Can the high street really meet the demands of fast fashion, ever–changing and disposable as it is, whilst maintaining ethical sourcing practices?
For many the answer seems to be a resounding “NO.” We continue to read blogs and articles from all manner of informed people who genuinely believe we cannot make clothing ethically without it costing the earth. But take a look at ActionAid’s extensive living wage investigations and the truth is clear. If Asda paid just a further 2pence on a £4 t–shirt it would mean the difference between extreme poverty and a living wage for their workers in India. Wouldn’t we all happily pay the extra 2pence and make it an even £4.02?
Yet a larger majority (one I used to fit into myself not so long ago) seem happy to be diverted by mischievous greenwash - a form of spin in which green marketing is used deceptively whilst core business practices are often anything but. It can be a great first step, but needs to be followed through in the company values. All too often we the consumer choose to ignore the glaring problem of workers being paid below the minimum wage, denied the right to union representation and being forced to work hours that would make a hedge fund manager whimper.
Greenwash has become such a massive issue that guides are even being written on how to use green marketing effectively, i.e. for profit.
Take Topshop’s recent collaboration with famed wool designer Izzy Lane; premium wool coats made from her own sheep sanctuary in the Yorkshire Dales.
Well not the easiest solution to replicate but definitely press-worthy. What we need to do is take a look at the real problems – such as why Arcadia owned brands such as Topshop are just about the only major high street players left still refusing to sign up to the Ethical Trading Initiative.
Perhaps a more sustainable angle would be to tackle why a business that paid dividends to the tune of £1.2 billion in 2005 can’t devote a small amount of its funds to ensuring a living wage for the people creating its wares.
Topshop unfortunately are just one of many culprits on the British high street. Benetton demonstrates the art of greenwash here.
Benetton could be applauded for positioning its brand around equality and unity for all human kind. However, this week Ethical Consumer launched their 2011 high street buying guide and illustrated Benetton as one of 9 brands failing to demonstrate any adequate policies in place to protect worker’s rights.
And who could beat this classic example from TK Maxx, fantastically creating these Fairtrade tees for Comic Relief. Yet why did they not provide any comment on Ethical Consumer’s report that places them in the least ethical retailer of the year nominations?
I, myself having spent most of my career as a fashion buyer for one of the leading high street fashion retailers, had come to believe that sweatshops were a thing of the past. I now realise that as buyers we are unaware of the exact origins of our product, whose hands are touching it and what wage they are being paid. Wages don’t actually factor on the negotiating landscape, as compared with raw material and transport costs they pale into insignificance.
Ethical fashion is quintessentially about honesty and integrity. If we’re going to go to the effort of creating campaigns, why not put that effort into battling the discrepancies between the image we communicate to the public and the actual truth of our contribution to this insidious yet solvable travesty?
Accountability and transparency are what is required. It might not make the headlines of Grazia, but it will bring us closer to the eradication of extreme poverty. And if an old school high street giant like Marks and Spencer can manage it, then surely there’s no reason why this can’t be the norm across the high street.
Yes we can forgive ourselves for thinking a solution is impossible – after all we have been deceived and manipulated for far too long. Now is the time to start thinking for ourselves. If people power can launch an Arab spring, then can’t we also overthrow the dictatorship of high street fashion?
[Have your say…Do you have any examples of green wash to add to this list? We want to hear about them – post them here…]
Guest blogger Vanessa Raphaely talks about Vivien Westwood's latest outing, poverty porn and why Kenyans deserve a dignified platform for beating poverty. When it comes to charities, is something better than nothing? We want to know what you think. To see the original article by Vanessa for Mamamia news click here.
I’m sure Vivienne Westwood sleeps at night but I’m still sure this is a terrible campaign.
Vivienne Westwood has been working with Ethical Fashion of Kenya, which is, I suppose, better than not working with Ethical Fashion of Kenya. She has made bags with locals and some of the profits from those bags will find their way to “improve livelihoods and empowering people in rural areas.” (Round of applause for the lady in the expensive clothes parading on the rubbish dump please.)
So far so Bono, I suppose. And I guess, that if this collection is to be a success it should be promoted. So, what better than to have Juergen Teller shoot Viv in every African poverty porn cliche? (I’m sure I coud find a picture of her surrounded by merry / grateful little African orphans, if I looked hard enough.)
Here’s a classic image: How chic, on a rubbish dump in a slum because …that’s Africa, don’t you know. Just waiting for European designers to swoop down and empower and improve it. (Deep breath) Maybe her bags have made a massive contribution to the wellbeing of the people in front of whose humble homes she posed and gurned? I am not sure or convinced.
Am I graceless, missing the bigger picture, or overly sensitive?
I know Kenya. I’ve worked there. It seems to me that as a country, it has many real talents who are more than capable of making a decent noise for themselves on a global platform, if they were to given the courtesy of being showcased in a dignified manner. I wonder how much more effective showcasing viable local enterprises for e.g, that could flourish with some assistance, could be? I suspect there are more people who would consider investing substantive amounts of energy and belief in watering a seed that looks viable, rather than pathetic and tragic.
I don’t think there’s much that is dignified or empowering about reinforcing stereotypes of a poverty-stricken, rubbish-strewn Africa, being temporarily “helped out of the mire” by the grace and favour of a visiting monarch. In fact, by using images such as these, I believe she’s reinforcing every prejudice that exists about the African continent. And until perceptions change, nothing changes.
Of course I could be wrong.
Is it good enough that Vivienne Westwood has given work and money to so many Kenyans through the manufacture of her collection? Should the reputation of the country even be a consideration?
Vanessa Raphaely is Editor of South African Cosmopolitan and Editorial Director of Associated Magazines, publishers of Marie Claire, O, The Oprah Magazine and House and Leisure.
Recently we’ve been revising our knowledge of corruption. We’ve rethought our perceptions and redefined our understanding of it.
We’ve done this because, whilst only being one word, it is a word that has a great influence on framing people’s attitudes towards global poverty, the reasons it occurs and, most importantly, what response we should make.
The reality is too often ‘corruption’ is used as a one word excuse to disengage. This is because it is an umbrella term which describes many forms of illegal activity that operate at different levels. In other words, it’s easy to blame ‘corruption’ as the problem – without understanding what the problem is.
So how should we understand and categorise corruption? And more importantly why does it matter?
Breaking down corruption
A useful place to start is from the United Nations’ report, ‘A User’s Guide to Measuring Corruption’. The report distinguishes between two forms of corruption: petty corruption and grand corruption. According to them petty corruption is defined as ‘street level’, everyday corruption. It occurs at the lower end of political interaction between citizens and public officials. Critically, petty corruption occurs where an individual comes into direct contact with officials of the state. For example this may include bribes paid in return for preferential treatment or services.
The other form of corruption, which is has a far greater reach, is called grand corruption.
So what is ‘grand’ corruption? And how ‘grand’ is it?
To begin with, Tearfund provide a useful definition in their report, ‘Corruption and Its Discontents – Assessing the impact of people living in poverty’.
According to them:
‘Grand corruption is that which takes place at the highest levels of political authority and decision making. It occurs at the formulation of public policies and may involve the appropriation or embezzlement of government funds, or the tailoring of public laws, codes and regulations for the benefit of particular ‘favoured’ groups in return for bribes, or simply to preserve political support and power.’
That’s a long definition. But it details how grand corruption operates.
And here is where it becomes interesting. As Tearfund continue:
‘Such forms of corruption pose a significant threat at the national level, for they have direct implications for a country’s economic and political stability, as well as affecting the overall level and distribution of public resources.’
As Tearfund argue, it’s the effect of grand corruption that has such great significance. What they mean when they describe as ‘affecting the overall level and distribution of public resources’ is, in a word, governance.
In short, gaining a fuller picture of corruption, its scale and its disastrous effect on development is critical because corruption fundamentally undermines governance.
So what is governance and what relationship does it have with corruption?
Governance is defined by the United Nations as the ‘exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affair.’ Taken a step further, good governance occurs where ‘public resources and problems are managed efficiently and in response to the critical needs of society.’
Rather than providing for the efficient and responsible management of a nation’s resources, corruption ensures that those in power too often act in their own interests choosing to enrich themselves at the expense of their population.
Not exactly good governance is it? Sounds like Teodorin Obiang.
So how big is grand corruption in dollar terms?
For example, according to Global Financial Integrity, they estimate that approximately US $50 billion in corrupt money is deposited each year into western bank accounts and tax havens. This is a staggering amount of money.
Yet, it’s five times less than the estimated US $250 billion in laundered funds that makes its way into US banks each year.
The significance of such large scale misappropriated funds and the leaders and officials who are engaged in this process can seem overwhelming. Yet they point to a far more serious problem.
The figures point out the connected reality that facilitates and encourages the existence of grand corruption. And it is in understanding the connections that is so empowering because we begin to see where we can make a difference.
The issues they point towards are the broader structural problems. It’s up to us to ask the questions regarding what involvement our systems, companies and rules have in facilitating poor governance and encouraging not only a culture but the reality of grand corruption. It’s only fair to ask then, where does the problem and, more importantly, responsibility lie?
Is ‘pointing the finger’ fair?
Ultimately, corruption, on a grand scale, is no longer about what happens over ‘there’, a problem that we have no ‘say’ in. Instead, the reality is, there is much we can do over ‘here’ to improve the situation. As the UN recognised, effective governance relies on ‘public participation, accountability and transparency.
This raises the following questions – what can and what are we doing to improve public participation, accountability and transparency in countries undermined by corruption?
The answers. Plenty. And, we’ve already started.
Right now, we at the Global Poverty Project along with our friends from the Publish What You Pay coalition are campaigning on greater transparency standards for the natural resource industry. For many countries, the revenue from natural resources provides the best opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. To put this in perspective: in 2008 exports of oil and minerals from Africa, were worth approximately $393.9 billion. This figure is nearly 9 times the value of international aid to the continent which amounted to $44 billion.
We believe that releasing the information about the payments that oil, gas and mining companies make to resource rich, developing countries, has the ability to empower citizens to hold their governments to account. By publishing what they pay companies can help ordinary citizens, from the countries who grant them their licenses to operate in the first place, demand a fairer outcome for themselves. It can change the culture and sadly the reality of grand corruption.
Our campaign on this issue reflects our understanding that what we are not only capable of but that we can make a difference. It’s up to us to demand transparency from companies that are based in the UK but work and generate their profits by working in developing countries.
This blog was originally posted on by RESULTS UK here and is reproduced with their author's permission.
Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and a pioneer of modern microfinance, has been ousted from his position of Managing Director of the bank he founded. Yunus has been at loggerheads with the Bangladeshi Government, and with Sheikh Hasina Wajed, the Prime Minister, in particular.
Yunus’ problems began in early 2006 when he considered making a move into politics. He penned an open letter to the Bangladeshi Daily Star, in which he asked members of the public to give him ideas about how he could set up and run a new party that was anti-corruption and designed to establish good governance, public trust and committed leadership. The new party was to be called Citizen Power. In early 2007 he announced that he was abandoning his plans, but his grassroots popularity and potentially vast political support apparaently unsettled the Bangladesh political elite.
In November 2010 a documentary called ‘Caught in Micro Debt’, made by a Danish filmmaker and which aired on Norwegian TV, accused Yunus and Grameen on three counts.
Of diverting about $100,000,000 from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) to another organisation called Grameen Kalyan in 1996. This allegation quickly spread through the Bangladeshi media despite almost immediately being denied by NORAD. In fact, they undertook a comprehensive case review in 1996 which cleared Grameen.
Of charging borrowers interest rates of 30-200%. Again, this was disproved by MicroFinance Transparency who employed an independent expert to investigate: they found that Grameen had the most (i.e. 100%) transparent interest rates of any MFI globally and that the highest rate they ever charged was 22.84%. Again, however, this rumour circulated furiously in the Bangladeshi press.
Of making empty promises to its borrowers and putting them in jeopardy with bad debt-recovery practices. Again, this was proven to be either a misrepresentation or falsification.
Despite the shaky validity of these allegations, the media – and subsequently the Government - seized on the accusations and began to use them to attack Yunus and Grameen. All of this was happening at a time when the whole microfinance sector was under attack following the spate of borrower suicides in Andhra Pradesh. The Government launched an official investigation into the matters. The Government’s investigation led to increased calls for Yunus to step down, and earlier this year the Government finally got their way.
The government appointed chairman of the bank Muzammel Huq used the Bangladeshi law that states that all heads of banks must retire at 60. This decision was then supported by the Treasury Minister….aged 77. He appealed the decision and then took it to the High Court and lost on both occasions. For a country that always appears in the world’s top ten most corrupt - according to Transparency International’s Perceptions of Corruption Index - this is hardly surprising. There have been some very unsavoury reports emerging from Bangladesh about the Government’s behaviour that includes intimidating supporters and, in some cases, assaulting supporters of Grameen. Given the levels of corruption the Government is accused of and for and its historic failures with running the stock exchange and other banks, calls are growing for a robust international response. We await to see the outcome of this upheaval.
Meet Mrs Banda from Malawi, or Margaret to friends. She’s a vibrant woman who’s used support from a microfinance program run by the Salvation Army to help her and her family gain a better life.
For Mrs Banda, microfinance has enabled her to increase her income by a factor of 10 – from 200 to 2000 Kwacha a day. It’s a great example of how fighting poverty is about enabling individuals to flourish, and how aid can work.
It’s in stark contrast to the beating that microfinance has taken in the press in the last few months. The New York Times has even gone so far as to say that, “Microcredit is losing its halo in many developing countries,” as Governments in India and Bangladesh seek to tighten the reins on what has been hailed as a saviour to the world’s poor.
There are legitimate questions to ask about how much microfinance can achieve, and what the rules and regulations should be, but we need to ensure that we remember microfinance is enabling real changes in people’s lives, right now.
As part of this, it’s worth remembering that the concern raised about microfinance has almost entirely been focused on the for-profit organisations – businesses who see microfinance as a way to make money. They’re a very different breed of organisation to the non-profit and social microfinance organisations.
In a recent interview on Australian TV about the critiques of for-profit microfinance groups, Calum Scott from Opportunity International Australia said that “we fear that this will overshadow the good work that socially focused microfinance organisations have been doing both in India and other countries."
Microfinance isn’t a silver bullet, but for women like Margaret Banda, it’s an important step on the ladder out of poverty.
You can donate to the Salvation Army's Generate project here, or by phone on +44 (0) 20 7367 4777
Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank and a pioneer of modern microfinance, has been ousted from his position of Managing Director of the bank he founded. Yunus has been at loggerheads with the Bangladeshi Government, and with 
