Biggest disaster since 1984
The disaster in Dhaka is probably the biggest
industrial accident since the Union Carbide catastrophe in Bhopal, India about
thirty years ago. With another incident in Dhaka, costing eight lives, worldwide attention was drawn to the lack of safety regulations in the
country.
Reactions were not far behind: in Sweden a
petition was started almost immediately by online campaign network Avaaz. In
name of the 800,000 people who signed the petition, an ad was distributed,
asking the CEO of H&M Karl Johan-Persson to sign the Bengal safety pact for
the protection of workers.
Successfully, because it was the Swedish
fashion retailer that buckled first – even though the chain emphasizes it did not
work with the factory – and signed an accord about fire safety and building
safety in Bengal textile factories.
World’s largest brands sign charter
Their example was quickly followed: by the
deadline of midnight on Wednesday 15 May IndustriALL Global Union, the driving
force behind the accord, got thirty more multinationals to sign the charter.
The complete list of participating retailers is
as followed (for now): H&M, Inditex, C&A, PVH, Tchibo, Tesco, Marks
& Spencer, Primark, El Corte Inglés, jbc, Mango, Carrefour, KiK, Helly
Hansen, G-Star, Aldi, New Look, Mothercare, Loblaws, Sainsbury’s, Benetton, N
Brown Group, Stockmann, WE Europe, Esprit, Rewe, Next, Lidl, Hess Natur,
Switcher en Abercrombie&Fitch.
The most notable absentees are from the US: the
world’s biggest retailer Walmart and the number one in the American fashion
industry, Gap. Walmart says it can not agree with the charter at the moment, but
it promises to do inspections at its subcontractors in Bangladesh and to
publish the results of these inspections.
Retailers have to pay renovation costs
What the impact of the agreement will be, is
yet to be seen, but NGO’s are saying it is a strong signal and a unique
breakthrough for the sector. The charter is binding for a period of five year
and during that period there will be independent inspections of buildings,
coupled with the obligation to intervene in case of danger. Completely new is
the fact that retailers will have to pay for possible renovations.
Furthermore the document recognises the right
to form unions to inform workers
about their rights and their safety. “This accord is absolutely historic”, said
Ben Vanpeperstraete of Clean Clothes Campaign earlier this week.
“Coalition of the willing”
But the battle is not over yet: not a word is
said about the low wages of textile workers and most of the other working
conditions. The charter also only focuses on Bangladesh.
That is understandable, seeing as the textile
industry in Bangladesh is worth a turnover of no less than fifteen billion
euro, eighty percent of the total Bengal export. A fire in a shoe factory in
Cambodia, costing at least three lives, however showed that the problems
are more wide spread.
Sustainability and innovation consultant
Stefaan Vandist of Studio Spark admits there is a danger of it being an empty
gesture, but at the same time he sees a clear statement for more cooperation in
the sector: “It is an important first step for the fashion business. A charter
alone does not mean that much, but it is crucial that for the first time big
players are coming together to talk about sustainability and are creating a
platform for it.”
According to Vandist it is important that a “coalition
of the willing” is forming: a group of retailers that realises they can make a
difference and lead competitors by focusing on sustainability. “If there is no
unified platform, nobody feels responsible. They will just think ‘all others do
it, so what can I alone change?’.”
Change of mentality?
Other sectors, especially the food sector, have
a big lead in that respect. A good example according to Stefaan Vandist is The
Sustainability Consortium, where big names of the food industry (among other
Walmart and Delhaize) come together to share insights and ‘best practices’
about sustainability.
The consumer has known fair trade products for
a long time and likes to know where his fruit, vegetables and meat originated,
under which conditions they were produce and if they are ecological. Those
questions are now also being asked about clothes.
“It is only when several players are prepared to
break down the walls around their supply chain to be transparent – not in the
least with respect to each other – that progress will be made. In food retail
they understood it is stupid to try and tackle these difficult issues alone,
when you can easily exchange insights with others that are faced by the same
challenges”, says Vandist.
The food sector has already reaped the
benefits: today supermarkets can say that green consumers, who are specifically
looking for organic and honest products, are also their customers. It is a
growing group they would have otherwise lost.
Sustainability is trendy
Sustainability is also trendy, says Vandist: “Today trend watchers like to talk about
the ‘neo-consumer’ as opposed to the ‘traditional consumer’. The traditional
consumer wants value for money, while the neo-consumer warms to authentic and superior
stories, when talking about values, quality and intelligent design. That new
consumer is still underappreciated by the market.”
There are however retailers who understand
this: Belgian market leader in lingerie Van de Velde has always linked economic
growth to ethics. The underwear producer not only works on reducing waste and
ecology, but it also focuses on the social aspects of employment and
production.
Some smaller players also focus on the more
aware consumer: Belgian designer Bruno Pieters for example, last year launched
the label and website ‘Honest By’, where he gives complete transparency about
each piece of clothing, by giving detailed product information.
That way the customer knows that a T-shirt of
250 euro takes 33 minutes of cutting, 145 minutes of sowing and 10 minutes of
ironing in a Belgian atelier. The finishing touches took ten minutes in a
Slovenian factory, the safety pin cost one cent and the transport almost eight
euro.
Transparency first?
Retailers long refused to publish detailed
information, “because of its complexity”. When making a sweater in Italy it may
be that yarn, wool and paint from other countries are used. Another reason is
the fact that safety of workshops is expensive and that cheap clothing, no
matter how and where it is made, still sells very well.
Recent research at McDonough School of Business
in Georgetown showed that the complexity of the chain of production makes it easier for consumers to justify bad working conditions, because they are far
removed from that reality. The same study showed that consumers are very
worried about the working conditions of those workers, until they go to buy
shoes. At that moment it did not matter in what conditions the shoes were made,
when deciding which ones to buy.
From niche to necessity
“We do see that sustainability is not much of a
factor in the fashion segment when buying products”, but Stefaan Vandist also
says that big and small brands such as Patagonia, Kuyuchi or
C&A do get recognised for their leading role and that this leads to higher
brand fidelity and a strong sense of ‘ambassadorship’.
It is also true that retailers who focus explicitly
on sustainability are still a niche sector. The products on offer are still too
expensive and too limited to have an impact on a wider scale.
“A ‘coalition of the willing’ could cause a
turnaround, give a wider scale and form an opportunity to create new and
inspiring desired images, where consumers looking for diversity can connect
with”, says Vandist. “This will create a new image of the ‘good’ versus the ‘bad’
company, a new ‘elegant’ versus ‘tacky’ and sustainability will be equal to
progressiveness, quality and respect.”
Furthermore we must not forget that production
countries are the consumption markets of tomorrow. For them these dramas are
not far removed from their world, so if big fashion chains want to tap into
that massive pool of new customers, they have every reason to clean up their
act.
