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.

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/

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.

 

Why One Writer Fell Out Of Love With Benetton

Brand loyalty is a vital part of fashion marketing. It's why you see so many Superdry clothes on the street. The logos are clear, plain and obvious. You know what you're getting.

You're also investing in a certain image, of course. Those of us who wear sports brands are advertising that we have at least thought about the idea of doing something athletic, even if that does turn out to be watching the footie in the pub.

But then there are the brands that allow you to align yourself with a more socially responsible agenda. H&M have for years tried to become the conscious choice–not, it has to be said, with 100 percent success. But one brand has a history of shouting out about social injustice, through the awesome power of slightly dodgy pullovers. That company is Benetton.

You could be forgiven for slotting Benetton into the 'do you remember?' files. But back in the day, the brand and their edgy, direct advertising were everywhere. United Colors Of Benetton preached equality, and campaigned for AIDS research and against racism in a way that reached out to a high street audience. Sure, they were sometimes controversial (one poster depicted the moment a young guy died of AIDS-related illness, surrounded by his distraught family) but the headlines and the profits kept rolling in.

That stance made Benetton fans out of a lot of people, who bought the clothes partly with the understanding that their money was going to a company that cared. One of them was Stylianee, who wrote movingly about her relationship with the brand on What Eve Wears. She bought Benetton for the same reasons that all of us that invest in ethical fashion do: the clothes were long-lasting, and the company behind them seemed to have a soul.

But Stylianee's story is one of heartbreak. She realised that, over the years, Benetton has become just another fast fashion brand. She says:

Benetton, the brand I always admired for its creative and provocative marketing campaigns, its visual bravado for love and equality, its Social Responsibility Strategy, the UNHATE Foundation and so on so forth, that Benetton that fascinated me, it perspires (sic) that it was doing exactly the opposite of what it was preaching: it was producing in sweatshop conditions and it was polluting the environment without batting an eye.

Worse yet, she discovered that Benetton was one of the brands found to be making clothes in Rana Plaza. They would eventually pay compensation, but only after a bruising PR exposé that pulled apart their caring, sharing image and showed them to be just another greedy fast fashion outlet.

There's some good news that comes from this. Stylianee now organises Fashion Revolution events in her native Greece. She also keeps an eye on her old favourite, as part of the #WhoMadeMyClothes? initiative. She notes that Benetton seems to be moving production to the Balkans and Eastern Europe, perhaps over the outcry post-Rana Plaza.

But her story is one that's worth sharing, especially if you're a fan of one particular clothing line. Do they do what they say, and source responsibly? Or has the bloom gone off the rose, leaving something that smells a little rotten? If in doubt, check the label, do a little digging... and prepare to fall out of love with your favourite brand.

 

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.

Justice, Finally, For Rana Plaza?

It's taken years of effort, but last week arrests were finally made that could bring the people behind the Rana Plaza collapse to justice.

A court in Bangladesh has formally charged 38 people with murder in connection with the catastrophic failure of the Rana Plaza building, which killed over 1,000 people back in 2013. The principal accused in the case is the owner, Sohel Rana.

A total of 41 people face charges. Six are still on the run, and will be tried in absentia. Another four are accused of trying to help Rana flee the country. He was arrested after a four-day man-hunt, and was caught attempting to cross the border into India.

The collapse of the Rana Plaza building has been seen by many as the spark that lit new fires under the ethical fashion movement. Dozens of dangerous factories have been closed thanks to the efforts of the Bangladesh Accord On Fire Safety, which was founded as a direct response to the tragedy. New focus has been placed on the clothing factories of Bangladesh, who have wrangled low wages and light-touch safety legislation into a $28bn industry. It's been a boon to millions of Bangladeshi, but the collapse of Rana Plaza, and the less well-known tragedies that came before and still continue around the garment sector are still troubling.

Of course, the notion of justice is meaningless to the families of the Rana Plaza victims, who have lost mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Without income, they're still waiting for compensation from the multinational brands that allowed Rana and others like him to make huge profits off the backs of exploited workers. You can't put a price on the loss of a beloved family member. It's almost mind-boggling that companies like Gap and Walmart, so clearly implicated, would not step up and do the right thing by these families.

Rana and many of his fellow accused face the death penalty if found guilty of their crimes. You have to wonder, though, how much that really means to the victims of one of Bangladesh's biggest man-made disasters, and whether there can ever be any true sense of closure when it's clear that the companies for whom they made clothing value their lives so cheaply.

 

Is It Céline, Or Is It Zara?

We talked last week about Zara's nasty habit of copying the work of independent artists in order to keep up with the fast-fashion need for constant turn-around of new product. But it seems that both the Inditex brand and one of their competitors, Mango, are are also taking cribs from the look books of high fashion brands.

There is, of course, a fine tradition of brands copying brands. This is why, season on season, the shops are filled with the same kinds of clothes. Fast fashion has done a very good job of emulating the look of luxe fashion, and getting it onto the high street at a fraction of the price.

But, as my new favourite read The Fashion Law points out, brands like Zara are not just grabbing the clothing–they're taking the look and feel of the advertising as well.

A particular focus for the most sincere form of flattery seems to be French brand Céline. Over the past few years Zara has been cribbing hard from their style of cool, minimalist advertising. For the 2015 F/W collections, both brands featured split-image ads with a model on one pane and an item of clothing or accessory on the other.

It's also more than coincidental that the fast fashion brands have started using models who are a strong part of the image of high fashion names. In late 2015, Céline signed newcomer Karly Loyce for their spring 2016 campaign. Not long afterwards, Karly also appeared in ads for Zara. If you can't get the name, a lookalike will do. Mango signed Steffy Argelich for a look book that apes the mood of a recent Chloe campaign. Steffy is the spitting image of Chloe campaign model Antonina Petkovic.

It's important to note that there's nothing illegal in any of this, and it's hardly the first time that cheaper brands have sought to emulate the look and feel of more expensive products. This is something that Aldi have down to a fine art, for example. It's about making the connection and, the brands would argue, giving the fashion fan on the street a taste of luxe branding at a tiny percentage of the cost of the real item. This is a vital part of the fast fashion business model, and as long as Zara, Mango et al evoke the feel and look without actively selling knockoffs, then there's little that Céline or Chloe can do about it. Of course the tailoring and quality of fabric won't be anything like as good, and the items probably won't last the season and will go in the bin. But that's not Zara's problem, right? Just another part of the game...

Our View: the fast fashion chains often dance on a thin line when it comes to copyright infringement. The model they've set up–of constant change fuelling constant demand–means that they have to cast a very wide net to feed the ever-hungry design machine. Inspiration can and does come from everywhere. They're pretty clever at staying on the right side of that line, the occasional high-profile stumble aside. It's just a shame that they can't use that cleverness to come up with their own ideas.

 

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.

 

Garment Workers Fight Back!

We all know about worker exploitation in developing markets like China. Or at least, we think we do. What if there was an opportunity to get the real story from the people on the factory floor who make the clothes for some of the biggest brands in the world?

Next week, we have that chance. War On Want is running a tour of speakers across the UK, in which workers and activists in the garment trade tell their stories, and celebrate their victories.

China does not allow independent trade unions or conform to international regulations that protect worker rights. Strikes and protests by workers struggling for their rights are routinely crushed by the government. But against all odds, workers are fighting back.

Groups like Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) and Worker Empowerment have made extraordinary leaps forward in exposing the free ride enjoyed by fashion brands, building a movement of workers aware of their rights on the factory floors of China.

For example, SACOM's undercover investigations of fashion giant UNIQLO exposed the grim working conditions facing workers, and demonstrated that what the brand had said about how they treated their workers was a lie. Within months of their report's publication, they had forced UNIQLO to take corrective action in investigated factories which helped thousands of workers to attain fairer working conditions.

The all-woman panel of speakers, which includes representatives from SACOM and Worker Empowerment, are calling for supply chain transparency and urge international solidarity in pushing brands to make their factory suppliers public. With high street names like UNIQLO hiding their supply chain, it is nearly impossible for local groups in garment producing countries to expose working conditions. Yet, against the odds, the stories are starting to come out.


The tour stops in London, Glasgow, Newcastle and Manchester, and is a must if you want to find out more about the burgeoning worker's rights movement in the Chinese garment industry. Tickets are free.

Find out more at the War On Want site: http://www.waronwant.org/chinatour

 

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.