'Girl power' charity T-shirts made at exploitative Bangladeshi factory
20 replies, posted
The Guardian has established that the garments were made by Bangladeshi firm Dird Composite Textiles, where some workers earn as little as 42p an hour and complain of harassment. In one case, a female employee was beaten on the orders of the management and threatened with murder.
Typical sweat shop things. I would of thought this would have been well known by now that quite a bit of our clothes come from such a place.
while it's a good move to vet where you're getting your junk from, I feel like this is pinning a LOT on the charity like they went out of their way to go to this specific sweatshop instead of just like, finding someone offering cheap shirts so you could maximize how much goes into the charity donation portion of a purchase
sucks but this has been a long outstanding problem with the manufacturing sector of a LOT of countries that provide to the rest of the world (because everyone wants their junk cheap, go figure)
It's pretty hypocritical to run a charity of girl power and not put the effort in to ensure that your own merchandise doesn't abuse women, you don't really get to absolve responsibility just because they didn't pick that specific sweatshop. And it's not really a valid justification to say it's okay to abuse women as long as a higher % of the shirt sale goes toward the charity.
It's been exposed repeatedly and clearly what the price of cheap textiles is, you can't really play ignorance anymore.
Reminds me of those "I'm a feminist" shirts that celebrities were endorsing that turned out were made in a cheap sweatshop exploiting women. Stuff like this is horrible and company's need to be called out on it, I'd be willing to pay more for clothes knowing some kid isn't being forced to make them for horrible wages.
Hypocritical to run such a charity certainly, but also kind of hypocritical to rag on their hypocrisy while normally buying clothes made in similar sweatshops.
Virtually nobody buys ethically produced clothes so I find the hyper focused outrage a bit silly.
I swear there was a story like this 5 or so years ago
Well I mean if you want to make sure you produce ethical clothing with clear supervision, just DIY.
When its about mass production of clothing, you can pretty much throw 'ethics' out of the window.
Imagine how many times such things happen and there isn't a story because nobody knows or cares to find out.
I don't think a small charity that just wanted some shirts have the same capability like huge companies like say, H&M, to know exactly where the shirts comes from.
Yes this doesn't mean that they don't have any responsibility at all but they wouldn't have that much power more than cancelling the order.
F=’s website claims that they are “made in a Fair Wear Foundation certified factory, which means it is vetted for good working conditions and fair wages and by using organic cotton we drastically reduce the use of water”.
It looks like they were actually trying to use responsible sources but were misled by the manufacturer.
“All the research we have done in the past showed Stanley/Stella to be one of the best manufacturers both in terms of sustainability and working conditions they urge their suppliers to uphold, hence we used them. However, we are wholly dedicated to empowerment and have therefore closed our entire shop whilst any issues are being looked into.”
It also looks like they stopped using the shirts as soon as they found out as well.
It seems to me they tried to ethically source their products but got misled down the chain, as soon as they found out they stopped using it. I don't see why people are saying they didn't put effort in to avoid this. Is there more to this situation?
~No such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism~
impressive use of "would of" and "would have" literally 2 words apart
Buying ethically produced clothes is financially impossible and that's just capitalism. Consumers can't make enough money so they can't afford to buy ethically produced goods so those businesses go out of sale, and they can only buy the abuse-made goods and give money to the abusive corporations.
Well, even in my country where living below poverty line on benefits one can still afford to buy several of these cheapo clothes each month, the same problem persists. So I think the bigger issue is consumer habits.
People always want to buy cheaper with no regard how much durability, quality or ethics they're sacrificing, and also there's the norm of buying way more clothes than you need, fueled by the how quickly cheap clothes break. I find that by skimping out you rarely save any money in the long run.
If people just magically decided to start buying ethical high quality clothing the human cost of clothing industry would disappear immediately without significant negative change in overall price/value of clothing. Poor people being able to afford clothes is more a problem with poverty itself, though in this scenario they'd still have second hand options, and with ethical industry being actually supported the prices would go down. Fewer but higher quality clothes would be a boon to environment as well.
Welcome to crown royal didn't see that my bad
The good thing about shit made in a sweat shop is the items made on Friday afternoon are just as good as the other days.
As regards "research" on ethical suppliers....... having worked as IT support in some big names I can tell you it is all BULLSHIT.. yep that's right BULLSHIT.
Buyers from big "corporate entities" taking other products into a factory to be copied.. then pushing so hard on the price they KNOW it is going to be subcontracted from that ethical wonderland
into the shit hole next door.
Ethical Auditing is also mostly bullshit, big name gets their "agent " bends them over and insists on an "ethical audit", they then take the address & contact information from that "confidential audit" and pass it to their sales & sourcing team who then "back door" the "agent" directly to the factory.....
But what they fail to understand... is the "Agent" has on the ground understanding that the "big name" will NEVER have.... they just think it is a supplier.
The "corporate face" of what many big names SAY they do IS NOT the same as what ACTUALLY goes on.......
and don't even get me started about the big name "independent" test houses......... you know the ones.... the global testing entities.
He's not basing his entire image and business on ethical clothes...
an inherent problem with capitalism is that it directly benefits from discrimination. equality for all and capitalism are completely incompatible
sorry to bump this but there's no PM system on FP.
it's "would have" and "should have", not would of and should of.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.