Q&A with Christian Smith, Policy Lead at Fair Wear Foundation

Why do brands favour conversations on environmental sustainability over social sustainability, ie. paying living wages, working conditions, labour exploitation and human rights?

In conversation with Grishma Jashapara, Managing Partner at Fusion Associates.

Christian Smith

Partnerships & Policy Lead at Fair Wear Foundation

Tell us a little about yourself and who are Fair Wear Foundation?

Fair Wear is a Netherlands based NGO. We work with member brands at their HQ and in their supply chains to demonstrate that it is possible to make clothes in a fairer way. However, we will need all brands, trade unions and other labour rights NGOs on board to transform the industry, to make sure social responsibility will not be considered an optional add-on, a favour we’re providing to garment workers. I have been working in this space over ten years now having started on the brand side, I have now spent the last few years working in the NGO sector. I grew up in West Africa and have lived all over the world. These experiences left a big mark on me in how I see the world and understanding how interconnected we all are in many ways.

The ‘sustainable fashion’ conversation seems to revolve mostly around environmental considerations. Almost weekly we hear of the research and innovations around biodiversity, oceans, climate change and circular economy. We don’t however seem to hear as much about what progress is being made around labour exploitation, working conditions and human rights. Why do you think this is?

The social sustainability space is difficult. There are so many different issues that need to be addressed and to do so we do have to fundamentally question the way that we do business. When you look at environmental sustainability, it is easier to sell the product from that. Think Parley for the Oceans – think about the imagery of the oceans, turtles tangled in nets, the ocean garbage patches (whether real or not) and the direct correlation between removing the plastics and improving the health of the sea and seeing a nice pair of trainers. It is an easier sell as there is a more tangible cause and effect and easier to market.

This does not take away from their work, but it is an easier sell. However, addressing social sustainability is not so simple. You cannot pick just one problem because the issues are so interlinked. Yet the major steps you can take to address social sustainability – increasing participation and effectiveness of trade unions, ensuring social dialogue, paying living wages – are not sexy. And they are very difficult. Stronger unions mean better rights for workers but also mean that brands may have to pay more for the items they source from these countries.

Financially, the solutions that make the most impact for workers, may not be the most palatable for brands. That is why the work that we do with our member brands is so important. We acknowledge all these issues and still work towards the payment of a living wage and improving social dialogue within factories.

Can the low consumer prices and squeezed margins of fast fashion ever be compatible with factories being able to pay their workers a living wage as well as comply with environmental, health, safety and human rights requirements? If not, then what action needs to be taken?

In a word – no. But the answer is not that simple. Low prices combined with a zero-sum game attitude means that no one will be able to pay a living wage. The winners take all mentality that has got us here does not allow that to happen.

When you look at payments to CEO’s, share buybacks, business class flights, luxury hotels, you start to see that there are ways for companies to redirect their resources but they chose not to do so based on what is seen as success or what they are owed in the business world. If brands want to pay a living wage, they need to look at their structure, their costs, the cost of audit programs, their processes to understand what they need to do to make that a reality. Part of that discussion sits with the factories to ensure they work as efficiently as possible.

However, if brands really want to see a change, they need to factor compliance into the prices they pay for their goods. I do wonder how many brands know what the living wage is where they source and if they have ever factored that into the price of their garments. At Fair Wear, we have developed Labour Minute Costing Calculators to help brands do just that. We do not expect brands to pay living wages overnight but knowing what this would mean and working with factories to get there is the way forward.

Are the current auditing, certification and accreditation systems working? If not what are the main issues and what needs to be done?

It depends what you mean by working. Working for whom? They do not work for factories. Audit fatigue is real. Factories face audit after audit from different systems, sometimes by the same auditor, on a regular basis. When are the factory management supposed to fix the issues found through audits? In an ideal world, the labor inspectorate in sourcing countries would be responsible for ensuring that factories at least complied with local laws. Yet the factors that made these countries so interesting as sourcing locations are the same factors that prevent the enforcement of local legislation. Cheap and extensive workforce, developing economies, and governments in need of investment. Companies have used these factors to play governments against each other, leaving them worried that if they were to enforce or even create new legislation, then companies would simply relocate production.

The industry has a fairly good idea of what goes on in factories and of the root causes. We also know how much of the issues in factories are caused by the purchasing practices of the brands – it is higher than you would think. One of the most important things we could do is take the emphasis off auditing and place more emphasis on improving purchasing practices and collective remediation. The data from audits can be useful but much more important is the work that is done following the audit. Brands, on a pre-competitive basis, need to work together to address issues in shared factories. Factories must be given the time and resources to fix issues – and yes, that goes back to ensuring that brands pay the correct amount for the goods they source.

To what extent is the garment industry unionised and how effective have unions been in improving working conditions and workers’ rights?

I cannot tell you that because I do not know the figures. However, in places where unionization is a) allowed and b) functional, there are great examples of the impact that makes in a factory. One thing I found interesting though, is that money is not always the first discussion that workers put on the table. This does not mean that a living wage is not important for workers but that there are many things that can be addressed to improve the lives of workers that can be quickly remedied – quality and cleanliness of the sanitary facilities, quality of food provide in the canteen, or ability to take breaks during the workday.

Addressing some of these can make a massive difference to workers while looking at the long-term issue of paying for living wages. Fair Wear has been doing some interesting work in this space alongside the New Conversations Project of Cornell University.

What are the most important initiatives being worked on currently and at what level (government, industry bodies, companies) that will concretely improve conditions in the garment industry?

In terms of international legislation, the work being done in Europe on Due Diligence legislation is crucial. It will force ALL companies to pay more attention to their supply chains by identifying risks and dealing with them. Presently, there are still many companies that do little to no risk assessments and are riding on the coattails of others.

Work being done by Fair Wear on living wages shows that it is possible to ring fence the cost of wages when sourcing and that there are ways to make it work. The publication of these methodologies takes away the excuse of not knowing how to calculate a living wage or not knowing the right basket of goods are. It makes it easier for companies to start the journey.

From an environmental perspective the work on the circular economy can have a massive impact in how the industry develops but this cannot be done without reviewing the social impacts of circularity. There can be no environmental justice without the ability to exercise one’s human rights.

Black Lives Matter – though not an initiative, this movement opens the space for discussions on the issue of systemic racism. People are speaking about this to extents never seen before. This has a direct effect on the fashion industry, which is one based on racism. Remember that slaves were used to pick cotton. The people making clothing are mostly brown or black, the top figures in fashion are mostly white, the industry has consistently appropriated from other cultures without ever accepting those cultures. From cornrows, to African prints to hip hop, the industry has looked to black and brown cultures for inspiration. Now we can have very frank discussions about why this is the status quo and how we can address the different ways in which these issues are manifested. And that includes the question of why the industry is okay with paying their black and brown suppliers so little for items that they find to be of value?

Where do you expect the garment industry to be in 5-10 years with respect to worker pay, conditions and exploitation?

Honestly, I have no idea. I want to be hopeful but the British part of me will be ever a cynical pessimist - when it comes down to the crunch, money matters more than people. However, I am trying to move away from that so here goes:

If we come out of this crisis with a renewed focus to address global inequalities, the industry will look very different in ten years.

Firstly, all brands will know exactly what it cost to pay a price that leads to a living wage for workers and they will pay it. Tax systems will create the necessary incentives to make that happen. These brands will have worked on their own purchasing practices and know in detail how their behaviour affects factories and source accordingly. Workers will exercise their rights to freedom of association and learn to solve their own issues together with their management and the purchasing practices of brands will afford them the time and resources to do so.

There will be many more women signed up to trade unions and an increase in the number of women in leadership positions meaning that the issues affecting women, who represent over 75% of garment workers, will be addressed directly. Technological innovation will see a reduction in the number of audits and money being spent on improving the lives of workers. There will also be an increase in digital payments helping to make HR systems more efficient and reduce payment issues for workers. However, these same technology innovations may see an increase in nearshoring which could have a further impact in key sourcing countries.

We must also remember that an increasing amount of clothing is made for the growing middle class in countries like China and India. So, as we think about the change we want to see in the industry, we must be inclusive in our approach and work with brands from emerging economies.

---

About Fusion Associates

Since 1998, Fusion Associates has been placing experienced professionals across the globe within consumer markets including consumer goods, fashion, sporting goods, healthy living and luxury.

Environmental, humanitarian, social and political concerns are close to the Partners both in and out of the business.

We pride ourselves in partnering with industry leaders who wish to contribute to a better, more sustainable future. Working with global companies that are at the forefront of innovating and integrating sustainability into the heart of their business, we have helped build purpose-led teams from leadership to subject experts in biodiversity and animal welfare.