Defending Jaws

Our relationship to the animal kingdom is a strange one. We like to feel that we care for the creatures that share our world. People often talk about how their pets are akin to friends or family. That is, of course, as long as we consider them to be cute and cuddly, and that's less clear cut than it might at first appear. Spiders and lizards may not be to everyone's taste, but they definitely have their fan-base.

Pity the poor shark, then. A supremely well-adapted predator that has become synonymous in the human mind with pitiless, unthinking aggression. Blame Peter Benchley and Steven Spielberg, who forever imprinted the fear of the fin in our minds. 

With that fear, of course, comes aggression. We kill millions of sharks every year with a gleeful and un-necessary cruelty. The so-called delicacy of sharks-fin soup comes with a built-in cost–the dorsal fin is sliced off while the shark is still alive, before the poor creature is dumped back into the sea to suffer a long and painful death. It's the equivalent of killing an elephant for its tusks. If that's beyond the pale now, then surely we can do the same for the shark!

Our pals at marine charity Bite-Back have long campaigned against the mistreatment of sharks. Recently, founder Graham Buckingham was invited to speak at TedX, and his passionate defence of probably the most unfairly maligned creature on the planet is well worth fifteen minutes of your time. If you like sharks–and especially if you don't–this is essential viewing. 

A Sustainable New Year From Selfridges

You may recall that this time last year Selfridge's flagship London store gave over its iconic window display to sustainable fashion. The Bright New Things promotion sought to highlight emerging designers and the work they were doing to support sustainability.

For 2017, they're at it again, with a whole new range of designers–and a clever hook to show just how broad a church the field has become. Material World takes eight different fibres and fabrics, and presents designers that are doing fascinating and innovative work with them.

For example, leather is represented by Swedish brand Deadwood. They specialise in recycling, taking inspiration from vintage styles to come up with a new take on an old classic: the leather jacket. Showing respect for the material while exploring the possibilities of its durability are good, strong ticks against a sustainability checklist.

On the subject of thinking laterally, Tengri, representing luxury fibres, have come up with a new twist on the usual suspects. Cashmere and angora have come under fire over the past few years with accusations of animal cruelty and over-farming of pastureland. Instead, founder Nancy Johnston has discovered the incredibly soft fibres of the Mongolian yak pelt have a decidedly luxurious feel. She calls the resultant fabric yakshmere, and it needs to be felt to be believed.

Material World is all about taking on the challenges we face in using the world's most popular fabrics and fibres, treating them with respect and finding innovative new ways that are less cruel, greedy or polluting. There are some really interesting ideas on display in the windows of Selfridges right now until the end of March. If you're in the area, go and check them out.

Or just have a look at the collection via the Selfridges Material World site here.

A Beastie Of A Shoe. At Least It's For A Good Cause.

There are fascinating examples of fans buying products designed or promoted by their favourite brands or celebrities with little thought given to whether it's worth it. You could argue this goes all the way up to the week-long queues we used to see outside Apple stores for the latest iProduct. When I used to work in London's trendy Soho, I regularly witnessed block-long lines at cult streetwear store Supreme. Famously, once people queued for a Supreme-branded brick. Yep, a regulation-sized house brick stamped with the Supreme logo.

You do have to wonder if there's some sort of bet in place amongst certain well-placed designers as to what people will fork out on, and how ugly a design has to be before they will walk away. Case in point: the new sneaker endorsed by Beastie Boy Ad-Rock, which is now available for pre-order. Created in conjunction with vegan footwear company Keep, net profits from the sale of the shoe going to Planned Parenthood. Ad-Rock says:

“Given the outcome of our current election, it’s gonna get a lot colder before we can feel that summer sun again. So I collaborated with my friend, [Keep Shoes founder] Una [Kim], not just because I wanted warm sneaks, but because I support small business. I support women-run business. I support Asian-American-run business. Net proceeds of this shoe will be donated to Planned Parenthood because I support a woman’s right to choose and feel that women should not be punished for making decisions about their own lives and bodies.”  

All very admirable. Keep are well-known as a highly ethical, worker-supporting company, and Planned Parenthood are an exceptionally worthy cause. However, the problem is in the shoes themselves. They are pretty darn ugly. Made of nylon and cordura, with bungees instead of laces, they look more like nan-shoes than anything you'd want to be seen in on the street.

Here's the issue, then. Should you buy the shoe, or others like it, if you support a cause or like the endorsing artist, regardless of whether the item itself is unpleasing to the eye? Is this just a matter of taste, and I'm sneering at the Keep X Ad-Rock Ramos simply because they aren't to my taste? I mean, I'm hardly an exemplar of street style. But I fail to see how anyone would want those within safe minimum distance of their feet. 

Fashion and causes and celebrity endorsements have always been bedfellows, and the resultant offspring have frequently been a bit odd-looking. The Keep X Ad-Rock Ramos is just the latest example of that trend, and they're at least born out of the noblest of intentions. I just hope they're more comfortable than they look. 

Why Is It Taking So Long To Make Bangladeshi Garment Factories Safe?

Three years after the Rana Plaza disaster, a regulatory body in charge of implementing root-and-branch safety changes in Bangladeshi factories is not doing its job. Worse, it's passing factories as safe when work has yet to be completed.

The Guardian has revealed that an independent survey into the factories used by the Alliance consortium, an organisation of retailers that include Gap and Walmart, shows that nearly two-thirds are still not up to code. 62% of factories surveyed have neither working fire alarms or proper fire doors. Nearly half have major structural issues that have not been corrected.

The Alliance Consortium has now pushed back a self-imposed deadline to complete the work needed on these factories to 2018–which just happens to coincide with the end of their agreement to carry out that work. There's also contention as to what constitutes completed safety work. The independent survey, undertaken by a group of observers that include the International Labour Rights Forum, the Worker Rights Consortium, the Clean Clothes Campaign and the Maquila Solidarity Network, consider that of the 107 factories considered to be "on track", an astonishing 99 were still falling over on at least one aspect of safety.

The authors of the report note:

“The Alliance has never offered any justification for the decision to ignore its own safety deadlines. Nor has the Alliance explained why it is responsible to allow factories four years to carry out life-saving renovations that should have been completed in less than one, while still labeling those factories as ‘On Track’.”

For their own part, the Alliance dispute the findings. Director of the Consortium James Moriarty was bullish on progress:

“We in the Alliance are doing something that has never been done before. We are taking an existing industry that is seriously flawed and trying to correct it from scratch. The assertion that we could get all this done in one year is frankly ludicrous to anyone who has an engineering or safety background and understands the past state or the current state of the industry.”

James does have a point here. The Bangladeshi garment industry is one built quickly on highly questionable safety standards. It's unsurprising that those standards are so low, and building something that will ensure there's no repeat of Rana Plaza should not be cobbled together. Nevertheless, everyone wants results. Should we be concerned that the Alliance seems to be dragging its heels? Or do we take it on faith that doing a good job will take longer than originally anticipated?

Sadly, I guess we'll have to wait and see. But as ever, scrutiny and transparency can only help to keep those in charge of worker safety in the Bangladeshi garment industry on their toes and, at least nominally, on schedule.

Step Away From The Black This Friday

One of the few American-style celebrations that hasn't made it across the Atlantic kicks off this week. Understandable, really, when you consider what Thanksgiving commemorates. However, the immediate aftermath of the big November holiday–the commercial gotterdammerung known as Black Friday, has started to gain traction here in the UK.

Now, there is an argument that Black Friday deals are a handy money-saver for Christmas presents. But for the most part, it's more a moment for untrammelled consumerist overkill. And frankly, the deals just aren't that great.

An increasing number of sustainable retailers and awareness groups are taking a stand against Black Friday, and putting their own twist on proceedings. They're taking the onus off taking, and back onto giving.

For example, outdoor eco-retailer United By Blue are launching Blue Friday, and inviting people to use the day wisely–by clearing a pound of trash from shorelines and waterways. By taking a few minutes to fill a trash bag, you'll be doing your bit to help keep the world a slightly more beautiful place. It's also a great way to work off some of that post-turkey bloat. Check out United By Blue's website for more deets on how to contribute, and maybe win a free mug!

United By Blue's Blue Friday

Meanwhile, Brighton is the place to be for Bright Friday, a day of events and fun that show how the consumerist message can be sidestepped in favour of something a little more sustainable. From textile workshops to a comedy showcase, there really is something for everyone.

Bright Friday also marks the launch of Faux, the world's first satirical fashion magazine. This will be rolling out nationwide. Keep an eye on #BrightFriday on all your favourite social media vectors for more info.

It's all too easy at this time of year to fall into the consumerist coma and spend, spend, spend... often needlessly. It's worth taking on the advice of Bright Friday and rolling it into your future relationships with the shopping fairies.

1. Resist the pressure of buying things you don't want or even need. Remember, the best bargain is not buying stuff you didn't want in the first place.

2. Rekindle love for what you already have.

3. Create memories rather than buying them by trying something you've always wanted to do.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a fun blueprint for the retail-heavy weeks ahead.

A Big Step Forward On The War Against Modern Slavery

After yesterday's piece on Syrian refugees toiling for next-to-nothing in factories that supply Marks And Spencer, you could be forgiven for taking a bleak view on how we treat the workers that make our clothes. Child labour and slavery don't seem to be going away, and there seems to be little political will to do anything about it.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. In fact, the signing into law of the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 has had a big impact in the commercial sector. In fact, there's been a huge uptick in big brands and companies that have become actively involved in addressing slavery in the global supply chain since last year.

The benefits, according to a survey led by the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) on the first anniversary of the Bill coming into force, are clear. 97% of interviewees see the reputational risk of finding modern slavery in the supply chain as the biggest driver for change. 86% see corporate action on human rights as a critical business responsibility, whether or not it's seen as a problem for their image. There's a clear and consistent desire to keep the taint of slavery out of the modern workplace.

But there are challenges, which the interviewees also highlighted. Sheer scale is an issue, as are the organisational mountains to climb in simply getting these practices written, formalised and into place. There's a reason so few companies have explicit anti-slavery policies in place–no-one likes to feel that there should be a need for them in the 21st century.

The biggest driver behind success in eradicating modern slavery in the developing world is one of the simplest–good, clear communication with your workforce. Due diligence on core labour standards is vitally important, as are close ties with relevant government agencies and NGOs. But all respondents agreed that one of the most effective interventions is involving workers directly in managing and mitigating the risks of modern slavery. There's still some wariness in the management class in dealing with trade unions, however, with only a third of interviewees agreeing that they are an important part of the picture.

Most importantly, the survey reveals a significant change in both viewpoint and sense of responsibility. In short, the respondents are no longer looking at modern slavery as someone else's problem. This is a massive step forward in combatting workplace slavery. It's still early days, and no-one is pretending that there isn't a great deal of hard work ahead. But the will is there, and that's what will get things moving.

The last word goes to Cindy Berman of the ETI, who sums up the report like this:

“At the strategic level, senior leaders in progressive companies are stepping up to the plate and recognising their responsibilities. But even for these companies, their journey to tackle endemic human rights risks in their businesses is just beginning, and none can confidently say they have cracked the problem. We were pleased to see a recognition by companies that in addition to getting their own house in order, they need to work with others, engage with governments, and call on independent advice and expertise.”

You can read the whole report here.

M&S Tripped Up Over Child Labour In Turkey

Shocking news came out last week which conflated two of the big issues of our age: child labour and Syrian refugees. More worryingly, it also concerned one of most beloved, and supposedly ethical retailers–Marks And Sparks.

A Panorama investigation that screened last week on BBC1 claimed to show that factories in Turkey were using Syrian children in garment factories that were making clothes for both Marks and online retailer Asos. The refugees were paid less than a pound an hour–well under the Turkish minimum wage–and were paid in cash on the street by a middleman. The show also alleged ill-treatment of the illegal workforce. One interviewee said:

“If anything happens to a Syrian, they will throw him away like a piece of cloth.”

M&S responded to the allegations by saying:

“Ethical trading is fundamental to M&S. We are acutely aware of the complexity surrounding Syrian refugees in Turkey. We have a local team on the ground in Turkey who have visited all of our suppliers there. They have also run supplier workshops on the Syrian refugee crisis highlighting the change in labour law and how to legally employ Syrian workers.

“We had previously found no evidence of Syrian workers employed in factories that supply us, so we were very disappointed by these findings, which are extremely serious and are unacceptable to M&S. We are working closely with this supplier to take remedial action, including offering permanent legal employment, in support of any Syrian daily worker who has been employed in this factory.”

The issue with a global supply chain is the difficulty in successfully monitoring and policing it. If a big order comes into a factory that urgently needs to be filled, it's easy to see how a factory owner might use all resources available to get the job done, however unethical it might be. Turning a blind eye as to where their agency labour is coming from could be seen as a necessary evil. It's a worry that the big brands seem to find it so difficult to ensure that this sort of behaviour does not happen in their factories. However, short of constant, unannounced inspections, it's tough to see how they can maintain the standards set out in their fair working practices handbooks.

Sadly, unethical labour has always been a part of the rag trade, and globalisation makes fair trade all the more difficult to develop and protect. Despite their best efforts, no-one is spotlessly clean in this game. As M&S have found out, an ethical standpoint often collapses when it comes to closer investigation.

For more on the story, check out this piece in The Independent.

Listening To The Unheard Worker

I know sometimes I talk about ethics in fashion as if it's a simple and straightforward concept that everyone should understand. Let's face it: I've been doing this for so long now that it seems like an obvious thing to me. It's about the environment. It's about respect for the creatures and plants that provide our clothes. Above all, it's about the people who make our clothes.

It's always worth revisiting the ol' mission statement, just to be sure everyone's on the same page. As part of Fair Trade Month, Shamini Dhana of Dhana Inc. puts the whole notion under the microscope, and comes up with a pretty solid breakdown.

Shamini frames the whole situation in the context of a few simple questions. The first, and overarching one, is:

"Where is the connection and conversation today between the end customer and the people behind the scenes who make the products we consume daily?"

This has become an important question for those of us involved in ethical fashion. There are 60 million garment workers around the globe, 80 percent of them women. That's a fairly significant portion of humankind. And yet we know so little about them–how they are treated and paid. There's a fundamental disconnect in our heads between the people that make our clothes and the items themselves. However, this chasm is closing. People are starting to ask questions of the brands that populate our high streets. Those that choose to respond are tapping into a growing worldwide movement that wants to see the garment workers of the world treated with respect.

Involvement in this movement can be as simple as asking a few questions of your favourite brands. Who made my clothes? Do they receive a fair or living wage? How safe are their working conditions? If your brands can't answer those questions, then the immediate follow up is simply "Why can't you tell me?" A brand that's transparent about the people who make their clothes has nothing to hide about the way they are treated.

Brands like H&M and M&S regularly make a big fuss about their ethical treatment of workers, but it's all to easy to slip. As consumers, we have the right to know where our clothes are coming from, and how they are made. It's important to keep the high street on track for an ethical future. All it takes are a few little questions.

For more on Shamani's new incentive on listening to the unheard worker, check out this piece on Fair Trade America.

Ethical Sportswear On The High Street? You'll be Lucky...

Was anyone surprised by the revelations about the way Sports Direct treats its staff? Well, no, but even so, the revelations of monitored toilet breaks, harassment and medical emergencies on the packing lines brought on by overwork were still shocking.

The news has left many of us wondering whether there are better, more ethical alternatives to the active-wear giant. Sadly, according to a report by Ethical Consumer, high street sports apparel retailers are not doing their best by the people that work for them, or the environment.

An assessment based on sustainability basics like supply chain transparency, worker rights and and environmental reporting led to a pretty poor showing. In fact, the highest they could score any well-known store was a measly 9 out of 20, shared equally between Intersport and Trespass.

None of the stores surveyed could offer a clear supply chain policy, with the knock-on effect that none could hold that supply chain to account. Worse, only one brand, Decathlon, could confirm that they don't use zero-hour contracts. Go Outdoors openly advertise them, despite the fact that Sports Direct were heavily criticised for their use.

Activewear chains seem genuinely clueless on environmental concerns as well, with no clear policy in place for lessening the use of toxic chemicals in their products or avoiding ranges that involve the use of animal cruelty (like merino for base layers, for example). Only Decathlon had any sort of plan for softening the environmental impact of their stores. Silence from every other brand.

Your best bet, Ethical Consumer concludes, is to stay off the high street altogether if you want to shop ethically for your sportswear. Brands like Yew and Páramo offer great alternatives to the big brands with a properly sustainable outlook.

It's sad to think that so many of our big stores seem to care so little about ethical concerns. Until they start paying attention, it's best for those of us in the know to take our business elsewhere.

Why See Now, Buy Now Is A Bad Idea

Fast fashion: it's so much a part of our 'buy cheaply and often' culture that we don't even stop to think about it. The whole notion of 'buy one, get one free' has encouraged us to spend on items we don't even need, satisfied that we've got a bargain.

This conspicuous consumption is a huge issue and it's not getting better anytime soon. If anything, innovation in prototyping and digital ordering is leading us further down the slope. The latest idea, launched at this season's fashion shows, is 'see now, buy now'. You don't have to wait for the newest designs to roll out to the shops. If you like what you see on the catwalks, you can order it and get it delivered there and then.

This, of course, puts enormous pressure on already maxed-out fashion factories, who are now expected to deliver just-in-time orders of new designs at an acceptable level of finish. What does this mean for the workers who are at the sharp end of the deal–who have to make the clothes in the first place?

The Fairtrade Foundation recently talked to garment worker and activist Nazma Akter, who has long fought for worker's rights in the harsh environment of Bangladeshi fashion factories. The whole interview is a must-read, but of particular interest are her views on the ever-increasing velocity of fast fashion. She says:

'Consumers have been encouraged, through a culture of “buy one get one free” deals to want ever-cheaper products and to want them now. But nothing in life comes for free. At the moment, women and workers are paying with their blood and sweat so consumers can enjoy cheap fashion. I don’t believe anyone really wants that. We all need to be able to eat well, have a decent life with access to education and healthcare. Let’s slow fashion down, and transform the industry to change people’s lives for the better.'

Sadly, many people simply can't see past the allure of instant gratification. Emma Watson, who has become something of a spokesperson for sustainability, recently launched a range of capsule clothing. That range was available on launch, and the publicity she gained from a big wave of press coverage ensured a quick sellout. This is exactly the problem that workers like Nazma have with western fashion, and it's certain Watson's suppliers would have been under intense pressure to deliver on time and budget. This is hardly a good example for a public figure who claims to care about worker's rights.

Our View: Nazma is a figure whose bravery and tenacity in the face of overwhelming odds should be celebrated. She's absolutely right about how our greed for more stuff, right now, has cheapened and marginalised the people who work so hard to deliver the clothes we covet so badly, and need so little. Emma Watson, sadly, is sending the wrong message to her legions of fans. The last thing we need is another collection of celebrity-endorsed clothing that we can buy without thinking about it.

How Asos Treats Its Workers–And Why You Should Care.

Ten years ago, the notion of mail order was deeply untrendy. It involved the use of a catalogue as thick as a phone directory, and clothing lines that never came close to being on trend.

In the Age Of Amazon, of course, everything has changed. Small ethical retailers are able to advertise and sell their wares to customers across the globe. A world of fashion is at our fingertips. Choice and price has never been better.

But there's a darker side to the retail revolution. Slaking our thirst for online purchases has meant the growth of gigantic fulfilment centres where the items we order are picked, packed and despatched. Fast turnaround of orders means tight picking targets. For the people that work in these centres, that can mean a working day where breaks are discouraged, and any infraction can lead to a loss of earnings.

Buzzfeed News has just released a scathing exposé of the fulfilment centre for online fashion giant Asos, based in Grimethorpe, Yorkshire. It reveals a world where deadlines are the only metric for success, and that workers that cannot maintain the blistering pace find themselves 'deselected' for shifts. In an economic climate where Asos is the only game in Grimethorpe, that can mean facing a very uncertain future.

Picking targets can be as high as 160 items an hour, from a warehouse that has nearly 26 miles of walkways. Failure to meet those targets will frequently see workers pulled up to management offices to explain themselves. If that target line slips further, supervisors discourage staff from taking tea or toilet breaks.

The uncertainty of the so-called 'flex' system run by Transline, who employ agency workers for the centre, is another source of tension. Asos employees can be stood down or expected to work overtime at very short notice. Workers claim it's a one-way street–many have 40 hours or more overtime in the bank, with no sign of it being reimbursed either in payment or time off in lieu.

Monitoring of staff is both pervasive and invasive. CCTV is everywhere. Staff are subject to mandatory searches, and even random pat-downs from security personnel. ASOS claims this is because of the high value of some of the items that pickers will handle. But that culture of mistrust rolls both ways. As one worker at Grimethorpe says:

“We are all being treated like thieves, from the start and all the time. Higher management and HR seem to say, ‘We’ve got 4,000 employees so probably we’ve got 4,000 thieves.”

Asos argue that they have invested massively in an area that has suffered from unemployment following the closure of the Grimethorpe pits in the early 90s. They also shrug off complaints as coming from a tiny percentage of disaffected staff.

This is not the story told by service worker's union GMB, who have a strong presence on the site. Deanne Ferguson for the organisation says:

“I say to people when they get a job at Asos that they’ve left their ambitions at the door, because you go in and you’re worked like a robot. Transline are churning out workers like you would not believe. There are hundreds of hundreds of people in that place – thousands – and they’re just not treated fairly.”

Our View: every Christmas we see horror stories coming from the huge fulfilment centres that feed online retail giants like Amazon. We know that staff are treated without respect, and expected to work long but uncertain hours for little more than minimum wage.

But it's a complex situation. As consumers, we blithely expect items to come through the door with no more effort than the poke at a tablet screen. The power of a piece like the Buzzfeed News exposé, which I urge you all to read, is that it makes us think a little about the complex systems that go into something that we all take for granted. Above all, it gives us a reason to care. We simply can't use the excuse that worker abuse means nothing to us for cultural reasons, or that it's so far away. The poor treatment of ASOS employees is right here, right now. And we need to give a damn about that.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/saraspary/these-asos-workers-are-paying-the-true-price-of-your-order?bftwuk&utm_term=.cbYV8QwRG#.tpe0arXwM

Zara Goes Ethical?

In a move that has wrong-footed many commentators on the fashion scene, a new player has quietly launched a collection of sustainable clothing. New to the ethical scene, that is. This new player is possibly fast fashion's biggest name–Zara.

The #JoinLife Collection is a capsule range of sustainable clothes made from organic cotton, Tencel and recycled wool. The garments are stylish and comfortable, with a loose, eco-hippy vibe. Even the boxes that the clothes are shipped in comes from recycled material.

Zara have also announced a more wide-ranging ethical plan, which includes in-store recycling bins, eco-efficient stores and a general move towards a corporate policy that supports sustainable development and responsible worker management.

If this sounds at all familiar, you're not the only one to notice. The move seems to have come straight from H&M's playbook, whose Conscious Collection launch in 2012 was swiftly followed by a land-grab on the ethical side of high street fashion. Many observers still view this stance as green-washing, citing the limited nature of ethically-sourced garments in H&Ms range.

Is this new move by Zara just an attempt to steal a little of their Swedish competitors thunder? Perhaps. But we should also note that parent company Inditex's Annual Report, released early this year, made a lot of noise about sustainable development. It's possible that the #JoinLife Collection is just the first step on a path to a more responsible fashion industry. Because let's be clear–Inditex are one of the biggest players in the market, and if they're starting to take ethical fashion seriously, then everyone is going to pay attention.

Both Sides Of the Story

The tone of our last couple of posts has been a little... well, bleak, I guess. It's hard to be light-hearted when the world seems to be collapsing around your ears.

The thing is, though, a lot of that attitude can simply be down to viewpoint. Shift that and things can take on a different, more hopeful sheen.

The reportage that is starting to build around the parlours state of fast fashion is good news for one reason. In order to solve a problem, you first have to acknowledge that the problem exists. And all of a sudden, the public has become aware of the massive issues surrounding the way we make and consume mass market fashion. As Orsola De Castro notes in a great article for The Huffington Post, the situation is comparable to the food industry. There have been huge changes over the past twenty years as we have woken up to the fact that what the big food business wants is not that good for us. Sure, there's still a long way to go, but legislation and public will is moving us slowly towards a more sustainable model.

There's a sense within the fashion industry itself that things need to change. As climate change becomes a clear and present danger, old methods can no longer be considered. Sure, we can sneer at the limited runs of so-called sustainable clothing from high street behemoths, or their tiny percentage of ranges shifted over to organic methods. But at the same time they are beginning to adopt practices and procedures that ethical superstars like Patagonia and Nudie Jeans have had at the heart of their business since the beginning. You have to start somewhere. The simple fact is that you can't turn a juggernaut around on a dime. These things do take time.

And there are increasingly encouraging signs of change, particularly when it comes to worker relationships with the big brands. No less an entity than Gap, long resistant to to any sort of supply-chain transparency, announced last week that they would be opening their records as to which factories they use in developing countries and markets. This is a huge step-change for a company who have lost a lot of good will for their stance on, for example, compensation for Rana Plaza families.

Now, you could argue that this is simply a PR exercise to put a bit of shine back on a tarnished public image. Or, you could view it as the first step in the right direction for an industry that has long been walking on a dark and dirty road. Either way, the end result is a positive one. If the destination is worth getting to, does it matter how you make the journey?

Look, this post is a bit of a meander, I know. But it's really important to try and hold onto a sense of perspective in an area where the situation can change very quickly. The View From The Pier can sometimes be foggy and hard to see clearly. But we do our best to give you a reasonably balanced idea of what's going on. There is despair, but there's also hope. We need to hang onto that.

The Prison Factories Of Cambodia Making Your Fast Fashion

Back in May we talked about a Vice piece on the conditions faced by garment workers in Cambodia. Now Fashion Revolution have picked up the story, and the truth about what these people face as part of their everyday working lives is becoming clear.

It's not pretty.

To recap on what we already know: Cambodian workers in the garment trade often face a four-hour daily commute, standing up in the backs of cattle trucks. But the workplace itself is no golden paradise. The factories resemble prisons, with watchtowers, barbed wire and frequently, security details made up from armed police officers.

These officers are often part of the excessive response to peaceful worker protests. One demonstration as part of a campaign to pay a minimum wage in 2014 led to four deaths. Attempts at unionisation are met with intimidation or even arrest.

Conditions in the factories are frankly inhumane. Without air conditioning, they soon become ovens, and work with dangerous, insecurely guarded machinery is the norm. With mandatory overtime, insistence on double shifts and insufficient time for breaks, it's not surprising that there are accidents. Yet managers will insist that these incidents are downplayed or even ignored. Nothing can get in the way of the push for profit, and people are just another cog in the machine.

Here's a quote from one Cambodian worker that sums up the situation:

“I worked from July to September of 2014, during the summer holidays at university. The name of the factory is TaiEasy, located in Krakor district, Pursat province. I worked in the “product safety” department, verifying that the machines were in a good condition, but also doing administrative work. I earned $115 per month, and the company additionally provided us with 5kg of rice.

My schedule at work was from Monday to Saturday from 7am to 11:45am, and from 12:45pm to 4pm. However, except for Saturdays, we were asked to do overtime until 6pm or 9pm, depending on the day. And we would not get paid extra. What I could not understand is why the salary of my Vietnamese or Filipinoe colleagues was higher, even double or triple, than for us Cambodians. Most of the time it was us teaching them how to do their tasks when they came in as newcomers. And apart from the salaries, another difference between us Cambodians and the others were the holidays: Cambodians did not have any, just for the Khmer New Year and other national holidays. The other workers from other nationalities did have a few days of holidays, I can’t say how many days though.

My bosses were Chinese and Filipino. Especially the Chinese did not treat us Cambodians –not so much the others- very well. Even though they could not speak Khmer, they had learned a few pejorative ways to refer to us and to call our attention, always threatening us with getting fired when they thought we were too slow. Not only that but also we were only allowed to use the bathroom twice a day during working hours. I left the job when my summer holidays from university were over, but I still have friends working in the factories and the situation has not improved. “

The whole article by Idair Espinosa is well worth a read. It'll give you an idea as to exactly what fast fashion means to the people who make the cheap clothes we have come to see as normal: exploitation, humiliation and potential injury or even death. Is a cheap top really worth that?

http://fashionrevolution.org/prisons-in-cambodia-the-garment-industry/

The Importance Of Branding To Ethical Business

These days, as any entrepreneur knows, it's not enough to have a great idea. You have to be able to market it in a way that lets people know as quickly as possible who you are and what you stand for.

In other words, you need a brand. This is doubly important if you're selling an ethical product or service.

Over on the Virgin Unite blog (Virgin are of course no slouches at this whole branding thing), some successful ethical business minds are offering useful and practical tips to help get you started. There's some real wisdom on display here.

Logos are desperately important. The right image can convey a lot about your business in a single glance. Get the design right, and it'll work on everything from posters to badges to social media avatars. It's like a flag that announces you and your business. Again, Virgin have nailed this, to the point where even the red of the logo is used in uniforms and livery.

Talking about social media... It's essential, of course. It can give you an opportunity to connect much more deeply with people if you use vectors like Twitter and Instagram to not just sell a product, but tell a story. The House Of Wandering Silk, for example (@wanderingsilk) use Instagram to show work in progress, and to highlight the people who make their amazing raw silk scarves and saris. It helps that the photos they post are drop dead gorgeous, of course.

Transparency is vital. If anything, it's the keystone from which everything in an ethical business should be grounded. People Tree, who are a pioneer in the Eco-fashion business, know all about this. CEO Safia Minney explains:

"Being transparent about who made our products, pioneering environmental innovation and creating a positive social impact through making our products is the DNA of People Tree and you must communicate this to your consumers through every aspect of your brand.”

There's a chance as well to use your brand for good. As Rachel Faller of Tonlé makes clear:

"a successful brand is one that educates its customers, and then provides a solution."

Her rebranding of Tonlé in 2014 as a zero-waste company was launched with a series of hard-hitting videos that have been used as educational tools, providing what she calls a 'light-bulb' moment that can change people's attitudes in a moment.

Our View: Those of us that think marketing and branding is just the icing on the cake of business need to understand that things have changed. In an ever-crowding marketplace you need to stand out, and using clever branding tools, a sharp logo and smart use of social media can be the way to get your ethical business off the ground and engaged with customers who want to not just buy your stuff, but hear your story.

Polling Clean And Buying Dirty: Why We Say One Thing And Do Another.

There is a problem with ethical consumers. Polls and research make it clear that we want to buy in a way that rewards companies who look after their workers and the environment. But, when it comes down to it, those good intentions don't match what goes on in the marketplace. We still massively support brands with proven ethical issues.

It's called the Attitude-Behaviour Gap, and it's a real stumbling block to getting a clearer idea into how ethical shopping can become more mainstream. To put it simply: we say one thing and do another. Why is that?

A short article over on the Ethical Trading Initiative website digs into the problem, and comes up with some interesting conclusions. There are a number of factors at play which, when put together, means that we're not quite as ethical in action as we are in intent.

The first issue is that of information overload. Anyone that spends an amount of time a day on the interwebs can sympathise with that, of course. An acquaintance of mine often says 'the more I research, the more confused I get.' And therein lies the problem. Contradictory reports, the lack of clarity as to what action to take, or even how effective that action can be, leads us to make a lot of encouraging noises without actually doing that much.

Then there's the problem of what to do when you actually need a new outfit. You may head to the shops with the best of intentions, but the fact remains that ethical choices on the high street are still thin on the ground. Even brands that make a big noise about their conscious standpoint like H&M only stock a limited range of ethically-sourced products, with a tiny selection of colours and sizes that shrinks the choice still further. What you want to do and what ends up happening may diverge simply because the items you have in mind aren't available. This doesn't just apply at an individual level, either. You're just as likely to be buying for a friend, child or loved one as for yourself. How easy is it to buy ethically then?

Social pressures play a part as well. Fitting into a group can mean dressing in a certain way or spending time and money in certain shops. What if someone you want to impress drags you along to Primark on a Saturday afternoon? How do you say no to that based on your conscience? If your moral judgements and those of a larger societal group are different, it becomes that bit harder to make and stick to the right decision.

It's clear that this disconnect works across the board: look at the surprising results that have come out of big political events like the Brexit vote, which most polls indicated would be a whitewash for the Remain camp. If we're not telling the whole truth when we talk to researchers or fill in an online survey, then we shouldn't be surprised when results don't match up to expectations. Does this mean the whole idea of the 'ethical consumer' is largely fictional?

Well, no, but with caveats. We've seen how easy it can be for fashion brands to roll back on controversial decisions with a well-aimed dose of Internet ire. People, at heart, want to do the right thing by garment workers and the environment. But the terrain is still dense and difficult to navigate, and it shouldn't be surprising if our best intentions can be overridden by the choices we have to make in the real world in order to get things done.

 

The End Of Cashmere?

Cashmere. It's one of the world's most luxurious fibres. Its softness is legendary, and clothes woven from the fine fleece of the Mongolian Hircus goat have been worn by the well-to-do for thousands of years. But now, as the Business Of Fashion warns, that legacy is under threat.

Part of the draw of cashmere is its rarity. Drawn from the winter undercoat of the Hircus goat, the fibre is hard to get at and only available for a short period. In a good year, the global cashmere yield will be around six and a half thousand tonnes. But that supply is dependant on a finely balanced array of environmental factors. As climate change bites, those factors are shifting.

The Hircus goat lives and feeds on remote grasslands in China and the Mongolian steppes, which are suffering from brutal degradation. Harsh winters and summer droughts have decimated the herds, with some estimates putting the total at 9 million head lost over the last year.

At the same time, brands like Uniqlo are selling cashmere at bargain prices, which bumps up demand. In response, farmers are increasing the size of their herds–which of course puts further pressure on the spare pickings on the grasslands. An unexpected side effect is that the goats that do survive are becoming tougher, the essential fine winter under-coat becoming coarser and less attractive to buyers. With rising temperatures further affecting that insulating layer, some industry experts are gloomily predicting a major fall-off in the supplies of good-quality cashmere.

This is a concern throughout the fashion industry, and in part explains the stance that it is taking on climate change. You can control the look, the marketing, the way the shops sell your goods. But a threat to the raw materials on which everything is based is a business-ending crisis.

So there's something of a fight-back on the cards. The Sustainable Fibre Alliance (SFA) was launched last year to protect the animals, pastors and the environment on which they depend. The Chinese government has applied embargoes on herd size. Meanwhile, a selective breeding programme backed by money from luxury brand behemoth LVMH aims to boost the quality of that all important undercoat–leading to smaller herds but a higher yield of gold-standard cashmere per animal.

There's a possibility, of course, that this could be too little, too late. If so, then the luxury brands will no doubt have a strategy in place for the shrinking supply as cashmere becomes ever rarer and more desirable. But the impression I get is that no-one wants that, and in fact the big names are working hard to protect the herds. It's a good sign that the fashion industry is starting to realise they have a duty of care to the environment, and that responsible stewardship could mean that we can all enjoy the softness of cashmere in the future.

 

 

A Toxic Legacy Of The 2012 Olympics For Charities.

An often-used term in relation to the Olympics is 'legacy'. That is, after the huge investment in new buildings, stadia and parks that are part of any host nation's commitment to the Games, what happens next? What are the ongoing benefits to the community of that spending?

We've all seen the horror stories: the Olympic Studium in Athens rotting away, unused and forgotten. But after the 2012 Games, universally hailed as a triumph, much noise was made about the way Queen Elizabeth Park and ongoing lottery funding would support the people of East London.

It seems, though, that things haven't quite worked out that way. Quite the opposite, in fact. The government diverted £425million from the Big Lottery Fund to help build the Olympic Park in Stratford–a sum it is yet to repay. This is despite a final underspend figure on the 2012 Olympics of nearly £500million.

Moreover, charities are furious that the Stadium has been handed over to West Ham Football Club for the next 99 years. Charity relief campaigners The Directory Of Social Change, which has called on the new Mayor Of London Sadiq Khan to intervene, points out that the stadium was built using public money and will now solely benefit the owners of West Ham. Hardly the definition of legacy we'd consider to be in the best interests of the people...

The need to pay back monies owed to the Lottery have become more urgent in the face of Brexit, as charitable causes are set to lose £225million in EU funding. The Third Sector, struggling more than ever as donations dry up, need the money they are rightly owed to keep themselves, and the lives of the people they support, above water.

Ciaran Price of the Directory For Social Change puts the situation plainly:

“While many charities are seeing demand for their services rising at a speed never before experienced, and while they are finding it more and more difficult to get the financial support they need to meet this new level of demand, the government has been sitting on this money, continuously trying to kick it further into the long grass, hoping we’ll somehow forget about it.”

Our View: this is simply unsporting behaviour by the government, who seem to view Big Lottery Fund money as free cash that they can dip into as and when they need. This sets a dangerous precedence, and should be rightly pushed back against. It's bad enough the money was taken in the first place, but as it transpires it was never needed, it should be immediately returned to the people who can make best use of it.

A New Standard Of Wool Supply From Patagonia

Wool is one of the most sustainable fibres available to us. It grows and is replenished as a natural resource, providing a fabric that regulates temperature, is naturally water-resistant, hypoallergenic and long-lasting. Wool is a gift in many ways.
It's rare to find a manufacturer that can see that and treat the animals from which wool comes with the appropriate level of respect. Outdoor brand Patagonia is one of that saintly few. Since 2011 they've partnered with an Argentine farming collective, Orvis 21, to source merino wool at the highest level of ethical stewardship. It all seemed like a winning situation.
Then, last year, PETA released photos showing the abuse of sheep at the Orvis 21 compound. Dismayed, Patagonia took drastic measures. The company decided to stop buying wool from any supplier until they could guarantee the right level of animal welfare.
It's taken a year. Now, finally, Patagonia have restarted their wool programme. And it's a step change.
The Patagonia Wool Standard has been undertaken with consultation from highly respected names in husbandry and welfare, including Dr Temple Grandin. It takes as a baseline the Responsible Wool Programme, which for many manufacturers would be above and beyond the call of duty. And then it goes much, much further.
Apart from the welfare of the sheep under its care, Patagonia also looked closely at land management, ensuring that the pasture on which the animals graze is well looked after. Issues like pesticide and fertiliser use and the protection of the land's biodiversity are all carefully monitored as part of the programme.
Above all, Patagonia came to the realisation that wool is a byproduct of animals that are bred for slaughter. It was their responsibility to make sure those animals were given a life as stress-free as possible. From birth to a compassionate end, the Patagonia Wool Standard is designed to respect the sheep who provide them with the highest quality of wool for their needs.
Our View: it's unusual to see a company that admits a keystone policy has gone wrong, but Patagonia's approach to animal welfare is something else again. I can't think of another company that would put a halt to the production of a major line for nearly a year to make sure it is produced responsibly. A tip of the hat to them.

To find out more about the Patagonia Wool Standard, start with the press release.  

Trump's Honduras Horror

Those of you with the slightest interest in American politics may have heard of Donald Trump. The Republican nominee for United States President has split the country down the middle, horrifying as many as he fascinates.
A major theme of his campaign stance is his promise to bring jobs back to America. He wants to restart industry in the moribund Heartland states, the core of his support. But Trump can be as guilty of outsourcing as his opponents. Take, for example, the well-shared photo of his iconic 'Make America Great Again' cap, highlighting its 'Made In China' tag.
It's no surprise that many items that bear the Trump branding are made overseas. But, as a coruscating Buzzfeed article recently made clear, clothes made using Trump's name are cut and sewn in factories with some of the worst worker's rights records out there.
Honduras is not known for a progressive approach to dealing with the people who work in the huge garment factories that crank out clothing for multinational brands. In fact, workers are often abused and silenced if they dare to make a stand.
Protexsa, a company owned by one of Honduras' highest-ranked families, holds a reputation for tough conditions even in an environment that treats workers as second-class citizens. The factory floor often reaches temperatures of 105 degrees. But people on the line limit themselves to small sips of water as they work. Even toilet breaks could cause them to slip behind quota and lose the production bonuses that allow them to live instead of just survive.
Worker Rights Consortium, a labour-rights monitoring organisation based in Washington investigated Protexsa in 2013. That followed concerns about the clothing the factory produced for the City of Los Angeles. WRC's report concluded Protexsa to be in 'serious violation' of fair working conditions. Workers were forced to take mandatory six-day weeks and faced abusive supervisors.
Until 2014, when records become unavailable, thousands of items of Trump-branded clothing came out of Protexsa. The clothes were marketed as luxury items. They were bound for stores like Macy's (who recently stopped stocking the brand following Trump's derogatory statements on Latino workers).  But their manufacture took place in an environment that was anything but.
The Republican nominee's organisation is keeping a tight lid on details about the sources of Trump-branded products. This is unsurprising, as scrutiny of the man and his business practices will only increase as we head towards November. It'll be interesting to see what new insights we glean about the most divisive Presidential candidate in recent US history, based on the way he sources his production.