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.

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.

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.

 

Art For Art's Sake, Money For Zara's Sake

Ethics in fashion can be a slippery business. We've talked for years about the poor treatment of migrant and third-world workers, about environmental abuses. But there are other, more heinous examples of poor ethical practice. These, like so many of the problems with fast fashion, can be blamed on the model itself.

Fast fashion relies on constant turnaround of new product. We're not just talking about seasonal changes. Week on week, fast fashion chains are refreshing their product lines, making sure there's always something new to entice customers in through the doors. The ideas and designs for those products can't just be mass produced. They have to come out of someone's head. Which is why the big stores often find it quicker and easier just to copy someone else, add a couple of tweaks, and get new items onto the shelves quick smart.

Tuesday Bassen, an indie artist with a pretty solid reputation, was made aware through her fans on social media that global fashion giant Zara has been doing just that. An illustrator by trade, she's branched out over the last couple of years into selling enamel pins and brooches based on her designs. Tuesday says:

“My company was borne out of my editorial illustration career, when I decided to pursue products as a way to connect directly with illustration lovers instead of art directors. In late 2015 I began making LA produced clothing based on my original illustrations. Since then, I have been featured in several major publications, including an article in Teen Vogue about being one of the New Faces of Feminism.”

But last week she was made aware that badges with designs very much like hers were popping up on clothes made by Zara. She reached out with a cease and desist order. Zara's response was, frankly, jaw-dropping. They rejected her claim as her work was too simple, and that as she didn't have the global marketplace of the Zara group, customers would not recognise the work as coming from her. In other words, she was too tiny a presence for her complaint to have any weight.

There's a fairly extensive takedown of that position on The Fashion Law website. But Zara (or rather Inditex, the parent company) seem to be confusing copyright and trademark protection. It seems pretty clear that Bassen has an almost watertight case to claim damages from the fashion giant.

And she's not the only one. A dozen other artists working in a similar style have also come forward with examples of their work appearing on plagiarised items from Zara stores. Perhaps Inditex thought that the fast turn-around model meant the badges would be in and out of the store so quickly that the artists wouldn't notice. In this case, they seem to have misunderstood their own customer base, and the ever-observant, ever-connected kids that make up such a large part of it.

The last word goes to Tuesday, who plans to pursue further legal action against Inditex:

“I felt incredibly disheartened that Zara essentially said, ‘We're a giant corporation and you're an independent artist, so you have no base and can't do anything because comparatively no one knows about you.’ I hate that I've had to spend thousands of dollars to even get that response and that Zara knows I'm essentially powerless because I have less money to defend myself than they do.”

Our View: this is a story that tells you a lot about the fast fashion giants, and their disregard for anything that stands in the way of profit. The Tuesday Bassen story has rightly blown up over the past few days. Let's hope if we can't persuade stores like Zara to do the right thing, then they can at least be publicly embarrassed into doing so.

One last point: does anyone think that Zara is the only big brand doing this? Keep your eyes peeled for the designs of your favourite artists on new clothing lines, and ask if they know that their work is being used, and if they are being fairly paid for it.

 

The Most Vital Weapon Against Fast Fashion: Education!

It's all too easy to make noise about ethical fashion, but we live in a noisy world. Shouting is one thing, but education is a much smarter way to make sure that future generations understand that the current fashion model is broken. And that there's a lot they can do about it.

Let's talk about the kids. They've grown up in a world where fast fashion is the norm. Many school-age kids have never known a time without Primark or Zara. But they've also been born into an age where information is available at any time, whenever they need it. And they know how to communicate. People my age think Facebook and Twitter are the nuts, but for the so-called millenials these vectors are like rotary-dial telephones. They're smart, and super-connected.

Which means that kids today have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the future of fashion, as creators and consumers. But how do we educate them to be the thoughtful, informed citizens of the fashion-verse that we'd like to see?

An article earlier this year on The Note Passer has a ton of great tips and resources to help us all give school-age kids the information they need to make the right choices. A couple of examples:

The appearance of documentaries on different aspects of fast fashion mean that there's great materials out there to watch and discuss afterwards. The big one, of course, is The True Cost, easily available on Netflix. It provides a solid overview of the whole scene, and asks some serious questions. But films such as Udita! which follows the rise of garment worker activism in Bangladesh, or Unravel which explores how we have come to discard millions of tons of perfectly usable clothes every year are really useful as well.

It's also important to look at the culture of materialism through which fast fashion has found a solid foundation from which to grow. Kids are swamped by adverts, taught how to "bargain-hunt" and encouraged to spend whether or not they actually need the clothes they're buying. By unpacking the message and the manipulation, we're able to give kids the tools to be able to make more informed choices, and even to walk away with their money still in their pockets.

All of this is vital, but one point that The Note Passer makes is key. In order to educate our kids, we have to know what we're talking about. They'll be full of questions, and can sniff out bull at a hundred paces. So it's vital that we educate ourselves as well. If we're serious about giving our kids the tools they need to navigate a complicated issue, we should know how to use them as well. Honesty is important though: it's ok to say you don't know. In fact, sometimes it's better to find out about the important issues together.

 

Tap-To-Donate: How Technology Could Revolutionise Charity Fundraising.

Moving on from yesterday's post a little, let's consider the way that we are moving slowly but steadily towards a cashless society. Contactless tech is being used ever more frequently for the sorts of purchases that would normally have us digging in our pockets for change–coffee, a pint of milk, the morning paper, even a pint of beer. As most retailers will now accept tap-and-pay for transactions up to thirty quid, it seems the weekly trip to the cash point is gradually slipping down the list of vital tasks.

But where does this leave charities? As I mentioned last time, most of us still donate to a good cause using cash. If there is a genuine trend to go out without any spare change, then will charities, already struggling with a 5% drop in donations since 2014, find it even harder to raise funds?

There are solutions, but they'll take a little bit of radical thinking. What if, for example, we could use our mobiles to give to charity? Apple Pay and Android Pay are already rolling out to major retailers and suppliers like the London Underground. In conjunction with a little smart coding and a free app, there are definite opportunities out there.

Take Busk, which is a mobile app designed for street entertainers–another group that's always been dependent on the largesse of strangers with their spare change. Busk allows people to find, connect and most importantly reward their favourite musicians directly from a friendly, intuitive interface. Part of The Busking Project, the notion is to network, allowing street entertainers to share tips, tricks and help each other out in times of trouble.

The problem with Busk, however laudable the aim, is that it doesn't allow for spontaneity. You can't easily squirt funds directly to any performer you happen to come across. What's needed is something a little simpler to apply on the street.

One elegant solution is being trialled by our pals at the Big Issue. Their sellers stand or fall by the amount of money they make on the streets every day. With cash on the way out, they need a new way to gather funds.

The Big Issue are trailing contactless payments to allow their sellers to take the cover price of the latest issue out of your account, and directly into theirs with a simple tap. Quick, easy, secure–and it means there's no danger of a mugging wiping out a day's profits.

This kind of innovation could be a great way for street fundraisers to operate, but why not take things further? An idea could be to take donations with a simple tap on a smart jacket, using the sort of tech that Levi's and Google are working on. You could even define different areas on the garment to take different amounts. Tap on the chest for a pound, the arm for a fiver. Make things a little bit cheeky, maybe, with a tenner for a tap on the bum?


There's a long way to go with this kind of innovation, but it's clear that charities need to think outside the (collection) box if they want to halt the slide in donations that we've seen recently. Making it easy and fun to give to a good cause is definitely an avenue worth exploring. Apps and RFID tech could make a real difference to the way we give to our favourite charities in the future.

 

Livia Addresses The Elephant In The Room At Copenhagen

The recent Copenhagen Fashion Summit featured a keynote speech from Livia Firth that didn't pull any punches. She excoriated the fast fashion model, calling it "the elephant in the room" at any conference that wanted to talk about sustainable fashion. She called for a root-and-branch rethink of the industry, but warned

"...nothing will ever change while fast fashion and its current business model stays as it is."

Livia was deeply scornful of the big brands that dominate the fashion industry. It's through them that the fast fashion model has been allowed to thrive, after all. Handwringing over climate change and high-profile 'awareness' campaigns do nothing to effect meaningful reforms. In fact, Livia argues, the big names are perfectly happy with the fat profits that the current model rakes in. Worse, the lack of transparency in their supply chains disguises some unpleasant truths. Livia says:

"...they would like us to believe that all is well in the supply chain, especially with the garment workers. That is sadly not the case."

Her real anger comes from the lack of change in the industry post-Rana Plaza. For many, that event was the first clear evidence of an industry who would happily put workers lives at risk in the name of profit. For the big brands, it was simply an excuse to roll down the shutters and set up shop somewhere else...

"across the world to Cambodia, to Myanmar and to Ethiopia, exporting the same model without systemic change. That was not the agreement. That was not the intention. And that must not be the sum-total of our ambition."

Livia also turned her sights on the responsibilities of those companies, following the signing of the Bangladeshi Accord on Fire Safety. The agreement, it is becoming clear, is has not been kept by some.

"Nearly three years ago, some of the biggest brands in the world committed to improving working conditions by signing the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. Three years on, and despite growing profits and market share, some of those brands have still not made their strategic supply factories safe.
"The sad fact is, this industry remains more comfortable picking low hanging fruit – by focusing on token 'green' initiatives – than on dealing with human exploitation in the supply chain."

Livia ended her address with a challenge and a promise. She announced a new initiative in partnership with The Lawyer's Circle that would lead to a road map for change. It's a challenge that impacts all of us, from producers to consumers.

"We will soon publish a study. A study that will set out the legal case for a living wage as a fundamental human right. A study that will explore the legal options for setting a global standard for a living wage.
For those in this industry – so many of you here – who are willing to be courageous I hope this study will give you the architecture for the change we dream of.
And for all of us – in civil society – it’s time for us to be active citizens and – active consumers. We can’t continue to demand change until we challenge the pace of thoughtless consumption which the fast fashion brands have dictated to us."

Our View: Livia is one of the most powerful voices in ethical fashion, and she has the funds and spirit to take the fight to the big players. Her speech at Copenhagen is exciting stuff, and issues a challenge that we could all take on. We can't forget the lessons of Rana Plaza. Here's a chance to show that those 1300 people did not die pointlessly.

Livia's full speech is available on the EcoAge website, and I've embedded the video below. Take ten minutes and get inspired.

H&M: A Transparent Need For Change

In a week when H&M have tried to muscle into the events leading up to the anniversary of Rana Plaza, some news has emerged that the high street giant might not want us to know about.

It's emerging that the company has faced criticism and demands for urgent remedial action after many of their supplier factories were found to have inadequate or fire exits. This was, of course, one of the main reasons that so many people lost their lives in the Rana Plaza disaster–workers simply couldn't get out of the building in time.

An inspection for the Bangladesh Accord, undertaken after a fire at one of H&M's suppliers in February, found that dozens of deadlines had been missed to bring safety standards up to code. Exits were blocked or locked, and the only reason that more workers were not injured or killed was that the fire broke out early in the morning, before most people had arrived for their shifts.

In response to H&M's foot-dragging over work that they explicitly agreed to carry out as signatories to the Bangladesh Accord, a coalition of protest groups including Clean Clothes Campaign and the International LAbour Rights Forum have called for a week of protests. These will culminate in demos in Sweden to coincide with H&M's AGM on May 3rd. Find out more about the protests at www.hmbrokenpromises.com

This is not the story that H&M wanted us to be talking about, as they go full-tilt into World Recycle Week, a stunt that aims to give the brand some serious ethical kudos. Unfortunately for them, protests have already taken place outside stores in London's West End, and the noise is only likely to grow as campaigners demand real change.

It's not all bad news for H&M, though. They've featured very highly in Fashion Revolution's new Transparency Index, which aims to show how open the big brands are being about their supply chain. In fact, they're one of only three companies to make it into the top rank, alongside Inditex and Levi Strauss. Ordinarily, that would be something to shout about. Sadly, it looks like that good news may be drowned out in the face of cries for H&M to start delivering on their promises.

Are H&M Stepping On Fashion Revolution's Toes?

We're coming up on Fashion Revolution Day. Founded to commemorate the Rana Plaza collapse by Eco-fashionistas Cary Somers and Orsola De Castro, the purpose of the event is to highlight ethical issues such as transparency in the supply chain. But it's done in a beautifully simple and irreverent way. Last April, the #hauternatives initiative, in which vloggers celebrated vintage and upcycled fashion finds, gained 24 million impressions on social media. It's a real ethical success story.

And it's about to be hijacked.

High street juggernaut H&M, whose loudly-espoused ethical credentials are viewed with suspicion by many in the know, are choosing the same week as Fashion Revolution Day to launch their own initiative for 2016: World Recycle Week. Essentially it's a drop-off scheme similar to those already in place by M&S, Gift Your Gear and others. You drop off your clothes, you get H&M vouchers, and the brand pledges to recycle those items into fresh clothes.

In a scathing article, ethical fashion writer Lucy Seigel tears into both the timing and the mechanics behind World Recycle Week. H&M are pledging to recapture 1000 tons of fabric for recycling. But there's no clear idea of how they're going to do this with mixed fibres and items where a tiny percentage of the total weight is suitable for recycling in the first place.

But it's the choice of calender date for the event that really angers Siegel. Why choose a week that already hosts a successful independent ethical fashion initiative? You have to wonder if it's a coat-tail riding exercise or worse, an attempt to lessen the impact Fashion Revolution Day has. Lucy says:

"To some this may sound an eccentric turf war, but it’s much more important than that. Fashion Revolution is one of the only chances an active engaged citizen – note the reprieve here from the term “consumer” – gets to challenge the fast food, fast tech, fast fashion, hegemony without interference from corporations. It must not be hijacked and greenwashed.

The View will of course be celebrating Fashion Revolution Day with gusto, as we have since it was founded. In some ways, I guess we can view H&M's bullying attempt to get in on the action as a kind of compliment. At least they're taking this whole ethical fashion thing a bit more seriously now.

How We Shop Now

The Easter weekend is almost upon us, which can only mean one thing. No, you fool, not that silliness with the eggs. I'm talking about the UK's favourite leisure pursuit–shopping. And with four days of freedom ahead of us (well, Sunday discounted; a day of rest is not such a bad idea) there's guaranteed to be a trip to the shops in store for most of us.

Our shopping habits have changed radically over the last thirty years. The online revolution has given us the ability to do the weekly food shop, or indeed to snag anything our little hearts desire, on the sofa in our jimjams with a nice cup of tea to hand. Environmentally the approach is a bit questionable, to say the least. More deliveries mean more cars and vans to get to your door, which means more toxic emissions and greenhouse gases. Then there's the whole uptick in consumption as a whole–buying more doesn't necessarily mean buying wisely.

That being said, how do retailers cope with the change in shopping habits? A survey conducted by Westfield, one of the biggest mall developers in the country, brings up some fascinating insights into the way we shop now and how we'd like to shop in the future.

One of the biggest potential upsets to the market is rental. What is the point of buying that perfect little black dress for a party when you're only going to wear it once? What if the next time you go to put it on it's...erm, shrunk? With high-end expensive apparel, it makes much more sense to rent rather than buy. One in five consumers would be interested in a subscription to their favourite store that allows them to grab anything they like from the racks, as long as they return it in a usable condition. Think of it as Spotify for John Lewis. The logistics are a bit of a head-mangler–presumably a pick-up and delivery service would be part of the deal. But it makes sense in a lot of ways. You'd have your measurements to hand in the store to make sure you always had the right garment with the right fit. It's the service that all good tailors used to offer. Why shouldn't it make a comeback in our connected age?

The notion of connecting with brands is one that the British public is, apparantly willing to embrace. We already love our loyalty cards. But we would be prepared to snag points for all sorts of out-of-shop experiences. Westfield customers have expressed an interest in getting rewards for exercise, recycling and even charity volunteering. It seems that to become a better citizen, all you have to do is offer money off vouchers.

The shopping centre is already looked upon by many as a place to hang out or spend leisure time. Restaurants and cinemas make up part of the whole retail experience in many big city malls. Remarkably, Westfield customers would be happy to spend even more time there in the pursuit of personal fulfilment. One in three who took the survey expressed an interest in taking classes in the shopping centre, in everything from languages to cookery. Who knows, perhaps they could hook those achievements into their loyalty cards. Take music lessons and get money off a digital keyboard. The possibilities are endless.

Our View: there's an element of gamification about all this, of course. A lot of the suggestions here are about getting rewards for things we should be doing anyway. But then, if a little retail encouragement gets us learning and exercising, who's to say that's a bad thing? A personal side note: I wear an Up band that tracks my exercise and sleep patterns. That's hooked into an app that sees my progress and translates them into points I can use for money off my next coffee or cinema trip. I can sneer all I like, but the simple truth is that I'm already engaged and using some of these ideas.

The future of shopping, it seems, is already here.


 

For more, check out the results of the Westfield survey here: https://uk.westfield.com/london/how-we-shop-now

A Lidl Exploitation: The Hidden Costs Behind A Pair Of Cheap Jeans

A good, deep dive down the rabbit hole was taken by Gethin Chamberlain of The Guardian last week, as he did the maths behind the latest fast fashion faux-pas: the £5.99 jeans sold by Lidl. So what is the German retail giant's secret?

Well, those of us in the know won't need much time to figure out how that price point was reached. It's down to cheap labour, of course. The worrying thing is, you have to wonder how many of Lidl's customers realise how little the people who make those clothes are really paid.

The figures are shocking. The jeans are made in Bangladesh, using female workers that are paid the minimum legal wage of 5300 takas a month. That's a fifth of the amount estimated to be a living wage by the Asia Floor Wage Alliance back in 2013. 5300 takas is about £48. So, based on the standard 8-hour day, 6-day week, LIdl's workers bring in a princely 23p an hour. Or, to use another metric, a worker is paid somewhere between 2p and 9p per garment stitched.

Of course, things get a little trickier when we realise that these figures are, to an extent, based on best guesses and informed estimates. As ever, the opacity of supply chain reporting works in the big brand's favour. They can claim that their workers are treated fairly, and that they audit very facility. But they hardly ever publish the results. Without the ability for independent observers to verify those claims, it's sorta tough to call them liars–although you do wonder why those figures aren't being published.

Regardless, it's hard not to agree with Gethin's conclusion: Lidl's bargaining power in the marketplace and choice of manufacturing base are the prime drivers of the absurdly low price point on their jeans. No-one brings work to the clothes factories of Dhaka because they're exemplars of ethical practice. There's an old saying when it comes to service and manufacturing–there's fast, cheap and good: pick any two. Seems pretty clear which way Lidl went in this case.

For the full breakdown, check out the article: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/13/lidl-jeans-bangladesh-worker-pay-23p-an-hour

Not My Style: Disrupting The Way We Shop?

You want to shop ethically. As a big fan of The View From The Pier, you know that we urge consumers to think about how they buy, use and re-use their clothes, as active contributors to the ethical fashion scene. But it's tough. Brands launch new initiatives and campaigns all the time. Does a limited-edition run of an eco-conscious range mean that a high street brand can be trusted with your green pounds? Or are there other nasties lurking under the surface: pollution, worker abuse, unsafe or dangerous premises?

The thing is, short of doing the research every time you pop out to buy a pair of socks, it's hard to be sure that you're doing the right thing. Which is why a new app currently looking for funding through Kickstarter might just be the answer to your ethical shopping dilemma.

Not My Style takes the information you need to make informed decisions on the clothes you buy and presents them in an easy-to-see way, on a device we all carry with us every day: our smartphones.

The app gathers assessments from leading industry research and overlays it with a review of consumer-facing transparency. In other words: how easy is it for you to find out from stores how the workers in their supply chains are treated? There's also an opportunity for the brands themselves to contribute to the assessment.

Not My Style distills that data into a simple ranking, on a slick, stylish app. You can then make an informed choice about where you want to shop and ensure your style matches your values.

Here's the thing: for Not My Style to work, it has to be collaborative. This, from the Kickstarter pitch, tells you more:

Our mission will only be achieved if thousands of shoppers use our app - that way the brands will have to listen. So our challenge is to build an addictive app that shoppers will want to use and ensure we effectively promote it across the country - and maybe one day the world. We will know we’ve been successful when more brands tell the full story so that savvy shoppers can make informed choices about where to spend their money.
We are also making sure we are on sound legal ground, and will rely on the help of the TrustLaw network to access pro bono support to make sure we are giving you the best information we can.
Finally, we need to make sure you – and the world – trust our ranking system. Our team already brings a lot of expertise in this field and we’ll be working with industry experts to ensure we build something you can put your faith in. We also hope our users and supporters (you!) will provide us with feedback as we go along.

It's an ambitious plan, with room to grow. One of the founder's visions is to use Not My Style as a kind of fashion aggregator, an ethical Asos, if you will. By building that functionality that gives you the information you need when you need (and by using GPS, how close you are to the nearest ethical outlet) the hope is that people power will start to nudge the big brands in the right direction.

It's clever, forward-thinking stuff that puts power quite literally in the consumer's pocket. And with a green-to-red light ranking, it couldn't be simpler to use.

Our View: brands are often elusive about their record on ethical issues. Building transparency into the everyday shopping experience is a very good idea, and we applaud the creators of Not My Style for making something that could well be a game-changer.

BREAKING: Good news! With 11 days to go, Not My Style has reached its funding target. There's still time to get in on the ground floor and be part of the community. For more, check out Not My Style's fundraising page.

Modern Slavery And Fashion As A Drug

Queen of eco-fashion Livia Firth attended the Trust Women conference in London last week–and she pulled no punches in making her contempt for fast fashion clear.

Livia's concern was primarily that of low wages for garment workers, and how the big brands use their hefty negotiating power in emerging markets to make sure the bad situation stays that way. She said:

"The fast fashion companies are like drug pushers. They go to these countries promising to lift millions out of poverty, they get the business, and then once they start production in that country they start pushing prices down."
"They can always impose the lowest wages and local governments and entire countries are enslaved by that. Say you are in Bangladesh, if you are too expensive they'll go to Vietnam or Myanmar, which they are doing."

The solution, as far as Livia is concerned, is to create a global consensus on wages. She took the opportunity at Trust Women to announce the launch of a new survey into what she calls "legal fundamental rights for a living wage across all borders."

This idea tied neatly into one of the major themes of the conference–that of modern slavery. There's a strong argument that the business practices of multinational fashion brands are, by driving down wages and forcing the need for long shifts, creating a sweated underclass amongst the people that they claim to be helping by bringing in their business. As new collections hit the stores every week, we consumers are encouraged to buy and buy again, with no thought given to the provenance of the clothes, or the people who make them. This toxic attitude has to change.

Livia therefore announced a new initiative based on the idea of pledging to wear clothes more than a couple of times. The #30Wears campaign urges people to keep their clothing for at least–you got it–thirty times. That's obviously good sustainable practice, but for Livia it's as much about respect for and solidarity with the women who make the clothes in the first place. She said:

"By treating them (clothes) as disposable we are endorsing the slavery in another part of the world, where someone is producing them for nothing.
"So how about telling that woman in Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Myanmar, that we actually know she exists and we care for her? So when we buy something, let's wear it at least 30 times, in respect for her."

As ever, you can depend on Livia Firth to come up with provocative ideas, and squaring up to the big brands on wages is a strong move. We'll be watching for the results of her survey, due in May next year, with interest. As for keeping clothes for thirty wears–we're already on that. Some of my socks are old enough to walk themselves to the washing machine.

John Lewis and Age UK: Moonlight Becomes Them

Everyone's going on about the John Lewis advert for Christmas. An old man who somehow been exiled to the moon is rescued from Yuletide loneliness with the help of a girl, a telescope and a balloon. It's so sad! It's so moving! It has... very little to do with John Lewis, if we're going to be honest. Apart from the end caption, there's no store branding whatsoever. But that's the point. Because this season, John Lewis are using their advertising clout to raise awareness for a charity that fills a desperate need at this time of year.

Age UK work for some of the most under-appreciated people in the country–the elderly, and particularly those who live alone. Christmas, with its focus on family and togetherness, can be really tough for older people without a support network. It can sometimes feel as if you're simply not there. As if you're living on the moon.

Hence the ad, directed by up-and-comer Kim Gehrig (who also headed up the This Girl Can campaign for Sport England). John Lewis is hoping to raise thousands of pounds for Age UK using profits from three specially branded products–a mug, gift tag and card. But awareness is just as important. The store is also urging staff and customers to volunteer with their local branch of Age UK, to help elderly people who might otherwise find themselves alone over the holiday period. Even the ad's tagline, “Show someone they’re loved this Christmas”, deliberately echoes Age UK's "No-one should have no-one at Christmas".

Rachel Swift, head of marketing at John Lewis, summed up the thinking behind the campaign:

“The charity really resounds with people at this time of year, and the ad ... lends itself to thinking about someone who lives on your street that might not see anybody”.

Over the past few years the John Lewis advert has become one of the signs that Christmas is on the way. It's heartening to see the brand using the enviable promotional clout at its command to both help out a charity and highlight in a subtle way one of the more unpalatable truths about The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year. Social media has been full of people posting about how the ad made them cry. Let's hope they all realise that there's a bit more of a message to this year's spot, and that the little old man in the moon has people just like him all across the country this Christmas.

Success For SCAP

In Wednesday's post, I talked about the huge potential for ethical success in ECAP–a newly created cross-Europe initative to build a more sustainable textile industry. But this isn't a stand-alone idea. The plan is built on strong foundations. The UK's SCAP (Sustainable Clothing Action Plan) has been in operation for two years, aiming to make big reductions in water and carbon impact across the sector by 2020. At WRAP's annual convention this week, it became clear that action has been taken with a vengeance.

In just two years retailers, brands and organisations from across the clothing supply chain have reduced water impacts by a significant 12.5% per tonne of clothing, against a 15% reduction target by 2020. They are also making encouraging progress on a cut to carbon impacts, achieving a 3.5% reduction per tonne of clothing against a 15% reduction target. Did I say encouraging? It's hugely impressive!

Reaching the 2020 targets would make a huge dent in the UK's carbon deficit and water use figures. There could be an annual carbon saving equivalent to removing 250,000 cars from the road, a water saving equivalent to 170,000 Olympic sized swimming pools and 16,000 tonnes less waste created in the first place.

https://youtu.be/M3hReGi3ovE

In order to meet the SCAP 2020 targets, signatories (which make up over half of UK high street brands including, most recently, George at Asda) must focus on five main areas. They should increase the use of lower impact fibres; build product durability; help consumers care for clothing; guide those customers towards reducing waste to landfill (through WRAP’s consumer campaign Love Your Clothes) and work with supply chains to reduce waste. Like the recently announced ECAP, it's an ambitious plan with ambitious targets. So it's gratifying to see so much progress in such a short space of time.

It's important to note that engagement with customers is a vital part of the plan. After all, you can make all the changes to the supply chain that you like, but if the end user is still binning rather than recycling, all that hard work is for nothing. The Love Your Clothes campaign is a key component of the strategy. John Lewis uses LYC literature as part of its Learning Guide, helping Partners to pass on durability messages on the shop floor. Love Your Clothes recently sponsored Brighton Fashion Week, and Clothes Aid supports the campaign on its collection bags which can be found across the country.

Marcus Gover, Director at WRAP, said:

“SCAP signatories have made great progress against the targets to date, particularly water. This is a positive indication of what can be achieved and we must capitalise on the momentum we’ve built."

Our View: these results are very good news and show how engagement with an idea across business, government and charities can make a huge difference in a short space of time. With five years to go, who knows what could be achieved? All of a sudden, ECAP's ambitious targets don't seem at all unachievable!

Primark: The Devil In The Detail

There's a general air of opinion amongst we ethical fashion types that fast fashion can do no right. Companies like Zara, New Look and especially the best-known UK name in the sector, Primark, are guilty of everything from the pushing of micro-trends to poor quality but super-cheap clothing, factors that keep people buying and a steady stream of non-recyclable clothing heading for landfill. Employee expoitation and dangerous working conditions are all par for the course. So far, so obvious.
The real story is, of course, rather less simplistic.
Did you know, for example, that Primark were one of the first companies to offer compensation to the victims of the Rana Plaza collapse–and that they contributed an amount above and beyond their legal obligation? Furthermore, the company have become the latest signatory to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), a non-profit organisation that monitors the Higgs Index of a brand.
Higgs Index? Well, this is a self-assessment tool developed by the SAC that allows companies to calculate the sustainability performance of their supply chain and identifies areas that need to be improved. It assesses both the environmental and social impacts of products.
In a statement, Primark said:

"By measuring sustainability performance, the industry can address inefficiencies, resolve damaging practices, and achieve the environmental and social transparency that consumers are starting to demand. By joining forces in a Coalition, we can address the urgent, systemic challenges that are impossible to change alone."

Parse that statement, and a couple of interesting points emerge. Firstly, they note that changes to transparency and the elimination of "damaging practices" are things that customers are starting to call for. In other words, advocacy of a more ethical fashion sector is starting to make a difference. Consumer power is a real force in moving away from the old toxic models.
Secondly, Primark is very clear that they can't do it alone. Which is why joining the SAC is such a smart move. It has a membership that includes big brand names like Adidas and H&M, agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency as well as non-profits, academic institutions, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. No-one wants to be the first to jump into a new supply chain structure. But by teaming up with a group that can provide a good theoretical and legal framework for such a move, when it happens it's more likely to be a success.
Look, I'm not saying we should all suddenly rush out to Primark to show our support. But it's important to realise that sometimes the bad guys aren't quite as evil as we like to think, and that painting any issue in black and white ignores the subtle hues that are much closer to the truth.

Livia Firth Takes Over HuffPo for Sustainable Fashion Month

Livia Firth, one of our favourite eco-fashionistas, has taken over as guest editor of The Huffington Post this month–a smart move as September also sees London Fashion Week litter the streets of Soho with glitter and pouts. Putting the website's focus strongly on sustainable fashion, Livia has a lot to say on what defines the term. Her view: it's impossible.
In her opening editorial, Livia says:

"Words such as ethical, sustainable or ecological fashion have been so over used that they create more confusion than certainties.
The truth is we are in a situation today perfectly described by Carlo Petrini, founder of the Slow Food Movement when he asked a very simple question: "How did we end up in an era when we have to define and certify things that should be normal?"
To unpick that, we need to define unsustainable (and fast) fashion."

The notion of unsustainable fashion is significantly easier to quantify. In short, it's all the production methods that we have campaigned against for so long: sweatshop labour, unmonitored use of toxic chemicals, even the season model that insists we chuck out our wardrobe and start again twice a year.
But fast fashion is a whole new kind of monster, one that's ramping up the damage to almost absurd levels.

"Fast fashion is a relatively new phenomenon. One that's caught us all, as consumers, in an absurd circle of micro trends. Think about it. Around two mini seasons a week in store. Disposable clothes that stay in a woman's closet for an average of just five weeks, before being thrown out - all in the name of the democratization of fashion.
In reality, this is exploiting not just us, the "consumers", but also the planet's resources and the people who produce them. The collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh in April 2013 showed the world the true human cost of production at these volumes and prices. And don't even mention the environmental impact. It's enough to say that between 11,000 and 20,000 litres of water are needed to produce just ONE pair of jeans."

That's the bad news. The good news is that once you've identified a problem the solution becomes obvious. Fast fashion is clearly a problem. The solution is not to play the game. There's no reason to buy according to micro-trends. Show a little taste. Buy less often, but with an eye to the future, with the understanding that everything you buy is going to last you. At the same time, urge manufacturers to do their bit for their workers and the environment.
Ethical fashion is, ultimately, about common sense in the face of an industry that seems to have gone completely mad. The pushback is happening, and voices like Livia Firth's are at the front of that effort. Pay attention. It might just change your life.
I urge you to read Livia's editorial, and to keep an eye on HuffPost's sustainable fashion month.

Oxfam Confronts The Charity Shop Dilemma

An interesting knock-on effect of the boom in fast fashion has been the hit that charity shops have taken. Clothes from shops like Primark are simply not fit for purpose after a few washes, which means those items are going straight in the bin instead of the recycle hopper. Added to that, people are buying fewer new clothes in general, and therefore hanging onto stuff that they would normally donate. Added to that, conflict in the Ukraine, traditionally a big market in second-hand and donated clothing, has seen a significant drop in demand and a glut of material in the marketplace.
The end result? Charity chains like Oxfam have seen a 3% slide in sales. And that's a problem for a business that has over 700 stores nationwide. What sort of a message does it send when even the charity shops start closing?
The problem for retailers in general is that we consumers have become much more savvy over the past couple of decades. The massive growth in online shopping has largely passed the charity market by–how do you cost-effectively market an individual donation? Meanwhile, the boom in discount stores like Aldi and Lidl, that can offer supermarket quality at pound-shop prices (including clothing), means that the traditional charity shop model has to change to survive.
Oxfam are now trailing discount stores in six locations, setting out its mix of donated fashion and homewares as well as its range of Fairtrade goods at cheap block prices–£1, £2 and £3. By getting people through the door, the idea is that they'll be enticed by the quality on offer and add Oxfam to their usual shopping mix.
It's not all bad news for Oxfam, of course. Their specialist Book And Music stores are havens for the specialist market, gathering rare vinyl and collectable literature in welcomingly inviting spaces. And although donations fell, public fundraising was up by 2.5%. An interesting response to those who feel charities are too invasive. In all, the charity's income actually rose by £12m last year.
Oxfam are at the leading edge of charity retail, and it'll be fascinating to see if other brands respond to the challenge. The tired notion of a shabby, unwelcoming charity shop as the last resort of the desperate is falling away, as smart shoppers see the benefits in buying pre-loved wares. There's a change in attitudes, to which the sector should respond imaginatively.

Five Steps To An Ethical You

It's all well and good for bloggers like me to wibble on about sustainable this and ethical that and highlight a new manufacturing process that somewhere, ten years down the line might be the way towards the light. But that doesn't help you now, does it? If you want to take an ethical approach to your fashion, then you need some practical and affordable steps to guide you.
Friends, I'm here to help. Here are a few ideas that'll give you a hand.
First up, do a bit of research. Ethical fashion is a complex beast, filled with misinformation, assumptions and outright lies. Things change as well, of course, so it's worth keeping up to date with the latest news. I'd recommend the Guardian's sustainable business pages, and sites like Ecouterre. Twitter can also be an enormous help: follow key names like Livia Firth, Orsola de Castro, Carry Somers and Fashion Revolution.
Of course, I'm not going to give away all my sources...
Next up, I know it'll be expensive to replace a wardrobe full of clothes. My advice: don't. Start with the small things. Affordable accessories made from upcycled or recycled materials are a great way to get started, and you'll usually be helping small businesses or ethnic communities running their own start-ups. There are great pieces out there made from things like recycled paper fused into a kind of resin, or fabric cast-offs. Have a nose around. There's plenty to choose from.
Then, start looking at the materials that make up your clothing. Clothes made primarily from synthetics like rayon or nylon are heavy burdens on the environment, using tons of chemicals and energy to produce. They're also non biodegrable, staying in landfill for decades. If you can, stay natural, or explore more esoteric materials like hemp or even nettle. One proviso: Tencel is an engineered fabric made from tree cellolose. As I mentioned last week, it's a highly sustainable fabric and well worth looking into, especially if you're in the market for basics or sportswear. It might sound synthetic–it's nothing of the sort.
A great way to get sustainable is to dress with an eye to the future. A classic silhouette doesn't age, and remains impervious to trends. A piece bought now that still looks classy five or ten years down the line is a properly sustainable investment, and something that can team with other items you already own give you a ton more options. There's a reason that the little black dress is still popular, you know...
Lastly, take a long, hard look at your wardrobe. See if you can team items in different ways. Maybe adapt or reaccessorise a piece to give it a fresh new look. If there's something you really can't stand any more, donate or recycle it. If you have M&S gear that needs to go, you can shwop it, donating in-store or at your local Oxfam for money-off vouchers on a new treat. There are plenty of options out there that don't involve tearfully binning half your wardrobe.
Above all, have fun! Ethical fashion is an exciting, forward-facing area of the industry, full of innovation and invention. At the same time, it keys into classically frugal approaches that your grandma would recognise and approve of. Shopping and thinking ethically will save you money and have you looking good while giving the environment a hand. Why would you not want to give that a try?

The True Cost: Out Today!

You'll recall a couple of months ago we first mentioned The True Cost, a documentary on the rise and impact of fast fashion. The film premiered last night, and is now available for you, you lucky ethical fashion types, to buy, rent or stream.
In an interview on The True Cost's website, executive producer Livia Firth outlines the goals of the film:

"Over the past two decades fashion has changed thanks to this new phenomenon called “fast fashion” and now we have a situation where, as consumers, we are caught in an absurd circle of micro trends. Think about it. Around two mini seasons a week in stores. Disposable clothes that stay in a woman’s closet for an average of just five weeks, before being thrown out – all in the name of the democratization of fashion.
In reality, this evil machine is exploiting everyone and everything: the consumer, the planet’s resources and the people who produce them. Each year across the world, 1.5 billion garments are sewn by an estimated 40 million people, working in 250,000 factories. These are predominantly made in countries described by the UN as the world’s least developed. All in all, the garment and textile industry is estimated to be worth some $3 trillion. And the bulk of that goes into the pockets of the owners of those fast fashion brands."

Livia Firth and her agency EcoAge have been pushing hard to get the evils of the fast fashion industry out to the general public; the Primark shoppers, the people that know a bargain. The trick is to get them to think differently about clothes, to view them as more than a disposable purchase. Lucy Seigel, who also appears in the film, says it best: if you're eyeing up an item of clothing, consider whether you'd wear it thirty times. If not, question why you want it and, more importantly, if you need it.
We'll be reviewing The True Cost next week, which means I get to put my film reviewer's hat on for once, hooray. In the meantime, there are screenings of the film worldwide tonight, from New York to Spain. In the UK, it's showing at the Curzon Bloomsbury and Birmingham City University's Parkside Lecture Theatre. If you fancy organising a screening of your own, get in touch and help spread the word: put in a screening request here. Otherwise, digital copies of the film are now available, with Blu-Ray and DVD copies shipping soon. If you have any interest in ethical fashion, you should get behind this movie.