This is the second of a 2-post series looking at issues related to the lack of consensus about what ‘ethical fashion’ really means, and the requirement of accountability and transparency – in addition to the importance of a single unique label to become widely accepted.
While generally much of the public discussion revolves around supply chain issues, the first post made it clear that ‘ethical’ can mean everything and anything depending on who and how the word is being used. In the end it is about asking the right questions, and trying to understand what the reality is. This second post will look at what we can say about the ‘ethics behind a brand’ from how they actually ‘do business’, and their transparency and openness notably with respect to critical questions.
When evaluating fashion brands – or indeed any brand with even a marginal claim to sustainable/ethical/socially compliant behaviour – going back to THE question (‘How ethical is an ethical brand really?') opens up a whole range of angles to analyse that are not normally considered.
Let’s throw some controversial statements and examples into the discussion to illustrate this better:
- Interns: To pay or not to pay is the question.
Example: High-profile brand K and not-for-profit organisation E, both since many years renowned for their engagement in ethical fashion, do by definition not pay their interns any salary – not even statutory minimum wage – , and even travelling and sundry expenses are kept to a bare minimum.
[Side note: this is a normal, and commonly accepted fact in the whole CSR/ethics related industry. Ethical Fashion thereby is NOT an exception, but a mainstream case.] - Fair wages: Should people be paid what they’re worth, or what the company can afford? Is it an either/or issue?
Example: What if by company policy only statutory minimum wage is paid, or the wages for highly qualified employees are not competitive in a national comparison, which could for example be due to a locally high unemployment rate – and subsequent competition – among potential employees. - Fair trade, fair treatment: Does the concept of fair trade extend to fair treatment of local European staff (e.g. in the UK), or does it only really apply to developing country suppliers?
Example: A company with fair trade certified supply chain, but the staff in the UK is bullied … - Carbon footprint vs. competitive price: Working with overseas suppliers often invariably means substantial amounts of travelling, but at the same time cheaper production and retail prices than if produced in Europe.
How can in this time and age the extra Kg of CO2 be justified with the cheaper prices that the (high street) consumers are paying? - Recycling: How far can you go in recycling every single item used in doing business? And how much of it is accepted by customers and business partners?
E.g. UK customers are still in love with receiving free bags of any kind when they go shopping – to the degree that they would not return to a shop where they’d be refused being provided with bags! - Transparency: How willingly does a company make their ‘in house’ data publicly available? And what data would that be?
Examples: Turn over, overheads, staff salaries, money spent on trade fairs and related expenses, miles flown, air or transport miles accumulated by the products, average CO2 footprint per product … - Trade secrets vs. interest of the wider community: Nike and many more large suppliers have published lists of their suppliers, for everyone to see and inspect. ‘Ethical’ companies however, certainly in fashion, keep their suppliers often as well guarded secret.
Is this fair? After all, this means that said supplier will loose business opportunities through this type of secrecy, and ‘ethical’ companies are actually in the business of spreading the good practises and supporting the sector to grow … - Customer service: attention vs. negligence: Some ‘ethical’ companies are so engrossed in getting their supply chains right, that they forget about how important ‘the one and only’ decisive factor is to their business: the buyer. Customer service and customer relations is probably THE factor that will have them come back to buy, times and over again. The product – surprise, surprise – may be the trigger initially, but that novelty wears off quickly. After that, what remains is the relationship …
Appearance vs. Essence
It’s probably leaning wide out of the window, but the reality is that insights such as those illustrated above, tell us whether a company indeed is ‘ethical’ in the proper sense of the word.
Does the company indeed honestly trying to do the ‘ethically’ most correct thing they possibly can at every moment of their trading time? Is this behaviour and this practise part of their DNA?
Being ‘ethical’ is a commitment to authenticity, honesty and correctness, which cannot be underestimated: it’s complex, demanding, with few white-and-blacks but a lot of greys. And it is more about asking questions than there exist answers.
Or else, is the term ‘ethical’, or Fairtrade or fair trade or certified, just used as yet another marketing gag? Is it more about the label on the product then about how the company acts? About ticking the right boxes (i.e. ‘doing things right’) rather than ‘doing the right thing’?
Observing is the way to knowing, and invariable is the accurate way to assess what is truth and what is faked to be the truth in actual business behaviour of ‘ethical’ companies. This applies certainly to the fashion industry, but in fact is only a logical, rational fact that applies anywhere, everywhere at any given moment.
