves getting government agreement, and preferably involving both business owners and workers in the discussion. Even then, there's no guarantee that the solution will change: a boost in wages is usually met with a corresponding rise in prices and rents, leaving people as badly off as before.
Unionisation, much of the panel argued, is a major part of motivating change. Much of the benefits that we take for granted in the West come directly from collective bargaining. Transparent and regular negotiations could make for a positive change in the often fraught relationship between workers, factory owners and the government. All of this has to come from a great effort of will, of course, but there are other influences to bring into the mix.
The power of brands to implement change cannot be underestimated. When the annual earnings of a company like Adidas outstrip the GDP of Cambodia, for example, then it's clear that the high street names have significant leverage. The good news is that brands do want to be involved. Jenny Holdcroft, policy director of IndustriALL Global Union, representing 50 million workers worldwide, said that her organisation is working with 14 different companies, many recognisable in the high street, to come up with a new plan for collaboration and partnership. This willingness to embrace change is a radical shift from the position of just a few years ago - a clear sign of just how much the tragedy of Rana Plaza has changed the economic landscape.
Meanwhile, the role of the consumer is a little less clear. There was less agreement on the panel that buying a single ethical product makes a difference. Our time and efforts is, Seigel argues, better spent in supporting the efforts of garment workers across the world to make a better life for themselves and their families. In short, don't just buy something, do something.
Everyone on the panel agreed that there was a long way to go, and the challenges ahead are significant and complex. There's no one-size-fits-all solution that can be applied on a global basis. But the signs are more optimistic than they have been in a long time. Holdcroft notes that:

“We are working in a way we have never been able to do before, with brands that want to make a difference.”

All the speakers were clear-eyed and realistic about the future of ethical fashion, and what needs to be done to give the humble garment worker a dignified and unexploited employment. But there does seem to be a new optimism, a new willingness on both sides of the negotiating table to make positive change. It seems that, out of the dust and rubble of Rana Plaza, a happier future migh just be starting to emerge.

There's more on the discussion over at the Guardian.

Clothes To Die For

This week's ethical fashion must-watch has to be the documentary screened by the BBC on the aftermath of the Rana Plaza disaster. Part of the This World season, Clothes To Die For tells the story of some of the survivors of the collapsed building, inside which nearly 1000 garmaent workers died after it fell apart in April last year.
Of course, it's impossible to tell the story of Rana Plaza and its aftermath without focussing on the wider issues: how Bangladesh became one of the biggest garment-making centres in the world, and what sacrifices have been made to workplace health and safety to keep it that way.
The film, directed by Zara Hayes and shot by Patrick Smith, is particularly good at teasing out the moral implications of Western boycotts of brands that source largely through Bangladesh. In short, although the workers are paid a pittance by our standards, it's a life-changing amount of money to them. No-one wants to lose out, even if the risks may seem unacceptable.
The answers are simple, and Clothes To Die For does not flinch in putting them on screen. The workers and factories of Bangladesh need more money to survive--but the sums they're asking for are almost laughably small. As one factory owner interviewed for the film puts it:

"If the retailers want more compliant factories, they have to pay us more. Get the retailers together and make sure they pay us five cents more. Not even ten, we don't even want ten cents, we want five, we're happy with five cents on each garment."

Five cents on every garment you buy, to stop another Rana Plaza. That's about 3p. I'd pay that. Wouldn't you?

This World: Clothes To Die For is available on the BBC iPlayer for the rest of the week. You can watch it at the link below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04bwxnd

How Prawns Could Get Ethical Fashion Onto The High Street

There's been some encouraging news in the past couple of weeks about social responsibility, and more importantly, our attitude towards it as customers.

After a Guardian investigation into the harvesting of prawns in Thailand by forced labour--OK, let's not beat around the bush here, slave labour--the UK Government has pushed for much stronger safeguards on the food we eat and the clothes we wear, to ensure that they're produced fairly and without exploitation. The consumer affairs minister, Jenny Willott, has gone so far as to state that brands must do more to promote a strong ethical standpoint, or risk losing customers. She said:

"Following the anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster earlier this year, we saw another high profile case involving oppressive labour practices in the production of prawns in Thailand.

"Consumers are increasingly aware of these issues and concerned about them. As a result of this public interest, we have an opportunity to highlight those companies taking positive action and encourage others to make a real difference."

 

This bullish tone is backed up by an extraordinary poll for Ipsos Mori, in which 83% of respondents agreed that a company's ethical policy mattered to them. Two out of every five said that they would spend more on a product if it had a proven clean record, despite the current squeeze on household spending.

With consumers starting to take the lead, the government is moving to take steps over ethical sourcing. In a statement to the British Retail Consortium, Willott singled out H&M and Marks and Spencer as companies with strong ethical policies that are applied through their entire supply chain. The inference is clear: these are big names that can still put eco-friendly, exploitation-free credentials at the heart of their business. If they can do it, why can't everyone else?

It's funny how the smallest of things can have such a huge potential result. The humble prawn could be the catalyst for a true revolution in fashion retail, bringing strong ethical policies onto the high street, backed up by a government that, while following the lead of its people, will end up making transparency and ethical practices a pre-requisite of doing business in the UK. Ultimately, that change has been mentored by us, as consumers making the right choices for the right reasons. We don't want to buy products that are the product of cruelty and the government seems to be indicating that, for once, it's on our side.

 

 

How To aVOID Clothes Made With Child Labour

Let's face it, without the internet ethical fashion would be a much tougher sell. The advent of the World Wide Web (which coincidentally turns 30 this week) has enabled producers, manufacturers and artisans to connect, collaborate and most importantly sell their wares.

The internet has also fostered an explosion of socially conscious projects and initiatives. Everything from awareness of rainforest and wildlife conservation to child exploitation and worker abuse in the third world. Of course, there are huge cross-connections between the two, and one thing's for sure: a connected world is, slowly but surely, becoming a more ethical one.

The launch of a new browser plug-in from a German activist group, Earthlink, is about to make the ethical choice a little easier. aVOID is designed to scour shopping sites like Amazon, Asos and Google Shopping for brands with known affiliations to child labour abuses, and simply makes sure that you never see them. It's a sure-fire way to ensure that when you're looking for clothes, you only find the brands with a decent and ethical employment record, without needing to do research every time you need a new pair of pants.

Up to now, aVOID has helped consumers to avoid 1.6 million items made using child labour. And as you also have the ability to view the uncensored results, you can see just which brands are happy to use kids to make their clothes: an eye-opening experience for many. Earthlink's Nikoletta Pagiati explains:

“Most people think, that cheap products are made by child labor. But there are a lot of high prized products–luxury brands–which are made by child labor, too. Consumers really have the power to influence and control great companies so that they are forced to change their corporate responsibility.”

We're all agreed that child labour should play no part in a modern, ethical workplace, and it's great to see groups like Earthlink showing just how much of a problem it still is - and just how easy it can be to make sure you don't support it.

aVOID currently runs on Chrome and Safari, with support for Firefox coming soon. For more info and to install and see the plug-in in action, check out http://www.avoidplugin.com/

The News Wrap

The newsletter of WRAP, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production, might sound like dry reading. But if you're interested in the challenges facing global fashion, particularly at the fast end of the spectrum, it's a must-read.

WRAP are an independent, objective, non-profit team of global social compliance experts, dedicated to promoting safe, lawful, humane, and ethical manufacturing. Their education programmes are second to none, and WRAP accreditation is a sure sign that you're dealing with an ethical business. Pier32, for example, regularly use WRAP-certified garments.

WRAP have offices and influence across the globe, and a presence in all the areas where the future of fashion manufacturing is being worked out. Not, in the most case, by executives in the penthouse office of a western skyscraper, but by the workers on the factory floor, one strike at a time.

You quickly start to realise when reading about global manufacturing that it's a messy, turbulent business filled with unexpected pitfalls. For example, the newsletter notes that several garment manufacturers in Bangladesh have either closed their doors or cut back on production amid violence spurred by the recent elections. At least 18 people were confirmed dead after police clashed with a group of opposition activists, who have also been accused of torching over 100 polling places in the country.

Bangladesh is the place to watch at the moment. Following the Rana Plaza collapse, all eyes are on the garment factories to see what will happen next. Those of us that hoped the BFSA would put an end to workplace tragedies have, thus far, been sadly mistaken. Following a fire at the Aswad Composite Mills factory in October that killed at least 8 people, it's emerged that the owners were reportedly warned by government officials about the imminent fire danger at their facility just one week before the incident occurred. Government inspectors say that the facility was given a formal notification that the building was unsafe for work and posed significant danger to human life. The report noted that the facility's fire safety equipment was not properly maintained and that several additions to the structure had been made without approval.

Things are no better in Cambodia, for different reasons. Leaders of local garment worker unions say they will push on with demonstrations for higher wages after a recent crackdown on them by the Cambodian government turned deadly. At least 4 people were killed in the New Year after police reportedly used AK-47 rifles to break up a demonstration in what is being described as some of the worst violence against Cambodian civilians in 15 years. Workers from over 500 factories across the country have been on strike demanding that the minimum wage be increased to US$160 per month--that's just under £100. This crackdown has been urged on by South Korean investors with interests in the area, reportedly using their embassy's Facebook page.

In India, there's agitation by handloom workers who see their livelihood disappearing as power looms take over. Weavers are striking both against mechanisation, and products that are advertised as handwoven when they have clearly been made by a machine. Meanwhile, a new weaving institute is being set up in the Andhra Pradesh region at a cost of $5.6 million. This makes the point that, from the government point of view, handwoven goods and the skilled workers that produce them still have a place in modern India.

Finally, an incentive in the United States to compel military retailers to give preferential treatment to factories signed up to the BFSA has been quietly dropped. Military-spec clothing is a juicy contract to win, and it's worth noting that pressure to drop the provision came primarily from the American based Alliance on Building and Fire Safety, the rival, watered down accord started by Gap and Walmart. They claimed that the initiative would have impacted on their own efforts to improve workplace safety in the area. Any mention of likely impacts to their profits is, of course, churlish, and this blog would not stoop so low.

WRAP's unique position and access to the front line of global fashion makes it the go-to organisation for breaking news on the subject. As workers push for better wages and working conditions, we're seeing a lot of pushback from vested interests who are frequently on the other side of the globe. Things are changing quickly, and it's thanks to organisations like WRAP that we can stay informed about the war that's going on around the clothes in our wardrobe.

Keep Up The Good Work

Sometimes it can seem like there's no point to ethical fashion. No matter how hard we try, the industry remains for the most part uncaring about the world it's polluting and the people it uses up and spits out. Why do we even bother?

Well, there's grounds for hope as much as despair. An article from Ethical Consumer researcher Bryony Moore for the Guardian shows us how, although there's a long way left to go, there's also been some pretty significant progress on the road to ethical fashion.

The main point I always make when talking about what defines ethical fashion, particularly with reference to Pier32's clothing, is that it should be sweatshop- and child labour free. The cotton industry in Uzbekistan is one of the biggest and most recent horror stories. Forced child labour is rife--we're talking your actual child slavery here. Campaigns headed up by the Responsible Sourcing Network have led to dozens of the big high street names, including Adidas and H&M, pledging to stop using Uzbek cotton until slave labour is banned. That's major progress on one of the main tentpoles of the ethical fashion movement.

There's plenty more to be hopeful about, from awareness of the dangers of sandblasting jeans--a process that can cause silicosis for the workers who have to distress the fabric--to successful campaigns against toxic dyes in ground water and, of course, the public outcry over health and safety abuses that led to tragedies like the Rana Plaza disaster.

One thing all this has in common--the successes come out of committed and tireless campaigners at the grass roots level making sure that the public become aware of the awful things of which the fashion industry can be capable. In the digital age, it's easier than ever to network, organise and get the word out. That's why, although, progress can be slow, it's being made in all sorts of areas that would otherwise be roundly ignored. It's a tough job, but such a worthwhile one.

For more, read Bryony's article.

The Rana Plaza Collapse

An eight-story building in the heart of the garment-industry hub of Bangladesh has collapsed, injuring hundreds of people and killing at least 87. The Rana Plaza building, on the outskirts of the Bangladeshi capital Dhaka, contained five clothing factories, a market and a bank. Experts are so far unable to ascertain the cause of the collapse, which happened in the middle of rush hour yesterday (Wednesday) morning. Large cracks were discovered in the building on Tuesday, and the building was initially evacuated, but factory owners sent their workers back into the building, saying that they had "examined the crack" and that it was "nothing to worry about." Hundreds of people are still trapped inside the building while rescue teams try to get them out, aided by relatives who are reportedly digging at the rubble with their bare hands.
This is the second incident in six months where a three-figure death count has been caused by unsafe working conditions, following a fire in the Tazreen Fashion building in November which killed 110 people. Bangladesh is notorious for wide-scale neglect of safety issues, and it is becoming a matter of worldwide concern that factory owners, in collusion with the Western clothing companies that they supply, are prepared to cut corners and abuse their workers until something gives way. Quite literally, in this case.
Primark have already admitted that one of the companies in the Rana Plaza, New Wave, supplies their stores, while Matalan have stated that they have been supplied in the past by that company. War On Want have pointed out that New Wave also supply Mango and Bon Marché. The other companies in the building have refused to reveal their client list. It's likely that these too supply internationally-known name brands.
Which brings us to the central question. How long are we prepared to put up with this? Bangladesh is the high-profile tip of an iceberg that has remained under the surface for way too long. President of Bangladeshi workers union the National Garment Workers Federation Amirul Haque Amin says:

"This negligence must stop. The deaths of these workers could have been avoided if multinational corporations, governments, factory owners and owners' associations would take workers' wellbeing seriously. Instead the family of the victims must live the consequences of this terrible tragedy."

Bangladeshi Home Minister Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir said the building had violated construction codes and "the culprits would be punished". Meanwhile the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, has announced a national day of mourning on Thursday in memory of the victims.
All well and good, but there are at least 80 families today who have lost not just loved ones, but their incomes. Most factory workers live one paypacket from poverty, and the Rana Plaza collapse means that they will soon be destitute.
Along with War On Want and other human rights charities, Pier32 condemns the actions of the landlords and factory owners that led to this disaster, and demands immediate financial compensation and urgent medical care for those families affected by the loss, either through death or injury. That's not enough, of course. There needs to be full, root and branch change throughout the garment industry, ensuring that international brands take full responsibility for the well-being of everyone that works for them, regardless of where they are on the planet.
More on this tomorrow.

The Terrible Truth Behind Bangladeshi Leather

There's disturbing news coming out of Bangladesh, as Human Rights Watch highlight the environmental and humanitarian abuses committed by local leather tanneries: abuses that the government seem either unwilling or incapable of fixing.
The report on Bangladesh's Hazaribagh region, released earlier this month, reels off a horrific string of occupational hazards faced by leather workers. They suffer from skin diseases and respiratory problems caused by exposure to toxic chemicals used to tan the hides, and limb amputations from improperly secured cutting machines.
The waste water that comes off the tannery floors goes directly back into the local supply. This water is tainted with chunks of animal flesh, and chemicals like sulphuric acid, chromium and lead. Children as young as 11 work full shifts in the factories, soaking hides in these chemicals and operating the razor-edged cutters that trim them. Workers are regularly denied sick leave or compensation for injuries caused on the job.
It's a shocking list of human rights and environmental abuses, and the Bangladeshi government are doing little to put it right. Plans to relocate the tanneries and shut down the worst of the offenders have been in bureaucratic deadlock since 2005, despite international rulings to safeguard the rights and safety of everyone in the territory.
In the meantime, the tanneries continue to blight the landscape, chasing profits that have risen by $41million per year in the last decade. The leather of Hazaribagh is worth big money to the multinationals that export it. To the people who work in the factories, it's all they have; a Catch-22 situation that the factory owners and the government are happy to exploit.
For more, I recommend a look at Human Rights Watch's page on the humanitarian and environmental crisis in Hazaribagh, which contains a link to the full report. It makes for shocking and eye-opening reading.
   

Let The Children Play

Gerry, the voice and conscience of Pier32 asked me a question yesterday that couldn't have come at a better time; has child labour been used at all to produce goods for the Olympics?

That's an important point to explore as we enter the preliminaries to tomorrow's opening ceremonies. The Beijing Games were marred by accusations of children working 15 hour shifts to produce badges and toys. Have things improved four years on?

There's certainly more focus on workers rights in third-world countries now, which has a lot to do with the tireless efforts of charities like War On Want. The rise in online activism has made it easier than ever to make your disapproval of poor labour practices known to the multinationals that have allowed them to proliferate in their factories. They know we're watching now, and they have to play a little bit more cleanly as a result.

Playfair, a UK-based charity, has been at the forefront of the push for worldwide workers rights over the past few years. They have scored some impressive victories this year. They have talked a lot of the major players like Nike and Adidas to sign a protocol protecting those rights in Indonesia, a hotbed of abuse. And although it's one thing to sign an agreement and another to enforce it, Playfair are seeing encouraging signs. Unions and worker associations are starting to become more involved in negotiations for fair pay and better working conditions. Let's be clear: a unionised factory will not tolerate child labour. So it's in all our interests to encourage and support these nascent organisations as they move towards securing the basic rights that all of us should enjoy.

There's still a long way to go, of course. Playfair have noted with sorrow that Adidas are digging their heels in, noting in their May report:

“Despite being committed to a living wage through sourcing agreements with the London Games Organisers LOCOG, Adidas continues to refuse to implement the payment of a living wage to workers producing Olympic sportswear, or any Adidas goods.”

The work, sadly, continues. The refusal of companies like Adidas to treat their workers with a base minimum of respect opens their factories up to the possibility of worker abuse and the risk of child labour. There's no reason that we as consumers, as human beings, should stand for this. It's thanks to charities like War On Want and Playfair that we don't have to.

None of which answers Gerry's question. I don't really have a definite answer. But bearing in mind that an estimated 215 million children work in some capacity across the globe, and based on the past record of companies that have Olympic contracts, I'd have to say that there's a very good chance that child labour has been used to produce some of these goods. A sobering thought on the eve of an event that's supposed to be about fair play.

For more, I recommend a browse around the PlayFair 2012 website.

Fact Fashion

It's important to get started early when you're working with ideas about ethical fashion. The youth market is big on cheap and disposable clothing. Just look at your average Primark on a Saturday afternoon. Get the idea into the youngun's heads that there are alternatives, and who knows what you can spark off?
Five young people from North Yorkshire have found that spark. The teens have put together Fact Fashion, an initiative that puts hard-hitting statistics about world poverty and injustice onto a range of clothes and accessories. The clothes are colourful, and assembled with a sharp eye for bold graphic design. I'm reminded of Katherine Hamnett's t-shirts back in the eighties. It's a great way to engage a large audience on ethical issues, and it's already seen some success, winning Fact Fashion the top prize in CAFOD's "Solutions For The Planet" competition and, last week, the Ecover Ethical Kids nod at the Observer Ethical Awards.
There's a long way to go yet, of course. The kids are looking for funding, and I hope they find suppliers and manufacturers that have a decent ethical background. But it's a great first step, and here at The Pier we wish them every success.
For more, have a look at an overview written by James, one of Fact Fashion's founders, or check out a short promo video at the Guardian. 

Fair Play For Fair Pay

Another sign of the imminent collapse of the Coalition’s ill-fated Work Programme appeared this week, as major High Street retailers Sainsbury’s and Waterstone’s pulled out of the work experience arm of the scheme. It’s certainly one of the more controversial ideas this government has cooked up.

The scheme effectively forces job-seekers into unpaid work for big-name stores for up to six months – without pay and with no guarantee of a job afterwards.

Worryingly, some charities have also started down the same path. One of them, with a blithe lack of irony, recently advertised for an intern position that only paid out local fares and a lunch allowance. These charities defend their decision by claiming that interns have access to training and contacts that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Surely any reputable employer would offer these benefits on top of a living wage. Claiming otherwise is a dangerous game, particularly for charities campaigning for fair pay and conditions in the Third World.

Unions are currently negotiating with the big-brand firms involved in the scheme, and a case is currently going through the High Court involving student Cait Reilly, who argues that she was made to work unpaid in Poundland, contrary to the forced labour provisions in the Human Rights Act.

With this in mind, it seems that any charity involved in the scheme has put themselves in an untenable position. Any decent employer can find a way of balancing the budget that doesn’t include the exploitation of vulnerable young people. Any that do while simultaneously campaigning for worker’s rights abroad shouldn’t be surprised if they face charges of double standards – or downright hypocrisy.

For more, check out this piece by Brendan Martin in the Guardian.

Changes

Change is a funny thing. When you're not expecting it, it can be on you like an express train. When you're looking for it, it's more like the slow stopping service, grinding towards you at a snail's pace, stopping at every third lamp-post.
For those of us that want to see a more responsible, ethical fashion industry, the pace of change can be frustratingly slow. The Ethical Consumer notes in their latest shopping guide that the average UK female buys half her bodyweight in clothes this year, and owns four times as many garments as she did in 1980. Meanwhile, despite campaigns and increased public awareness, sweated and forced labour around the world seems to be growing to meet that voracious demand. It can look like the train is stuck a long way down the line.
But there's always hope. That average UK female also says that she's more likely than ever to buy clothes that last, making investment choices rather than cheap impulse buys. Market research from Mintel shows that:

“the disposable fashion trend could have peaked and 2011 may see shoppers reassessing value for money and putting more emphasis on sustainability, integrity and durability.”

Meanwhile, recent revelations about the use of forced child labour in the cotton industry in Uzbekistan has led to big UK brands like Asda and global names like Adidas and H&M declaring an outright ban on the use of fabric from the region. Add to this big results like the action taken to safeguard Chinese rivers following Greenpeace's exposure of pollution by textile plants, and the future starts to look a bit more rosy.
But we need to keep an eye on the manufacturers, who have a spotty history of responsible behaviour. Use of PVC by clothing brands had died off following a spate of publicity about its toxicity. Now, bizarrely, companies like H&M have started using it again.
It's down to us, really. Katy Brown of Ethical Consumer says:

"We know from experience that clothing companies will respond to consumer feedback which is why it's vital that shoppers keep up the pressure on companies to improve their ethical standards."

We are more powerful than we think, and until manufacturers and retailers have ethical standards baked into their best working practices, it's our job as informed consumers to keep them on track, and the pace of change on schedule.
Read more about the 2011 Ethical Consumer's report on their website.

The Wrong Kind Of Bond Girl

It's been a busy, buzzy couple of weeks for UK fashion. London Fashion Week has been a big success, and the launch of Westfield Stratford has given us the unlikely sight of fashionistas flocking to one of the grimmer corners of East London. But, as the Ecologist makes clear in a recent article, there's a ghost at the party.

Sourcing clothes ethically and at a good price is a tough balance. According to Dutch corporate investors SOMO in a report published in May, that balance is teetering in a very dark direction indeed.

Bonded labour has been an unpleasant reality in the marketplace for centuries. It's tantamount to slavery. In India, the practice is known as 'sumangali'. Girls as young as 14 are signed to three-year contracts, offered free accommodation and pay, with a lump sum payment to be made at the end. It seems an attractive prospect, especially for families that are looking to build enough money for a dowry payment.

The reality isn't so rosy. For the duration of that time, the girls effectively belong to the factory. They live in dormitories with no freedom or privacy, offered no benefits and are forced to work unpaid overtime. If they quit before the contract is up, then they forfeit the final payment.

According to SOMO, retailers like Tesco, H&M and Next all use factories that have workers under sumangali contracts. Fortunately, all three have signed pledges condemning the practice and are working with NGO's to get a three year plan under way to bring the practice to an end. But progress is likely to be slow and involve delicate negotiations. Sumangali is ingrained into the Indian way of work, and the SOMO report admits that any company doing business there is likely to indirectly source from suppliers that use the practice. Simply walking away from India helps no-one, least of all the girls at the bottom of the stack who most need the money.

None of which makes for particularly uplifting reading, I know. But even if it does take years to eliminate, or at least marginalise an exploitative practice that's been going for centuries, it's worth the effort.

The Ecologist: UK retailers struggle with bonded girl labour in India.

Watching The Watchmen

It's all well and good to make the claim that your ethical clothing chain is supplied under carefully monitored conditions. But how can you, and more importantly your customers, be sure that those suppliers are doing everything they claim for the safety and well-being of their employees?

Rachel Wilshaw of Oxfam, writing in The Guardian, has highlighted the problems of unscrupulous suppliers gaming their ethical audits. We're not just talking double-entry book-keeping. There have been examples of underground factories, staffed by an entirely different (and significantly underpaid) workforce, or of underage workers hustled out of the back door as the auditors come in the front.

As more and more big companies insist on trumpeting their ethical credentials, the chances for corruption, or for a slapdash and lazy approach to compliance become greater. Auditors spend little time at the factories or farms, and an intimidated workforce is unlikely to speak out about unfair practices. Box-ticking and finger-wagging simply won't cut it. There needs to be a better way.

A smarter approach, surely, would be for companies to work more closely with both the management and workers in their supply chain. Investment in more transparent management systems. Encouraging workers to bargain collectively for better pay and conditions. Offer the carrot of bigger contracts if a supplier can clearly demonstrate that they're working to code.

Could an approach like that work? Well, global market leaders like Nike and Gap seem to think so. Companies with an established history of ethical trade programmes have found that this grown-up approach delivers real and beneficial results for everyone up and down the supply chain. Yet another example of how a clear, straightforward and ethical standpoint doesn't just make sense morally. It's good for business, too.

How long is your supply chain?

Two news items have loomed large for us in the last couple of weeks. One concerning the lack of ethical trading standards beginning in a supply chain close to home, the other aimed at clothing manufactured in Asia.

Until 7 December 2010 you can view the episode of Channel 4's Despatches, "Fashion's Dirty Secret" on the "truth behind High Street Fashion" not at "a factory in the developing world" but in a factory in Leicester. In a further quote from the introduction "This is the dark side of cheap fashion".

The factory concerned supplied New Look, BHS, Peacocks, Jane Norman and C&A. Is it news to these companies that they need to look further down the supply chain than their immediate suppliers, that there is such a thing as sub contracting? The answer is of course no, but it certainly seems to be something they need to pay greater attention to.

It is no surprise that the offending firm Sammi Leisurewear, flouting the UK's minimum wage laws and paying cash in hand, has ceased trading.

As an example of reaction, New Look told Despatches "New Look does not permit sub-contracting within its supply base and implements clear and direct guidelines to suppliers not to deal with unauthorised sub-contractors."

That this goes on in the UK is surprising; you would expect local production to be better monitored; if clothes are being produced locally to be sold at rock bottom prices then should this not cause alarm bells to sound?

The second revelation was in this weekend's Observer newspaper and highlighted a retailer that last year was ranked by Ethical Consumer magazine as the most ethical on the UK High Street.

The Observer article writes: "Monsoon, the fashion retailer, proclaims its fair trade values, but its internal audits reveal concern at suppliers' failures to meet minimum ethical standards in India and China". In this case, amongst other ethical offences, the was the pariah of child labour - "children have been discovered working in its supply chain; women working from home may have been paid less than the legal minimum wage; some workers are regularly required to work excessive overtime; and conditions in suppliers' factories sometimes break both local laws and the industry's own ethical code".

What is good here however is that it is not an Observer investigation that was required to reveal the abuses. It was an internal ethical audit by Monsoon's own people. Again there was sub-contracting. They would not have wanted the results of the report to be leaked but at least they were conducting their own monitoring in a way that refused to turn a blind eye. Monsoon highlighted how action was taken against the offending supplier and that that have "policies to sequester" children, "put into a care home" and "repatriate them to the family".

Monsoon is a member of the Ethical Trading Inititive ("ETI"), an ethical code subscribed to by Monsoon - and indeed New Look. The ETI code of conduct, requires "the assumption of responsibility by an organisation for the labour and human rights practices within its supply chain".

The problem with fashion is that its very nature means that you can expect some churn in suppliers. But it's very possibly pressure from retailers to supply more that causes a supplier who is meant not to be sub-contracting to do just that.

At Pier 32 we are too small to have our own monitoring team. And we don't have to juggle suppliers - most of our clothing comes from Starworld whose factory facility (run by a company called Cotton Club) is closely monitored by the independent organisaton WRAP (Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production). We recently asked for and obtained a copy of WRAP's most recent audit report. We were pleased at the depth of the report and the findings that gave the factory a clean bill of health.

In the context of the rest of this article we are particularly pleased to note that the report included the statement that the factory does not get help from sub-contractors to produce their products. So we have confidence that the Starworld clothing we supply is produced within a facility that is monitored and therefore meets the ethical standards that we would like to see.