Lisa Armstrong
Enter our Snapshots of Summer photography competition

There was a time when you used to be able to purge your shopping guilt by regularly dumping, sorry, selflessly donating, cast-offs to the local charity shop. But at the start of this year, even that particular path to a clear conscience was being threatened with nefarious blockades. Pinned to the stock room of the Notting Hill Gate branch of Oxfam, for example, a sign announced, in none too apologetic tones, that it could no longer accept baby clothes unless they were new.
Notting Hill – well, what do you expect? But now Oxfam in general has let it be known that it’s not crazy about your Tesco and Primark rejects either. Leaving aside the moral contradictions of donating something that may have been produced by underpaid workers to an organisation that aims to help underpaid workers, you can see Oxfam’s point.
Say you bought said find in a supermarket for £3. And let’s assume, for politeness’ sake, that you wore it just the once. On the assumption that most clothes devalue by 50 per cent the moment you take them out of the bag, and by another 50 per cent once they’ve been worn, shoved in the back of the wardrobe, slammed into a bin liner and left to fester for a few seasons, the most Oxfam could charge would be 75p. That’s less than a packet of Christmas cards, yet it takes up considerably more space. Anyone can see that’s not a great way to run a business.
If Oxfam is raising its game, and with Jane Shepherdson, the woman who transformed Topshop from a shlocky chain to a must-have fashion destination, on board, could this fundamentally change the way we shop?
One thing’s for sure: we shop to feel good, yet the bargain-hunt frenzy is starting to feel increasingly grubby, even without the unedifying scenes at Primark’s Oxford Street opening earlier this year. Shepherdson has said that a lot of what’s on the high street is too cheap, and that “where something’s too cheap, someone, somewhere along the line is paying”. We all know she’s right, so she has a deep reservoir of guilt to draw on. But maybe guilt is part of the cheap-fix equation.
There is a business model here, of sorts. Marks & Spencer, winner of the large fashion retailer category in the RSPCA’s increasingly prestigious Good Business Awards earlier this month, has proved that in the right package – value for money, good design – the public would like its purchases to be ethical, environmentally responsible and considerate of animal welfare.
Meanwhile, the winner of the RSPCA’s fashion retailer award, Wildlifeworks (www.wildlifeworks.co.uk), has the most imaginative programme of any ethical clothing range I’ve seen. With an 80,000-acre wildlife sanctuary at Rukinga in Kenya, the company employs one keeper for every person making its clothes: the more clothes it sells, the more keepers it can employ. Profits are ploughed back into local projects, such as schools, so every piece of clothing bought has a direct, positive impact on someone’s life. Actually more than one life because the best thing, as far as the consumer is concerned, is that the clothes are fashionable and well designed. I think Jane Shepherdson just got her cue.
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the collective power of smart thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Flip MinoHD Camcorder
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
42,945
2008
71,450
Car Insurance
Not Specified
MI6
UK-based
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Save up to £1,000 per couple with Elite Vacations at the five-star Constance Lemuria Resort
and do the British Isles this Summer.
Save up to 60% with Oxford Hotels and Inns
Try our inspiring luxury holidays to the Indian Subcontinent and South East Asia.
Great offers available
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Gap are the worst for slave labour but it's the hard reality of business and everyone looks for bargains, after all that's why charity shops exsist. It's never ending really doesn't just stop with clothes, can be down to a pinch of sugar in a ready meal. We can't guarantee everythin is fairtrade.
Katow, Chester, England
To Alice:
In many cases these textile imports into Africa endanger local companies manufacturing fabric and clothing by underpricing them. That discourages local entrepreneurs and limits their ability to provide employment to locals.
In general, though, I do agree that the attitude of people who donate their trash (and sometimes it's really nothing more than that) because they believe it is good enough for someone else is disgusting. I can't imagine how they can go home feeling all warm and fuzzy about themselves, but I'm sure most/many of them do.
trina, erkelenz, germany
As far as I am aware all high street stores source clothes from dubious factories and few can claim that the people who make their clothes are paid a fair wage and have the kind of employment rights that we in the UK would expect. Primark may be particularly bad but unfortunately it is by no means alone. And I would not put money on the fact that Topshop has the moral high ground either. People Tree and co are probably the only way to know that you're buying ethical clothes.
Jenny, London,
Hi, I've just been on the Wildlife works website and I can't seem to find any details on how to buy the clothes, or where the store is - the links are not live!
Could you post details on where to buy these please?
Regards,
Erica, Newcastle upon tyne,
I worked at a London Oxfam in 2005 and wish everyone could see the other side of charity shops! We received huge bags of junk almost daily--dirty or torn or very used items. Oxfam has to pay to have that taken away--and we wasted so much time on the "weeding" that we could have spent helping customers upstairs or out front--please dont use charity shops as an easy way to get rid of just junk! Before you donate, ask yourself--would I or someone like me consider buying it?
Karen back in Kansas
Karen De Bres, Manhattan , USA
I'm confused: are they refusing these clothes on ethical grounds or because they cant resell them? I thought that anything deemed not saleable was given to the poor, does his no longer happen? Oxfam: its a bad policy . Public: beware the plastic bags that come thru your door asking for cothing donations, a lot of them are not for charity: they are sent to Eastern Europe to be sold for the collectors' profit. Make sure it has a registered charity number and not just a registered company number: theres a big difference.
AR, London, UK
Nice if you live in an upmarket area, but if you live like I do in Teesside, than all donations are greatfully received, what they dont sell as clothes they sell as on rags. Rags to Riches one might say eh!
Secondhand Rose, Teesside, UK
I have a wardrobe full of designer names which as far as I can tell are all original. They have ALL been bought from charity shops. They include clothes by YSL, Dior, Armani (8 shirts 1 pr jeans) Ralph Lauren and others. I''ve never paid more than £4.00 for a shirt. It all looks immaculate and I will only buy my shirts, jumpers and trousers (and books) at charity shops. All other clothes are new from TK Max.
Brad, Manchester, England
I'd like to see actual proof of how people in Kenya or elsewhere are being benefitted from these programmes. I don't believe it for a moment. Most of the profit goes towards paying the first class fares of admin staff going out to these places, and their hotel bills, pensions, salaries etc etc, etc. If not, then they are going into the pockets of the middlemen on site.
Show us the proof that all this ethical nonsense is doing good!
Point: I've stopped shopping at Oxfam because it is cheaper to shop on the high street than it is there. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Alice, Brighton,
No-one should be buying these ultra cheap goods from the Primarks of this world.
We should pause to think as to how it possible for this type of retailer to sell so cheaply (even if it is crap!) A little reflection would probably lead us to the coclusion that a ten years old indentured (slave) machinist in Bangladesh is sweating away for fifteen hours a day in hazardous and unhygenic working conditions.
But I guess the people who buy such goods are too stupid, selfish or greedy to even think about these issues, so the even more greedy and totally unethical clothing trade continues to reap the profits.
Norman saunders, Udine, Italy
Rather than be overtly snotty and risk alienating potential donators, would it not be more politic to accept the donations and weed out unsuitable stock backstage?
Ken Wyatt, Todmorden, UK