Fashion and Responsibility - Ethical questions

[softgrey]

ty mutterlein...threads have been merged...

 

[zamb]

Hi softgrey, how are you, been a while.

 

[softgrey]

hi zamb....
hope you're well......

 

[BerlinRocks]

Maybe a thread I opened about H&M (The world according to H&M) should be merged with this, non ?

 

[fashionista-ta]

I wish there were someone asking designers about their sourcing, manufacturing, etc. and publishing this information on a regular basis. Information can be difficult to come by.

There's no doubt in my mind that the money is there in fashion to support fair trade--but is it happening? Probably even less than we think.

What really disgusts me is to read about designers (such as Miuccia Prada's recent interview with Cathy Horyn) talking about how they explicitly exclude what they claim are their values from their approach to fashion (Prada was talking about how she doesn't want to use older models). I don't want to hear excuses about 'Oh, well, that's the fashion business ...' when you're a powerful player as she is, she can darn well make her own rules. Anyone at all, powerful or not, can choose to raise their own level of play in terms of ethics and values. That is absolutely clear to me from my own experience.

So I admire anyone at all who shows any evidence at all that they are approaching fashion using positive values. I am not a vegan, but I appreciate what Stella McCartney does in terms of leather and fur.

I also see no issue with Stella McCartney being owned by Gucci. Turning it the other way, she's taking money from a company known for its use of leather, and investing it in non-leather production. There's something subversive about that, no?

 

[BerlinRocks]

you should have a look at this article by susie bubble ...
"Making the world a better place"

extract:

If Nike are leaders in the performance and sportswear world, then what of high fashion and the luxury end? Last week, François-Henri Pinault, CEO of Kering Group (fashion conglomerate which houses Gucci, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen to name but a few) was in town to mark a five year partnership with the London College of Fashion’s Centre for Sustainable Fashion, which will engage LCF students in yes, how to make the world a better place. Kering and LCF will co-create a curriculum on sustainable practises and innovation and students will have the opportunity to present their innovations and solutions for an annual Kering Award that will give a monetary grant as well as an internship within Kering brands. “Kering’s commitment to sustainability mirrors our own ethos of Better Lives – using fashion to transform lives and create a more sustainable future,” said Frances Corner, head of LCF. “Sustainability in business is no longer an adjunct; it has to be integral to a new way of working. By collaborating with Kering in three key areas, placing people and our environment at the heart of what would do, we can make real progress.” From Pinault’s talk (which can be watched on video here) the main takeaway was that from Kering’s perspective, sustainability equates to good business sense and not because it sells more product. “(Fashion’s) our contribution to global problem-solving may not be immediately obvious,” said Pinault. “But I would argue that by the very nature of our industry’s innate creativity and ability to set trends, fashion can be a powerful player in illustrating new and appealing solutions to a more sustainable world. At Kering, sustainability is everyone’s business. We believe in it not only because it is the right thing to do, but because sustainable business is smart business. And conversely, the companies that bury their heads in the sand and think they can continue ‘as usual’ will simply not last.”

Pinault together with Kering’s chief sustainability officer and head of international institutional affairs Marie-Claire Daveu, emphasised that implementing sustainability at Kering wasn’t about selling, which is why a lot of the actions, targets and reports are really only communicated on a B2B level as opposed to the average consumer. For instance someone walking into a new Saint Laurent store, designed by Hedi Slimane, that the lighting is 100% LED, reducing electricity by consumption by 30%. Or that Gucci has pioneered a chrome-free leather tanning process, reducing both water and energy usage. Other actions are more overtly communicated as seen at Stella McCartney where of course, good sustainable practise is part of the raison d’etre of the brand. It was interesting that Jones pointed out that Nike’s standpoint was not just about doing less bad but about doing more good. Kering’s targets on the other hand, outlined on their website and at the talk, were definitely about doing less bad. They’re goals that are baby steps for a company wading into the complex territory of sustainability. By 2016, Kering hopes to reduce CO2 emissions and water usage by 25% and that they will be evlauating key suppliers every two years. Materials wise, Kering hopes to be PVC free and that their leather will be from responsible and verified sources, and skins and furs from verified captive breeding operations and that paper and packaging will have 50% recycled content. They will also be implementing an Environmental Profit & Loss Account, which measures and monetises the costs and benefits of a company’s environmental impacts across all of its supply chains from raw material to product distribution – in other words, they will monitor their business performance which takes natural resources into account. What Kering will do and action with all this EP&L data is slightly less clear. As I was listening to Pinault and Daveau speak, there was a feeling that it was more about the talk than real concrete action but at the very least, the conversation is being instigated by a fashion luxury conglomerate. And by partnering with LCF, a new generation of creative thinkers will be nurtured to bring forth change, something that I remember Orsola de Castro talking about. “This a generation who are thinking that if something isn’t done soon, it might come to the point where there isn’t a fashion industry at all.”

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Thanks for posting that. I like a lot of the goals, and I like that they aren't years into the future ... 2016 is just over a year away now (duh ). It looks like more than talk to me ... no PVC, half recycled content, verified sources are all real things. I'm glad to hear this. The EP&L is interesting too.

When you're looking at doing something new, it does need to start off as talk. But it looks like the talk is getting converted to reality, including things that are already implemented (like the lighting).

A lot of the 'green' action I've seen companies take somehow mysteriously coincides with a positive impact to their bottom line ... like no longer stocking paper and Styrofoam products in the kitchen. This is going beyond that. The LEDs may be saving them money, but some of the other initiatives are not.

 

[BerlinRocks]

I like watching investigation documentaries - especially about third-world conditions of life and work, children rights etc.

I'm sort of concerned by the world, and try to do my best to help it make a better place (being reasonable, though... i'm not a coocoo).

when it comes to anything i buy (trade, want, wish i had etc.) i try to do my best, so I consider it a MUST SAY that the whole process of production (from A to Z) is clear.
Therefore, I try not just to over-consume....
And I think a lot of things would be better if we would relearn how to consume, be new consumers.
To me, that is where most of things would stand.

The fact we OVER-consume (the fast generation, more than the X,Y or Z) is an issue that have made the third world (I'm sorry I'm not up to date for another word - emerging countries have left the third world) just a bigger industrial zone, with poor human rights. money being a god, even in very religious country.

CO2 impact is one of the highest priorities, but conditions of work of people is also an important thing. and we don't hear about it, enough... especially now that Green has made its ways everywhere.
We should think environment AND human (rights) at the same time.

in terms of Fast Fashion, I try my best not to buy too much of these products. I don't buy TopShop, H&M, and Zara ... First of all, it is because I don't like how most of these are tailored. They simply do not fit me that well. But I also know how the production works for most of them, and I do NOT appreciate it.
Also, I've been buying second hands, vintage, and thrift stores since i'm 13 yrs old.
And prefer to spend my money in quality things ....

I don't know much about High Fashion production - not everything is produced in France, Italy, England, USA a lot these days........
But it seems some efforts are made !

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I agree ... even without knowing the entire supply chain--and apparently they're unbelievably complex--if we consume better and consume less, I believe that has a positive impact. And I agree about avoiding fast fashion--I do as well. For one thing, I consider it a waste of my time to spend time choosing something and then it doesn't hold up. When I take the time to make a carefully-considered purchase, I want it to last a long time.

I noticed my new bag was made in Italy, and the workmanship is flawless--I have found nothing at all wrong. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think work like that cannot be happening under the terrible conditions we sometimes hear about (though I've never heard of terrible conditions anywhere in Italy--or anywhere else in the EU for that matter).

As you probably know, sometimes things say Made in the USA, and really they were made in some obscure territory somewhere, not necessarily under the best of conditions. With smaller countries, I think things are a bit clearer ...

 

[BerlinRocks]

As you probably know, sometimes things say Made in the USA, and really they were made in some obscure territory somewhere, not necessarily under the best of conditions. With smaller countries, I think things are a bit clearer ...

>American Apparel ?
I've heard about this. I don't know for sure.
And I'm sure other brands. But I remember too in the world according to hm thread, i've talked about factories in america, and someone said that american factories (in Fashion) are coming back...
I buy shoes only coming from England and Italy and France. But for sneakers it is more difficult to avoid Turkey (where I think things might be ok), Vietnam unsure, China (a lot of things have to be done over there for human and child working rights!!!) - and let's not even start with the very basic/premium materials coming from Africa!

I completely forgot to talk about one thing, but I still am concerned about people who buy in these Fast Fashion stores - it's like McDonalds, I know it is bad, but sometimes I am craving for it ...
I mean let's be real some people can't afford certain prices, and I think it is great that they can afford to express themselves with outfits, and cheap options are more than welcomed. But I feel like people don't know now how to really transform and appropriate things, so they just buy it already made, and consume them one after another - without really thinking their use.

So indeed I think the issue holds in the hands of consumers, AND rulers (to "teach" how to buy again.... The 1950-60s are behind us... We got the evolution's "good" and "dark" sides, now..... not to say there's one to choose, but ...)

 

[BerlinRocks]

Here is a funny thing ...

Les tee-shirts mauriciens de la honte
publié le 5 novembre 2014 16h41

"Voici à quoi ressemble une féministe". Ce slogan imprimé sur des tee-shirts fabriqués à Maurice et porté par des parlementaires anglais est revenu comme un boomerang dans la figure de Fawcett, une association britannique de défense des droits des femmes fondée en 1866 qui les avaient commandés. Les ouvrières sont payées un salaire de misère et logées dans des conditions indignes.


Avec le magazine Elle, Fawcett avait décidé de lancer une campagne afin de récolter des fonds. L’association avait fait appel à une grande marque de prêt-à-porter anglaise, Whistles. La démarche de Fawcett avait séduit de très nombreux parlementaires anglais, dont le vice-Premier ministre Nick Clegg, qui avait accepté de porter le fameux tee-shirt lors des questions au Premier ministre.

Tout ce petit monde a été plongé dans l’embarras dimanche dernier en découvrant la Une du The Mail on sunday. Notre confrère Ben Ellery a enquêté sur place.

La Compagnie mauricienne de textile (CMT) produit 40 millions de tee-shirts par an dans ses six usines mauriciennes pour des marques comme Topshop, Suivant et Urban Outfitters. Elle emploie 13 000 salariés dont 2 800 femmes. Plus de 4 000 des ouvriers sont des étrangers logés sur place. Ils viennent du Bangladesh, du Sri Lanka, d’Inde et du Vietnam. La CMT a déjà été épinglée en 2007 pour avoir sous-payé ses ouvriers.

Le directeur général de CMT François Woo a non seulement fait visiter ses usines à Nick Clegg mais également les dortoirs où il loge ses ouvrières. Il assume. "Ils correspondent aux résidences universitaires chinoises. Elles n’ont pas besoin de beaucoup de place dans la mesure où elles ne font qu’y dormir. Je suis comme un parent pour mes ouvriers. Ils sont libres d’aller et venir à leur guise, mais s'ils sortent un soir je ne suis pas content car je ne veux pas qu’ils soient saouls le lendemain au travail. Si les gens ne veulent pas travailler pour nous, rien ne les y oblige. S'ils ont la possibilité de gagner plus ailleurs, ils peuvent partir. »

120 euros par mois pour 35 h par semaine

Les ouvrières que Nick Clegg a pu rencontrer ne partagent pas l’enthousiasme de M. Woo. "Comment ce tee-shirt pourrait-il symboliser le féminisme ?" , confient-elles indignées en référence au slogan. "Nous ne sommes pas des féministes. Nous sommes prises au piège". Elles gagnent 6 000 roupies par mois, l’équivalent de 120 euros soit le quart du salaire mensuel moyen de Maurice, la moitié de ce que gagne un serveur. Il leur faudrait deux semaines de salaires pour se payer un seul des 900 tee-shirts sortis de l’usine à 9 livres et revendus 45 livres par Whistles.

"Je travaille ici depuis quatre ans et je n’ai jamais pu rentrer voir mon mari et mon fils au Bangladesh. Nous travaillons très dur, parfois 12 heures par jour, 45 heures par semaine. Nous devons produire environ 50 chemises par jour. Des mesures disciplinaires sont prévues si nous ne réalisons pas ce quota. J’envoie tout ce que je gagne à ma famille. Nous n’avons pas le choix. Les roupies que je gagne ici valent trois fois celles que je pourrais gagner au Bengladesh", confie une ouvrière.

"Les travailleurs de cette usine sont très mal traités. Le fait que des politiciens en Angleterre portent ces tee-shirts est épouvantable", souligne un syndicaliste mauricien.

Fawcett et Whistles sont gênés aux entournures. Fawcett affirme que la marque de prêt-à-porter lui avait affirmé que les tee-shirts seraient fabriqués en Grande-Bretagne. En découvrant qu’ils venaient de Maurice, l’association aurait reçu l’assurance qu’ils avaient été produits dans le respect des règles sociales et éthiques. Fawcett s’est engagé à retirer la gamme de tee-shirts et à reverser l’argent déjà récolté à une organisation de commerce équitable. Jane Shepherdson fondatrice de Whistles est d’autant plus mal à l’aise qu’elle n’avait pas hésité à affirmer : "Les clients ne peuvent pas continuer à acheter des vêtements bon marché sans se soucier de leur provenance".

Alain Dupuis

clicanoo.re

---
Google Translation

" This is what a feminist looks like ." This slogan printed on T-shirts manufactured in Mauritius and supported by English parliamentary came back like a boomerang in the figure of Fawcett, a British association for the defense of the rights of women founded in 1866 that had ordered the Tshirts. The workers are paid a pittance and housed in inhumane conditions.


With Elle magazine , Fawcett decided to launch a campaign to raise funds. The association had appealed to a large ready- to-wear English, Whistles . Fawcett 's approach had attracted many English parliamentarians, including Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who had agreed to wear the famous shirt during questions to the Prime Minister .

This little world was plunged into embarrassment last Sunday by reading the front page of The Mail on sunday . Our colleague Ben Ellery investigated instead.

Mauritian Textile Company ( CMT ) produces 40 million T-shirts a year in its six plants in Mauritius for brands such as Topshop, Next and Urban Outfitters. It employs 13,000 employees including 2,800 women. More than 4,000 workers are foreigners staying there. They come from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka , India and Vietnam. CMT has been pinned in 2007 for underpaid its workers.

The CEO of CMT François Woo has not only visit its factories to Nick Clegg but also dormitories where it houses its workers. It assumes . " They correspond to the Chinese university residences . They do not need much space to the extent that they do is sleep . I'm like a parent for my workers . They are free to come and go as they please but if they go out one night I 'm not happy because I do not want them to be drunk the next day at work. If people do not want to work for us, nothing obliges them . If they have the opportunity earn more elsewhere , they can leave. "

120 euros per month for 35 hours per week

The workers Nick Clegg met do not share the enthusiasm of Mr. Woo . " How does this shirt could it symbolize feminism ? " Entrust they indignant reference to the slogan . " We are not feminists. We're trapped ." They earn 6000 rupees per month , the equivalent of 120 euros a quarter of the average monthly salary of Mauritius, half of what wins a server. It would take two weeks of wages to pay one of the 900 out of the factory to 9 pounds T-shirts and sold 45 books by Whistles .

"I 've been here four years and I 've never been able to go see my husband and son in Bangladesh. We are working very hard, sometimes 12 hours a day , 45 hours per week . We need to produce about 50 shirts a day. The disciplinary measures are provided if we do not achieve this quota. I send everything I make to my family. We have no choice. the rupee I earn here worth three times that I could win in Bangladesh " says a worker.

"The workers of this factory are treated very badly . The fact that politicians in England are these t -shirts is terrible ," said a Mauritian trade unionist.

Fawcett and Whistles are embarrassed at the seams . Fawcett says that the ready -to-wear had told him that T-shirts are manufactured in Great Britain. Discovering they had Maurice , the association would have been assured that they were produced in accordance with the social and ethical rules. Fawcett is committed to removing the range of T-shirts and donate the money already collected a fair trade organization . Jane Shepherdson of Whistles founder is all the more uncomfortable she did not hesitate to say : "Customers can not keep buying cheap clothes regardless of their origin ."

 

[BerlinRocks]

Here is another article, where Fawcett says it is false ...

Feminist T-shirts made in ethical conditions, says Fawcett Society
Charity behind ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ shirts says evidence refutes Mail claims they were made in a sweatshop

The women’s rights charity behind the “This is what a feminist looks like” T-shirts worn by politicians including Harriet Harman and Ed Miliband has rejected claims that the garments were made in a sweatshop.

The Mail on Sunday reported that the shirts were being made by female workers in Mauritius who were paid just 62p an hour.

However, the Fawcett Society said it had seen “expansive and current evidence” from the retailer Whistles that the factory owned by Compagnie Mauricienne de Textile (CMT) where the shirts were made conformed to ethical standards. They were designed and produced by the fashion chain, in collaboration with Elle magazine, and sell for £45.

Eva Neitzert, deputy chief executive of the society, said: “The evidence we have seen categorically refutes the assertion that the ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ T-shirts produced by Whistles were made in a sweatshop. An audit into the CMT factory was carried out in October 2014 by an independent not-for-profit organisation and this did not reveal any material concerns on the working conditions, the welfare or the health and safety of workers.”

Nevertheless, she said, Fawcett was working with an international trade union body to examine the evidence so they could be “absolutely assured of its provenance, authenticity and that all findings are robust and factual”.

The charity would continue to work with Elle and Whistles on the project.

According to the Fawcett statement, there was evidence that:

• All workers were paid above the official minimum wage and that their wages reflected their skills and years of service.

• The standard working week was 45 hours, and workers were paid for any overtime.

• Workers could join a union and there was a union presence at the factory.

• Staff turnover levels were low and workers were offered training and development.

Whistles said in a statement that it was committed to ethical sourcing policies and demanded the highest standards from its suppliers, carrying out regular audits of them, including unannounced visits and independent audits.

A company statement said: “Whistles will continue to work with CMT to review the pay and work conditions at their factory. We are taking this opportunity to undertake additional reviews of all our suppliers.”

Lorraine Candy, editor-in-chief of UK Elle, said: “Based on a detailed and current independent audit of the factory where the T-shirts were made, that we have seen today, we are confident that their production conforms to ethical standards.”

Neitzert said on Sunday that the society had originally been told that the shirts would be produced ethically in the UK. When samples were received in early October they noted that they had been made in Mauritius.

Laura Harvey, lecturer in the sociology of media at the University of Surrey, criticised the newspaper’s report. “It was a cynical political move against an important feminist campaigning organisation. If the Daily Mail really cares about workers’ rights why aren’t they running stories about the garment industry more widely and the campaigns to improve worker’s rights?” she told the Guardian.

Harman wore one of the shirts during prime minister’s questions in the Commons to embarrass David Cameron after he refused to wear one, unlike Miliband and the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg.

theguardian.com

 

[eizhowa]

what is the definishion of ethics ?, and by what standard do you now judge these companies production methods to deem it more or less unethical ?.

Historically ethics by whatever definition it has, is largely based on the traditions and history of a given society.
we all know that this varies from continent to continent, country to country etc.

What we call ethics are theories about morality. The definition of ethics is pretty solid. However, morals are pretty much undefinable

(Yes, I realise the post is 9 years old).

 

[eizhowa]

Fashion is business. It is a trend in the world to belive that businesses have a larger responsibility than just their responsiblities to the share holders. However, the devellopment at "the top" is slow, and expecting any change from "the top" is unrealistic. If all businesses were natioal, not international, change would be faster... So maybe in 2114 I know there is some work going on, but everything is voluntarily, and there is nothing much to do about it:/

It seems that any noticable change will have to happen from the bottom. I have been thinking about this. If the government cared, shouldn't they make some official guidelines? I would be interested to read those. We have offical guidelines for good health/what to eat etc. Why not have guidelines to inform consumers (meaning, everybody...) to consum in a more social responsible way?

I actually think the government is afraid of socialy responisble shoppers... Scary Scary hippies comming to get them!

Sometimes I don't know what to make of it all. If nobody bought stuff "made in Bangladesh" apparantly that would be even worse, because then they would have zero income and their economy would collapse. Frankly, I don't quite see how social responsibility is compatible with the "World business model".

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ We are certainly a heckuva long way from any such guidelines in the US!

I think that the wave of the future is cooperatives. They completely eliminate the conflict between what's best for the employees and what's best for the shareholders. A lot of the ones I know about are pretty interested in what's best for everyone--their trading partners, the planet, etc. I make a point of supporting them whenever I can.

 

[Pricciao]

There's this New Yorker article discussing the leather goods made in Italy by Chinese immigrants.

The Chinese Workers Who Assemble Designer Bags in Tuscany

 

[Benn98]

There's this New Yorker article discussing the leather goods made in Italy by Chinese immigrants.

The Chinese Workers Who Assemble Designer Bags in Tuscany

Omg, I literally read that feature early this morning (catching up on my issues!) and made a note to look for a relevant thread! Thanks for posting, Pricciao!

Aside from the nauseating Sinophobia which sweeps throughout the article, the writer made some really great points. It also gives you a bit of an insight into Chinese immigration and integration, something which I'm sure many on here are familiar with. The story is as old as the hills, of course. The fact that thy adopt Italian first names is, well, it's just odd! Says a lot more about Italians, to be honest.

Regarding the fashion, I'm truly shocked at Gucci and the sheer amount of HF brands who profit from them because that's not their mission statement. It's such a disgusting ethical violation! And their shrewd 'standards.' I've never bought into the 'Made in Italy' marketing ploy, especially not when it was uncovered that most items are only designed there, but actually manufactured elsewhere. But this took that gimmick to a new low!

 

[Les_Sucettes]

There's this New Yorker article discussing the leather goods made in Italy by Chinese immigrants.

The Chinese Workers Who Assemble Designer Bags in Tuscany

Thank you.

Not surprised that nothing changed.
As far back as 2006, the first section of Robert Saviano’s “Gomorrah” is dedicated to the luxury goods business and the way they are interlinked with Neopolitan Mafia and the Chinese Underworld. He went undercover and It is all there, in black and white, how the whole criminal enterprise works, so much so that Saviano has been under police protection ever since.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Omg, I literally read that feature early this morning (catching up on my issues!) and made a note to look for a relevant thread! Thanks for posting, Pricciao!

Aside from the nauseating Sinophobia which sweeps throughout the article, the writer made some really great points. It also gives you a bit of an insight into Chinese immigration and integration, something which I'm sure many on here are familiar with. The story is as old as the hills, of course. The fact that thy adopt Italian first names is, well, it's just odd! Says a lot more about Italians, to be honest.

Regarding the fashion, I'm truly shocked at Gucci and the sheer amount of HF brands who profit from them because that's not their mission statement. It's such a disgusting ethical violation! And their shrewd 'standards.' I've never bought into the 'Made in Italy' marketing ploy, especially not when it was uncovered that most items are only designed there, but actually manufactured elsewhere. But this took that gimmick to a new low!

I don't find it odd. I've worked with many Asian people who went by English names. This is true also of people who live in Asia and work for global companies. Some also go by their real names. I've never asked anyone why they made their choice, just call them what they want to be called. For example, Duncan (a good Scottish name), Annie, Geraldine, Pansy (the only Pansy I've ever known!), Michelle, Stella, etc.

Very interesting article.

 

[vetements]

I hope this articles get shared by as many as possible, and these said manufacturers and brand companies go bust, it’s unethical to the max to say the least, cheating the poor workers and the rich consumers.