Ever since we have had greater awareness of the global supply chain, and the low wages that drive it (and underpin the cheap prices we pay in the West for much of our clothing), there has been pressure on fashion firms to pay their contracted workers more. An important point along the way was the Nike sweatshop scandal of the 1990s, but nothing much has changed since, as noted in the article in the url below. What never ceases to amaze me, however, is the scale of the operation required to sustain the mass market fast fashion industry:
"In Bangladesh, the nearly 600,000 people making clothes for Swedish giant H&M—one of the biggest retailers in this space to start talking about paying living wages—earned an average of $119 a month in the first half of 2023, excluding overtime, the latest available data shows. That is well below the $194 living-wage figure for the suburbs of Dhaka, the capital, where clothing factories are clustered, according to the Global Living Wage Coalition, a research and advocacy group whose benchmarks are widely used in the industry."
The implications of these pay levels?
"At those income levels, workers say they have no savings. Often, they borrow from relatives to cover medical expenses or meet unforeseen emergencies. Some months, they even buy food on credit. Frustration over low wages boiled over in October when workers in Bangladesh set factories ablaze and smashed machines in protest."
The article makes the case that firms would like to change that, but are not sure how best to do that:
"[Western fashion companies] generally don't own the factories where their products are made and don't determine pay for workers. They say they don't want to go down the road of imposing specific wage levels on supplier factories. Instead, they have tried other solutions. H&M, for instance, brought Swedish study circles to Bangladesh to train workers in negotiation, experimented with model factories and pushed for more transparent pay structures for workers."
What is required, argue advocates, is exactly the coercive methods the companies are saying they want to avoid:
"What will work … is setting a higher wage level supplier factories must meet and a clear schedule for phasing in those higher wages."
The companies instead advocate for self-sufficiency:
"H&M said it agrees wages are too low in many sourcing markets, but that setting wage levels for suppliers is a 'shortsighted tactic that undermines the role of workers, unions, employers' organizations and governments.' They, and others like Zara-owner Inditex, stress the importance of workers negotiating higher pay for themselves via collective-bargaining agreements, where labor unions hammer out higher wages with employers."
The problem is whether the infrastructure for such agency exists (let alone the training to know how best to self-advocate):
"… in many of the places Western brands buy from, such as China, Vietnam and Bangladesh, independent unions are either banned or repressed. A review of Inditex disclosures shows just 3% of its supplier factories in Asia have collective-bargaining agreements."
The key barrier to progress, of course, is whether the higher costs that lead to higher prices will be supported by customers in the West. In other words, are they willing to pay more for their clothes, so that the workers who made them can be paid something close to what Western consumers say they want them to be paid?
"Part of the problem is low wages are core to fast fashion. It is no coincidence that Bangladesh, the world's second-largest exporter of clothes, is also the place where workers who make clothes earn among the lowest wages of industrial workers anywhere. To sell shorts and shirts cheaply—and increasingly, compete with so-called ultrafast fashion brands like China-founded Shein, known for their rock-bottom prices—clothing giants pressure their suppliers to keep costs down."
The key point:
"Insisting on higher wages would mean paying more for the clothes and potentially putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage if other companies aren't making similar moves."
Which is another way of saying that the companies do not have faith their consumers are willing to pay (even slightly) higher prices to support the working conditions they say they want for these workers:
"German shoemaker Puma said in its 2022 annual report that its factories in Pakistan and Bangladesh—accounting for roughly an eighth of its total products—don't pay a living wage. Even California-based Patagonia, known for its progressive ethos, says that of the 29 factories it bought clothing from, only 10 paid a living wage in 2022."
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Fashion Firms Still Wrestle with How to Pay Workers a Living Wage
By Jon Emont
January 4, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B2
