Ethical Clothing

An interesting preach on social responsibility at church last night which drew my attention to this report from War on Want. I have selected the majority of the conclusion to highlight here but obviously you should check out the whole thing to get the bigger picture. The main conclusion appears to be that Gap, New Look and Next are the High Street fashion retailers that are starting to develop policies and admit they have more work to do in the area of providing ethical conditions and wages for their clothing manufacturers.

1. The worst offenders
These brands make no meaningful information available to suggest that they have engaged with the living wage or other labour rights issues, and continue not to respond to our inquiries about their policies and practices. They deserve the most severe criticism and consumer scepticism. They are: Bhs, Diesel, House of Fraser, Kookai, Matalan, MK One, Moss Bros, Mothercare, Peacocks/BonMarche, River Island, Rohan Designs, Ted Baker.
Example: Matalan
Matalan did not respond to our enquiries in 2006 or 2007, despite repeated requests. Matalan’s website displays a code of conduct that claims to be based on the ETI base code, yet it has omitted key provisions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. With no information on how the code is monitored and implemented, we have to assume that it isn’t. LBL recently approached Matalan about one of its Indian suppliers, a factory which workers say has a long history of workers’ rights violations. All Matalan did was tell us that it believed the company to “be a well run business” and that it, “didn’t feel it appropriate to interfere with them.”

2. Nothing to show
Unlike the previous group, these brands did respond to our enquiries, but their responses did not come close to dealing with the issues we raised. They are not members of any multi-stakeholder initiative, such as the ETI, and this shows from their lack of understanding of more advanced subjects such as the living wage. Their ethical trading programmes seem to be largely a paper exercise. They are: French Connection, Laura Ashley, Mosaic Fashions (Oasis etc).
Example: French Connection
For two years in a row, French Connection has responded, but failed to say what it was doing about a living wage, freedom of association, or monitoring and verification in any depth. In 2006, it excused itself by saying that it was planning to, “develop our monitoring policies and processes.” In 2007 it had apparently made no progress whatsoever.

3. The new starters
These brands are relatively new to the ethical trading game (in itself a cause for criticism), and as such are playing catch-up. They accepted that they were not able to give us what we want this year, but there was very much a sense of ‘come back to us next year and we will have something to show’. The important question is how ambitious they are: will they simply emulate the failed procedures of the bulk of the industry, or will they pull off something special? They are: Arcadia, Jigsaw, Primark.
Example: Jigsaw
The Jigsaw group was heavily criticised in our 2006 report, because it seemed to have little understanding of the problems faced by workers and the questions we had asked. This year, Jigsaw has taken the criticism on board, and told us of its plans to put together an ethical trading programme, which will include worker training in the bulk of its supplier base, as well as a living wage study with a commitment to implement it.

4. Disappointingly slow
These brands were the most frustrating. With a long experience of working on ethical trading, we would have expected them to be much further ahead, yet they didn’t seem particularly concerned about the slow pace of progress, or else they seemed to think that things were going pretty OK in their supply chains. In some cases, they took exception to our criticism last year, but this only confirms our feeling that these brands were in denial. They need a reality check, and they need to move much faster. They are: Debenhams, George at Asda, H&M, John Lewis, Levi’s, M&S, Monsoon, Pentland, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, TK Maxx, Zara.
Example: Levi Strauss & Co
Levi’s is the only company to move significantly backwards this year: it turned its back on the idea of a living wage, and as a result was suspended from - and then left - the ETI. Levi’s makes much play of being the first fashion company to adopt a code of conduct, yet this is precisely why we are so disappointed: surely Levi’s would be at the forefront of the next big challenge, implementing the living wage, not turning its back completely on the concept

5. Going up a gear?
These brands are not new to ethical trading, and like the ‘business as usual’ crowd they should really have more to show by now than they do. But like the ‘new starters’, they admit that they need to do more: open about the problems in their supply chains, they acknowledge that they have not done as well as they could have done in the past. The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating, and with more resources going into their ethical trading efforts, we will wait to see whether this means more of the same, or something fresh and exciting next year. They are: Gap, New Look, Next.
Example: Next
Next is unique among all the companies we spoke in having what appears to be a genuine plan to implement the living wage in its supply chains. It has undertaken a study of living wages across the countries from which it sources, and appears to accept from this research that a significant increase in wages is needed. It admitted at the time of meeting that it didn’t actually know how it would use the data once it was gathered, but the fact that it is gathering this data moves it much closer to implementation than most brands and retailers. Clearly we’ll be more comfortable once Next has worked out its next steps, but we’re pleased that it didn’t hide behind any of the trite excuses made by other brands