Australia is a little bit like a big blank spot of knowledge as far as many of us here in Europe (and the US) are concerned.
Initiatives such as Ethical Clothing Australia are the highlights among the few grains of knowledge that reach us here. Hence asking the question ‘What is the state of the fashion world in Australia?‘ is first and foremost one of genuine interest.
The recently launched ‘Australian Fashion Report‘ answers this question in line with similar reports we know by European and US campaign groups. It is in that sense, the first piece of work that looks very specifically at brands that are retailed in Australia. Not all of these brands are indeed also Australian by origin – a good number are globally recognisable labels – but those that are may have made for the first time in their existence the rather unpleasant experience of encountering global media scrutiny. And may have hit on the insight that it’s not quite like in TV, but rather – ‘anything you are NOT saying can and will be used against you‘!
Summary: What insights did the ‘Australian Fashion Report’ fashion report produce?
For the report, 128 clothing brands – some belonging to the same company – were analysed. The analysis comprised a) an evaluation of publicly available information b) submission of a 64 question strong questionnaire to all companies, including follow ups with those that did not respond to the request, c) evaluation of third party research sources, notably of reports e.g. by the Fair Labour Foundation or the Fair Wear Foundation.
What the report found was that only 12% of companies received an A rating for their labour rights management systems, a mere 5% of companies had a fully implemented policy to ensure workers received a living wage. In other words: over 90% of companies are either unable or unwilling to guarantee any type of standards in their supply chains.
On the sides – equally worrying will be the following: how can they guarantee product quality if they have either no clue how their products are made, or alternatively if they know but the conditions are so miserable that there is not way how to produce quality in first place?
Australian Fashion Report: Insights in detail
A word of caution: The investigative aspects of the report were/are heavily geared towards 2 aspects of the supply chain – CMT and the origins of cotton. The question in principle are inclusive of a wider range of aspects, yet the focus was set on these two main factors.
Nevertheless, the report results are fairly clear, and as it happens the surprises are few at least as far as the global brands are concerned, as the following example from the ‘Traceability & Transparency’ results shows:
Inditex, Adidas, H&M, Nike, Levi’s, Patagonia and Timberland perform relatively well. In contrast, Puma, Forever 21, Abercrombie & Fitch, Woolworth and even GAP have very clearly some pending homework yet unsolved.
For the Austrlian brands the image is even worse: with exception of a couple of brands that have ‘ethical trade’ and ‘sustainability’ as part of their credo of existence (Fish3, Etiko), the majority of brands must feel somewhat lost in the complexity of their supply chains. One wonders how they get their business done in first place if they really do not know much about it. Chances though are they know, and the whole status of their supply chain is nothing really to be talked about. Certainly not in the media.
The above pictures is pretty much replicated across the other 3 analysis categories: Policies (codes of conduct, responsible purchasing procedures, subcontracting policies), monitoring and training, and workers’ rights (preferred supplier programmes, grievance mechanisms).
The results for across categories are summarised as follows:
- 71% of companies have a code of conduct, 37% have taken steps towards responsible purchasing practises, and 59% have a policy addressing subcontracting and homework.
- 39% of companies trace the entirety of their CMT suppliers, but this is only the case for 24% of companies that do the same with their input suppliers, and 7% of companies that extend this to their raw material suppliers. 20% of companies publish their CMT supplier list.
- 49% of companies monitor more than 75% of their CMT suppliers. This is in contrast to 10% of companies monitoring input suppliers at the same level or 7% for raw material suppliers. This said, 56% of companies audit their suppliers with unannounced audits, or even off-site interviews with workers.
- Less than half of all companies (49%) have either a preferred supplier programme, or sensible grievance mechanisms in place at their manufacturing suppliers.
Conclusion
Down-under may be a largely uncharted territory for most of us in terms of sustainability in the fashion industry, but the reality is that the results of the ‘Australian Fashion Report’ reflect a global, rather than a national pictures: the results are pretty similar to what I would have expected to emerge from any modern (Western) economy.
On the up, it seems that indeed global brands are the once that are the drivers behind the development, and their overall good scores leave reason for hope that ‘the pack’ will soon have to follow their example, wanting or not.
On the downside, it keeps being a negative surprise over and again how companies think that not having a handle on your supply chain is an excuse. It’s not ‘just’ an issue of ethics and environmental standard, but one of good business sense: Only when one has a good grip on the supply chain can product quality, lead times, delivery times etc. be managed effectively and efficiently.
The result reports hence reflect a much deeper problem that – at least to my surprise – few seem to have picked up on: a lot of these companies will invariably encounter serious operational issues, rather sooner than later.
