First thing yesterday morning - along, I imagine, with many journalists - I
received an e-mail from the PR at Primark announcing that the chain is to
stop buying clothes from three factories that it currently uses in southern
India, all of which were found to be breaking Primark's code of conduct.
Full marks for speed and for at least implying a sense of urgency. And note
the use of the possessive there. Not just any old code of conduct, but
Primark's. I am pleased to discover that Primark has a code of conduct - but
then, they all do these days, don't they? In 2008, having a code of conduct
and an ethical spokesperson is to the fashion chain what having a supermodel
in your advertising was in 1995. Unfortunately, as we are discovering, to
have a code of conduct is little or no insurance against it being breached.
Over and over again.
It is easy to sympathise with these chains, especially when you have a vested
interest in having your conscience soothed, as most consumers do. I've met
their CEOs, their designers and their buyers and don't doubt the integrity
of most of them when they stand there in the face of repeated questioning
from journalists (one sign, arguably, of the public's evolving sense of
social responsibility in this area is that there is repeated questioning)
and explain patiently that the reason why they can supply us with £3 jeans,
£1 flip flops and £9.99 Balenciaga-esque jackets is because of economy of
scale, lack of advertising and, particularly in the case of Primark's
business model, because they sell from huge, cheap-to-run sites.
I also understand - or I thought I did, because it's a point that CEOs,
buyers, designers and ethical spokespeople alike stress frequently - that
tracking the provenance of every process in a garment is, with the best will
in the world, almost impossible.
You may use a factory in downtown Saigon with impeccably observed working
regulations to make your “vintage” cotton dress, but how can you be sure
that the factory doesn't subcontract production of its buttons to another
factory 600 miles away where conditions are a living hell? And what, as a
CEO once asked rhetorically, constitutes a child, anyway? In Europe it's
anyone under the age of 16. But in India a family might depend on the wages
of its 8, 10 and 12-year-olds - and if the 8, 10 and 12-year-olds can't get
jobs sewing on buttons or gluing gladiator sandals, who knows what other
kind of work they might be forced into. So it's complex, right?
Well, yes, obviously it's complex. But complexity should not make an issue
immune from constant, proper scrutiny. It may be unrealistic to expect EU
working conditions in parts of the developing world but, deep down, most of
us know what is acceptable and what isn't. While child labour is probably
the most emotive and widely publicised abuse, it is just one of many issues
with which consumers are increasingly confronted. What about the toxic
pesticides in some cottons that, according to the World Health Organisation,
kill 20,000 farmers a year, or the dyes polluting water supplies, or the
animals skinned alive in China?
Follow this line of thinking for more than five minutes and the entire
transaction of shopping slides from therapy to guilt trip. Meanwhile, the
mid-Noughties craze for bargain-hunting looks increasingly less like
harmless frugality and more like a grubby brush with shopping bulimia. No
wonder many of us settle for the “it's complex” argument - it's the retail
equivalent of a get-out-of-jail-free card . But it's one that is rapidly
losing any validity. Surely we have all had a pretty good inkling, for some
time now, that buying something “ridiculously” cheap has hidden costs.
Weirdly, fashion could actually lead us to a higher path. Because while there
used to be kudos in saying that you'd bought something in Primark for two
quid when it was still a relatively unknown brand, there isn't much any
more. The opening of a “flagship” on Oxford Street last year, with the
ensuing cash till “riots” and the unedifying sight of tourist buses stopping
outside the store to disgorge yet more consumers hungry to load up with
bagfuls of clothes that they may or may not end up wearing, has seen to
that.
Of course we don't need all this stuff. It's not making us happier or better
dressed. Weaning ourselves off super-cheap clothes - and it is an addiction
- is a start, but it is only part of the answer because there are offenders
at all levels of the market. Until we get full disclosure about how and
where our clothes are made, we will all be able to fall back on the “it's
complex” mantra. We should all be campaigning for informative clothing
labels, similar to the ones on food.
If Primark's claim about its “robust and very effective system of audits” is
accurate, then it probably was unlucky with these rogue factories. Keeping
tabs on every stage involved in the manufacturing of anything that requires
more than two or three procedures inevitably gets complicated and murky.
Until yesterday, I bet most of us accepted the “we're trying our hardest but
it's tough out there” contrition that seems to be the standard response of
any business caught with its ethical pants down. I'm equally convinced that
the whole remorseful line is wearing a little thin. If it's so damn
difficult to establish accountability, then how do BBC reporters keep
managing to do so? And isn't that what these ethical teams are supposed to
be doing? Or does the ethical team consist largely of an ethical
spokesperson, there to look contrite when trouble hits?
Actually, that is unfair. When we tried to contact many of these ethical
spokespeople yesterday, they didn't sound contrite. They didn't sound
anything - because most were not available.
Scrupulous stores: where it's safe to shop
Marks & Spencer
“As we are 100 per cent own-brand we have great control over our supply chain.
We know and audit all the factories we source from. These audits check that
our standards are being met, which include: no child labour, no forced
labour, no unauthorised subcontracting, workers must be paid at least the
local minimum wage, and all overtime is paid and voluntary.”
American Apparel
“Clothing manufacturing is a very tough job, but we have always tried to do
things differently. It comes down to this: not blindly outsourcing, but
knowing the faces of our workers and providing them with the opportunity to
make a fair wage.
The average sewer with experience at American Apparel is making about $25,000
(£12,740) a year - that is, $12 (£6) an hour - well over twice the federal
minimum. This can be higher in some cases. We guarantee job security and
full-time employment; this is an anomaly in the garment industry, which
historically has been dominated by seasonal work.”
H&M
“We say no to child labour. As a business we have a responsibility to the
employees of our suppliers. H&M does not own any of the factories that
manufacture our products. We work with around 800 suppliers, mainly in Asia
and Europe.”
Arcadia Group (includes Topshop, Burton, Miss Selfridge, Wallis, Dorothy
Perkins)
“We make it clear at the beginning of our relationship with a supplier that we
will not work with any factory that employs children. To work with us,
suppliers must agree to employ workers who meet the minimum legal age
requirement in that country or the minimum age in our code, whichever is
higher. We support the principle of a living wage. In 2007 we established
the Fashion Footprint Group to align our social responsibilities with those
of our business activities.”
Gap
“We do not own any of the factories that we buy from. If a factory chooses to
subcontract or outsource any production, we insist that it also adheres to
our code of conduct, which includes the prohibition of child labour,
adherence to local labour laws, assurance of workers' freedom of association
and no forced labour.”
Adili.com
“All the products Adili stocks tackle at least one of the environmental
and social issues involved in making, transporting and selling clothes. We
assess the brand and the product against ethical frameworks covering
environmental impact, working conditions and fair trade. These cover the
whole supply chain for a product.”
People Tree
“We are a very active member of IFAT, the International Fair Trade
Association. We support 50 Fair Trade producer groups in 15 developing
countries.”
Research: Carolyn Asome, Nicola Copping and Alice Olins
Ethical clothes shopping: how to buy responsibly
Ask if the store has signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative
(ethicaltrade.org).
If not, why not? The shopfloor staff may not have this information, but don't
be embarrassed to ask if they could find out from the manager. It is this
kind of pestering - even if fellow shoppers smirk - that will send the
message that consumers want retailers to take responsibility for the way
that clothes are made. To arm yourself with appropriate info and questions,
read Labour Behind the Label's 2007 report Let's Clean Up Fashion (go to
labourbehindthelabel.org/resources).
Don't assume that expensive means ethical.
Unless you are prepared to blow your monthly budget on hand-crafted goods that
cost thousands of pounds, there is not always a connection between prices
and labour conditions, says Martin Hearson, Labour Behind the Label's
campaigns co-ordinator. Garments at the high and low end of the high street
could have been made in the same factory in China.
This doesn't mean that price is no indication of low quality.
A £5 outfit that is shoddily put together will not have ticked ethical boxes
during the production process. Somewhere down the line - probably all the
way along it - those producing it will have been paid a poor wage, and
possibly treated badly.
Keep abreast of the latest fashion scandals.
Then you'll know to avoid Uzbek cotton, and leather from Bangladesh. The
latter is the focus of a report in this month's edition of The Ecologist
magazine, which looks at ill-health resulting from chemicals used in the
tanning process. Cotton production in Uzbekistan was revealed last year to
involve children being forced to work in the fields, enabling the country to
be the second largest cotton exporter in the world (the largest is China).
The more information given about a garment, either on the label or in the
shop, the better.
If your favourite high street store can't tell you where its raw materials
come from - often it will state the country where the garment was assembled
but not the source of the raw material - this is a sign that it may be
washing its hands of the early stages of the sourcing process.
Buy less but better.
Aim for a slim, manageable wardrobe containing good-quality items that will
last, rather than an overflowing dressing-up box of poor-quality clothes. By
doing this, you will reduce your contribution to the 900,000 tonnes of
textile waste that we create in the UK every year, and limit your role in
the energy needed to make textiles.
Become an active consumer rather than a passive one.
Just as we have become better-informed consumers of food, so we should follow
a similar path with fashion, demanding to know where our clothes come from
and the methods used to get them to us. This means asking questions, doing
your homework, supporting shops that impress you and, sometimes, holding
back for the sake of your principles.
Check out ethical alternatives.
You may be surprised at the improvement in styles since you last looked, and
the increasing affordability of organic and fair-trade fashion. Try
Adili.com, which showcases the best of ethical fashion; browse the gorgeous summer dresses made by LaLesso (lalesso.com) and, if you live in the
capital, pop into Equa, London's only eco boutique (equaclothing.com).
ANNA SHEPARD
How Green Are My Wellies, by Anna Shepard, is published by Eden Project
Books, £14.99. It is available from Times BooksFirst for £13.49, free p&p:
0870 1608080; timesonline.co.uk/booksfirst
