Fair Trade Clothing Brands & Human Rights ... the Ethical Consumer Movement

An article in the UK newspaper, the Telegraph, in Feb

Fashion goes green
(Filed: 12/02/2006)


High-street retailers are rushing to introduce ethical clothing ranges, which delights the eco-activist Woody Harrelson. James Hall reports
'Wow, Marks & Spencer, I'm really proud of them," says Woody Harrelson, the Oscar-nominated actor, ethical activist, vegan, raw foodist, yoga devotee and party animal, in his low Ohio drawl.
"I am amazed by these percentages. Seventy-eight per cent of people say they would like to know more about the way clothes are made, including the conditions in the factory, where they come from and the use of chemicals in their manufacture. Seventy-eight per cent! Fifty-nine per cent avoid buying food they think is not up to scratch. These are major percentages," he says between mouthfuls of crunchy roughage from Fresh & Wild, the organic food shop.
Harrelson, who is starring in the West End production of Night of the Iguana, is reading from an M&S press release about its new "Look behind the label" campaign to inform customers about how its products are sourced and made. It also includes details of a new, 60,000-item range of Fairtrade cotton clothing that M&S will launch next month.
"This is the first major retailer I've ever known do this. This is great news," Harrelson says.
Ethical clothing is very much Harrelson's home ground. The actor, who wears hemp or bamboo grass clothing most days ("I haven't always been the most stylish fella but certainly I've felt clean on a moral level"), could fairly be described as both a celebrity and an eco-warrior.
But his steely glare - used to such great effect in Natural Born Killers, the blockbuster film - breaks into a grin when he hears about what M&S is doing. Next he hopes that M&S will move into organic cotton, which requires no pesticides (the majority of Fairtrade cotton is not organic).
And spring-summer 2006 is certainly the season that will see ethical clothing moving from the underground into the mainstream. Topshop, the retail chain that is part of billionaire Philip Green's Arcadia empire, is launching a raft of organic cotton babywear ranges in April. The retailer even has a buying executive dedicated to sourcing ethical clothing.
Others are at it too. Last month Bono, the U2 singer, launched Red, a fashion label that will sell ethically sourced products and give a slug of its revenues to fight Aids in Africa.
Gap, Giorgio Armani and Converse are among the large companies signed up. Bono's wife, Ali Hewson, also designs a separate ethical clothing line. The list goes on.
Green is fast becoming the new black. The market for ethical clothes rose by 30 per cent to £43m during 2004, according to the Co-operative Bank's Ethical Consumerism Report 2005. Boycotts of companies because of consumers' concerns about sweatshop labour or animal welfare rose by 8 per cent.
But can mainstream chains make money from ethically sourced and manufactured clothing, or are they just jumping on a conscience-cleansing bandwagon that is populated by celebrities and eco-warriors?
According to Harrelson, the retailers' move into ethical clothing is more than a marketing ruse. He believes the public is more concerned about what is going on behind the scenes than it ever was, and this goes for what they wear, eat and are told by people in power.
"This is part of a bigger picture. Fahrenheit 9/11 [the film about America's war on terror] was the real proof that people are concerned with progressive ideas. It was the most watched documentary of all time," he says.
Safia Minney, the founder of People Tree, one of the ethical clothing manufacturers that will supply Topshop, says retailers are responding to a new consciousness among consumers. She believes shoppers have "had enough" of not knowing where their clothes come from, and says 50 per cent of people reassess a purchase if they doubt a garment's provenance.
She thinks there is a backlash against store groups' recent move into so-called fast fashion - in which cheap clothes are sourced at short notice from factories close to the UK. Retailers are starting to rework their supply chains to respond to these criticisms., she says.
But do the economics stack up? Ethically sourced clothes cost more to produce than conventionally sourced garments. This is because of the extra work, special processes and checks that go into manufacturing the products.
But retailers pass this extra cost on to the consumer. A Fairtrade T-shirt from M&S's range, for example, will cost £7, £1 more than an equivalent normal T-shirt. Given that customers appear happy to spend more to buy such clothes, the extra cost is not really an issue.
There is little profit advantage either. M&S sells its Fairtrade clothing at the same margin as its other fashion lines. Indeed, it has made a policy commitment not to take additional margin from its Fairtrade clothes.
In other words, the economics of selling ethically sourced clothing are the same for M&S as selling normal clothes - it just charges more because the products cost more to make.
So far, so inconclusive. Where the economic argument for big retailers selling ethical clothing begins to falter is in the labour-intensive manufacturing process and the re-engineering of the supply chain that such a move requires. The whole process remains hugely inefficient.
For example, for the Fairtrade cotton that M&S sources from its farmers to be spun, huge cotton mills have to stop their production runs of conventional thread and be cleared for the Fairtrade batch. Economies of scale are lost.
There is also an issue with volumes. M&S uses 50,000 tons of cotton a year in all its products, yet the total volume of Fairtrade cotton produced globally is between 600 and 1,000 tons. This again limits production.
People Tree's Minney says it takes a lot of time, money and work to establish a truly ethical supply chain. It took People Tree's Japanese arm eight years to reach profitability, against five years for the UK business. Such delays are unlikely to be tolerated by big retailers' shareholders.
Nevertheless, baby steps are being made in the right direction, says Stuart Rose, M&S's chief executive. He admits that M&S's ranges will be limited because of supply limitations, but is hopeful that ethical clothing will grow as part of the business. "All the signs are that this is something we will want to build on," he says.
Harrelson points out that when organic food was launched in the UK it was dismissed as a fad. It now accounts for 3 per cent of the market. He says there is a clear business case for mass market retailers to move into ethical clothing and that they simply wouldn't do it if it did not make financial sense.
"The reason M&S is doing this is because of the bottom line, because customers are interested in that kind of thing. These guys are at least on the pulse."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/02/12/ccfash12.xml
 
fash ho' said:
There is little profit advantage either. M&S sells its Fairtrade clothing at the same margin as its other fashion lines. Indeed, it has made a policy commitment not to take additional margin from its Fairtrade clothes.

That's very promising. I feel like many retailers do take additional margins from organic food, and while that doesn't neccessarily hurt sales, the extra high prices make organics available to less people. thanks for the article fash ho'!
 
Get crafty, sustainable style

I can't sew for tuppence, but I really admire people who re-fashion and make new clothes from old. Some examples . . .

Fifty RX3 (NY blogger on sustainability and style) made a cool dress and little jacket from umbrellas that she found on the streets of NY.
http://50rx3annex.blogspot.com/2006/04/monthly-recycled-projects.html

TFSer Susiebubble's lovely dress made from an old silk skirt (photo http://stylebubble.typepad.com/style_bubble/2006/05/diy_dress_day.html)


I also heard on fiftyrx3 (http://fiftyrx3.blogspot.com/), about site about a group called Wardrobe Refashion (http://wardroberefashion.blogspot.com/) who have pledged to re-fashion clothes for a specified amount of time and blog the process.

There's seems to be something about spending time re-making an object that kind of inbues it with more meaning than picking up a cheap top from H&M or somewhere. I think that having this kind of different relationship with your clothes is a reaction against the throw-away fast fashion that is everywhere. If we loved our clothes more, maybe we wouldn't need so many . . .
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1155_1.jpg
    IMG_1155_1.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 0
  • IMG_1156_1.jpg
    IMG_1156_1.jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 0
  • untitled.bmp
    untitled.bmp
    312.4 KB · Views: 1
^ Great article, and I'm every bit as pleased as Woody :D Now we need it stateside ...
 
fashionista-ta said:
^ Europeans seem to be far ahead of us when it comes to "green"

Not neccessarily...in many cases Europeans care less about green issues. In the States people can't rely on their government to protect the environment as much as they would like so there's a feeling of activism that you don't see in Europe. :huh:

Strange but true.
 
This thread is like an emotional roller coaster.......I am sorry but I don't think age or a hectic lifestyle is a justified reason to r*pe the third world!

However, sista's like Fash ho', Lena, Fashion-ista (forgive the spelling) and the like make my heart swell!:heart: :flower: Thanks so much to everyone for sharing websites and articles to spread awareness and fuel a more dynamic fair trade industry.

I am not into dreads or patchouli, but I believe in socially and environmentally conscious consumption. For this reason, I generally gravitate to vintage but know that won't last forever either. "Fashion" vintage will not last, nor does it help the peeps who sweat out 16hr work days in obsenely poor countries. I am giddy to think that lots of talented designers are thinking on a different level these days. Ironically, some of this change IS in fact greed driven, with high fashion labels focusing more on couture and bespoke to avoid being knocked-off by the budget mall / chain stores. However, if this gives a momma in Bolivia a chance to make a decent income and develop skills that will finally be considered valuable, then whatever works is fine with me.

I know that humanity will have to go through this "uncomfortable" phase where you will have to pay $40- $100 for a halter instead of $15. However, if this means that a momma who ate dirt for breakfast can finally make a decent wage sewing it, then you have to realize that ultimately, a momma in Detroit will consequentially be making a decent wage selling it. It's is hard to wrap your head around but this is all relative (see Economics 101, first year Uni). I am not trying to patronize, as it is a bit complicated, however it is not above ANYONE'S head and is actually very easy to understand if you can handle the conscious that accompanies the knowledge.

I mean, come on, if you are willing for fork out $1000 for a freakin' Balenciaga bag that 10million other bimbos have, then you can be an individual and purchase a $1000 quality handbag made by an artisan......

I know how angry I sound but vanity, greed and ignorance frustrate me! :angry:

This is a store in Victoria, Canada that carries clothing on the not so sinful side:

www.notjustpretty.com

This shoe line makes HANDMADE shoes that are also vegetable dyed. Admittedly, some of the product is a little granola, but some of it is mouth watering..... www.cydwoq.com

I sin, I love lycra in my clothing even though it is probably the biggest polluter in the apparel industry. Has anyone ever heard of any lycra substitutes out there in the textile industry?
 
scandababian said:
I know that humanity will have to go through this "uncomfortable" phase where you will have to pay $40- $100 for a halter instead of $15. However, if this means that a momma who ate dirt for breakfast can finally make a decent wage sewing it, then you have to realize that ultimately, a momma in Detroit will consequentially be making a decent wage selling it. It's is hard to wrap your head around but this is all relative (see Economics 101, first year Uni). I am not trying to patronize, as it is a bit complicated, however it is not above ANYONE'S head and is actually very easy to understand if you can handle the conscious that accompanies the knowledge.

I mean, come on, if you are willing for fork out $1000 for a freakin' Balenciaga bag that 10million other bimbos have, then you can be an individual and purchase a $1000 quality handbag made by an artisan......

Karma for this reality check :flower:
 
Biodegradable Phone by NEC
via ecofriend.org

Biodegradable phones! You must be pondering, how it is possible! But, that’s an unique innovation the Japanese can mate. NEC’s N70i cell phone case is made from potatoes, corn and kenaf, making it biodegradable. With delicious recipes cooking in your mind – as it seems to taste great with butter and a little salt, you must be worrying about a phone being perishable, rather ‘biodegradable’.

Don’t worry. The cute clamshell will simply rot and decompose when you chuck it in the compost. And the most environmental contribution of the innovation lies in the manufacturing process itself. It uses far less CO2 than your average petrochem-based plastic mobile. Thank you ‘The Raw Feed’ for informing about this wonderful eco-friendly mobile. But, the saddest part of it is that, it is currently only available in Japan.

I thought this was interesting, as I remember reading somewhere that people tend to change their phones and other gadgets every two years. That's got to add up to a lot of garbage...garbage that we can't really afford to have if we want to keep Mother Earth healthy. I know this thread has been about organic/fair trade clothing, but there's no reason why we can't extend it to other things, right? :flower:
 
scandababian said:
I know that humanity will have to go through this "uncomfortable" phase where you will have to pay $40- $100 for a halter instead of $15. However, if this means that a momma who ate dirt for breakfast can finally make a decent wage sewing it, then you have to realize that ultimately, a momma in Detroit will consequentially be making a decent wage selling it. It's is hard to wrap your head around but this is all relative (see Economics 101, first year Uni). I am not trying to patronize, as it is a bit complicated, however it is not above ANYONE'S head and is actually very easy to understand if you can handle the conscious that accompanies the knowledge.

I mean, come on, if you are willing for fork out $1000 for a freakin' Balenciaga bag that 10million other bimbos have, then you can be an individual and purchase a $1000 quality handbag made by an artisan......
Anyone who spends more than $500 on part of an outfit or accessories, like a skirt, or a shirt/blouse, or a handbag, or whatever, that is made of cheap materials, cares soley about looking like he or she is rich. With very rare exceptions, the materials used to make an outfit or accessories doesn't cost jack. In my opinion, anyone willing to spend $1000 for a bag quite frankly has something wrong with them, but I feel the same way about diamonds--what a frickin' waste of money! What's wrong with cubic zirconia? "Oh my, it's fake, it doesn't have flaws in it! It wasn't mined! Oh my goodness, how terrible!"

It's getting to the point where virtually all large corporations in the U.S. have become corrupt, and the companies that don't follow suit usually die off. CEO's can make over 500 times the pay rate of the employees below them, and just so they (ceo's) don't have to take a cut in pay, they turn around and fire thousands of people so they can outsource jobs to countries with cheap labor. Corporations in the U.S. have more rights than individuals (unless they're very rich individuals).

Yes, it would be great if people could primarily buy clothing and accessories from small businesses and individuals, but for the huge percentage of people making only minimum wage, spending $100 for a halter is out of the question.

The only way that we can help this problem is by promoting change in the laws dealing with corporations. Telling people to only buy from small businesses is basically telling people to boycott large corporations, which, because they've become so big and make so many types of products, is virtually impossible.

Doing the "ethical consumer" thing is a nice idea, but it quite frankly doesn't do any good. It's as useful as the phrase "why can't we all just get along?" If everyone did it, yes, it would make a difference, a huge difference, but you're not going to convince the minimum-wage making people to spend 10 times the amount they're paying now for everyday things, and the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger every day.

Now, even what I'm suggesting is sort-of a catch-22. Politicians generally are there -not- for the individuals, but for business, commerce, and for their own gain. The idea that politicians would actually do something that would reduce the amount of campaign contributions and personal checks they receive from ceo's and major stockholders of corporations is unrealistic.

Basically, I'm saying that I really don't know what the answer to this problem is.
 
well, in the interim, i think its better to have sustainable/ethical choices available, rather than not at all. even if its won't solve all the world's problems and is not affordable for everyone, it can give exposure to what lies beneath the things we buy (and who's lost out along the way) and may eventually help pull the market along (with the help of governments, ngos and international organisations) towards sustainability.

wishful thinking, maybe . . . but as you say yourself, what are the alternatives?

i agree that there the root of the problem doesn't lie with consuming more ethical products. i think for the individual, its about consuming differently. we need to understand and interrogate why we need to consume so much in the first place. that's why the voluntary simplicity idea is so appealing. if you understand that having more stuff doesn't fill the gap, no matter how many shoes you own, than you can relinquish the desire for more more more and decouple yourself, (at least a little bit) from the mad consumer carousel. (that's my theory, but not necessarily my reality, btw!)


there is no one answer to the problem. sustainability (economic, social and environmental) issues are complex, diffuse, pervasive and often characterised by uncertainty. no one actor alone can solve the issues and only a diversity of innovative approaches will make a difference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kizzume said:
Anyone who spends more than $500 on part of an outfit or accessories, like a skirt, or a shirt/blouse, or a handbag, or whatever, that is made of cheap materials, cares soley about looking like he or she is rich. With very rare exceptions, the materials used to make an outfit or accessories doesn't cost jack. In my opinion, anyone willing to spend $1000 for a bag quite frankly has something wrong with them, but I feel the same way about diamonds--what a frickin' waste of money! What's wrong with cubic zirconia? "Oh my, it's fake, it doesn't have flaws in it! It wasn't mined! Oh my goodness, how terrible!"

It's getting to the point where virtually all large corporations in the U.S. have become corrupt, and the companies that don't follow suit usually die off. CEO's can make over 500 times the pay rate of the employees below them, and just so they (ceo's) don't have to take a cut in pay, they turn around and fire thousands of people so they can outsource jobs to countries with cheap labor. Corporations in the U.S. have more rights than individuals (unless they're very rich individuals).

Yes, it would be great if people could primarily buy clothing and accessories from small businesses and individuals, but for the huge percentage of people making only minimum wage, spending $100 for a halter is out of the question.

The only way that we can help this problem is by promoting change in the laws dealing with corporations. Telling people to only buy from small businesses is basically telling people to boycott large corporations, which, because they've become so big and make so many types of products, is virtually impossible.

Doing the "ethical consumer" thing is a nice idea, but it quite frankly doesn't do any good. It's as useful as the phrase "why can't we all just get along?" If everyone did it, yes, it would make a difference, a huge difference, but you're not going to convince the minimum-wage making people to spend 10 times the amount they're paying now for everyday things, and the gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger every day.

Now, even what I'm suggesting is sort-of a catch-22. Politicians generally are there -not- for the individuals, but for business, commerce, and for their own gain. The idea that politicians would actually do something that would reduce the amount of campaign contributions and personal checks they receive from ceo's and major stockholders of corporations is unrealistic.

Basically, I'm saying that I really don't know what the answer to this problem is.

Two points ... I can tell you haven't spent much time here by your very first sentence. I have spent more than $500 on portions of an outfit, and at no point was my motivation to look rich.

I am not rich; I am middle class. I completely understand that there are people who feel they must shop at that hellhole called Wal-mart because price sensitivity is their #1 motivation. I am fortunate that I do have disposable income, and while I am not the perfect ethical consumer, virtually all the choices I make are mindful. You don't have to be in the top 1% to have and make ethical purchasing choices. There's a much broader group of us who have that power, and I hope we all use it for good.
 
fashionista-ta said:
Two points ... I can tell you haven't spent much time here by your very first sentence. I have spent more than $500 on portions of an outfit, and at no point was my motivation to look rich.

I am not rich; I am middle class. I completely understand that there are people who feel they must shop at that hellhole called Wal-mart because price sensitivity is their #1 motivation. I am fortunate that I do have disposable income, and while I am not the perfect ethical consumer, virtually all the choices I make are mindful. You don't have to be in the top 1% to have and make ethical purchasing choices. There's a much broader group of us who have that power, and I hope we all use it for good.

My question for you then is: WHY? Why would you spend $500 on portions of an outfit if it's not to look rich? What possible motivation could someone have for spending that much on an outfit other than wanting to look rich? Just saying the word "mindful" does not tell me much. EDIT: What's wrong with looking around more and more until you can find something that comes close but costs less?

Why do people spend so much on diamonds when cubic zarconia looks just as good unless one is using a jewlers' magnifying glass? It really doesn't make any sense to me. Please enlighten me.

EDIT: I also needed to add, again, that it can't be about poor people making more money, because an individual selling a whole outfit for thousands is making a KILLING on that sale--material doesn't cost jack, and it's not going to take an experienced clothes-maker very much time at all to make an outfit, so it's not the time it takes to make the outfit. Clothing doesn't cost jack to make, no matter who makes it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something else I needed to add--If it starts becoming accepable to spend rediculous amounts on clothing, then the price of ALL clothing will start to go up, and that's not something that most people living in this country can afford. If a corporation thinks they can get away with it, they will try.

T-shirts should never be above $40. Dress shirts should never be above $100. Blouses should never be above $100. Jeans or slacks should never be above $100. Dresses should never be above $350. Skirts should never be above $200. Shoes should never be above $200 and boots should never be above $350. Socks (single pair) should never be above $30 (unless they have a bunch of things sewn into them, and then they should never be above $50). Jewlery should never be above $400.

I never spend more than $20 for a t-shirt, or more than $40 for a dress shirt, or more than $50 for jeans or slacks (with rare exceptions). I never spend more than $100 for shoes, or $200 for boots. I never spend more than $10 for a single pair of socks. I never spend more than $50 for jewlery. I don't shop at walmart, and I try to buy as many clothes that are not made at sweat shops as I can, but sometimes it's impossible to avoid. When I'm really in financial trouble, I shop at thrift stores.

EDIT: I remember when low-rise jeans for men first came out. I was exited--but I wasn't about to spend the price they wanted to charge for them, so I waited a year until they became within a reasonable range. I splurged and went above the limit I usually spend on jeans, and paid $65. I understand that there are some outfits that one just wants right now, but spending over $500 for just a small part of an outfit is taking that to extremes--if looking like the latest craze is that important to someone that they'd spend that much money, the end result is that they want to look rich. If I would have bought the low-rise jeans when they first came out, I would have been spending $600--which, even if I had that much money to just throw away, I'm not into looking like I'm rich--that's how people get mugged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kizzume said:
My question for you then is: WHY? Why would you spend $500 on portions of an outfit if it's not to look rich? What possible motivation could someone have for spending that much on an outfit other than wanting to look rich? Just saying the word "mindful" does not tell me much. EDIT: What's wrong with looking around more and more until you can find something that comes close but costs less?

Why do people spend so much on diamonds when cubic zarconia looks just as good unless one is using a jewlers' magnifying glass? It really doesn't make any sense to me. Please enlighten me.

EDIT: I also needed to add, again, that it can't be about poor people making more money, because an individual selling a whole outfit for thousands is making a KILLING on that sale--material doesn't cost jack, and it's not going to take an experienced clothes-maker very much time at all to make an outfit, so it's not the time it takes to make the outfit. Clothing doesn't cost jack to make, no matter who makes it.
Ohh, where to begin. First of all you can’t look down you nose at someone for dropping serious skrilla on apparel. If you have ever spent (or would spend) tons o’ cash on a painting, sculpture, guitar, car, Warhammer, house or anything else other than charity, then you are a hypocrite, really. Apparel design is an art, and anyone who disagrees with that is simply wrong. Granted not all apparel is art, but if you have ever been lucky enough to experience a (older) McQueen, Galliano, or Viktor & Rolf show, then you cannot deny the creative genius behind both the apparel and production.

Trying to find a cheaper version of a designer piece doesn’t really help anything.

I totally agree with you about the diamonds, but that is a separate issue. Yes, there are people who buy certain apparel and accessories to “look rich” but those are the very people who I think have the power to change things. It’s not the impoverished Walmart shoppers who I would like to see spending their money differently; it’s the shoppers who actually have a $1000 (or $1000 of credit) to spend on a Balenciaga handbag.

Now in regards to you comments about retail commissions, :lol: you have obviously never worked in retail. Go to your local mall and ask the associates there how much they make. Most make wages far below the poverty line and no commission at all. Higher end shops do pay commission, but 5% of $1000 is only $50. A living wage is not a killing, and those who are driving around in Hummers hocking Louis Vitton to orange skinned puffy faced women are very few and far between.

Your point about clothing costing nothing to make is a strong contributor to the issue of worker exploitation. A human life does have value and if that life is spent in front of a sewing machine, then there is your cost. Not to mention the time it takes to design, choosing the materials, making the pattern, grading the pattern, constructing the toile, altering the pattern, constructing, marketing…..and so on. Skills have value, you wouldn’t ask an architect to spit off a building for pennies because he has designed a thousand before that. Generally the more experience one has, the higher their wage not the lesser.
 
Kizzume said:
I also needed to add, again, that it can't be about poor people making more money, because an individual selling a whole outfit for thousands is making a KILLING on that sale--material doesn't cost jack, and it's not going to take an experienced clothes-maker very much time at all to make an outfit, so it's not the time it takes to make the outfit. Clothing doesn't cost jack to make, no matter who makes it.

This is just ignorant and practically offensive. You don't get something for nothing.

The fabric itself costs money, it might be very cheap or very expensive depending on what kind it is. Interfacing, lining, buttons, zippers and so on costs money; more or less depending on quality.

The production methods are also more or less costly; carefully made clothes take longer to make and require more skill. More or less can be done by hand. The workers need to be paid, more or less depending on skill and location.

Obviously it won't cost a lot to produce clothes of inferior materials in Bangladesh or some other low-wage country, and these are the kind of clothes a lot of people buy at H/M, Gap and similar places. I believe that these clothes, with their low quality (most of the time) and low prices, has set a new low standard and has become the norm. Unfortunately.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I do realise that anything "designer" usually has a substantial mark-up, but the quality is also higher most of the time. If you want true quality and craftsmanship at a fair price, you should probably go to an old-school tailor or something...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
212,902
Messages
15,203,145
Members
86,938
Latest member
rajnandnujekjwnmsj
Back
Top