Is Radical Transparency Actually Radical?
Radical transparency is a term I’ve seen becoming more frequently used in brand marketing communications. But how radical is it? In 2019, a report indicated that only 85% of brands could trace their supply chains back to their garment producers. With 15% able to trace their supply chains to fabric mills, and only 1% further than that. Traditionally there are 5 tiers to the manufacturing system, 1 - garment producers, 2 - fabric producers and trim suppliers, 3 -yarn producers, 4 - fibre producers, 5 - feedstock producers. Yet this system doesn’t take into account the off shoots from each stage, such as dye houses, chemical suppliers etc. And rarely is the production of trims covered. One of the reasons YKK is so popular, and produces 50% of the world’s zips, is that they produce each component. They make the nylon yarn for the tape, the plastic resins for the teeth, even the cardboard for the packaging. Which makes it one of the only truly transparent companies in the world. It also ensures that all their products are made to the same standard. However that comes with a upcharge, one that many brands are happy with if they feel their customers perceive YKK as value for money. In the continual race to the bottom we’ve seen companies such as SBS take some of their market share. While SBS import all trim components, they are able to compete on price.
Of course I have my own experience with brands traceability claims. One of the ways I verify who manufacturers say they produce for, is to check import and export records. In one instance I was able to verify that a particular manufacturer did in fact produce for a well known sportswear brand. Sending several containers a month to the US. Despite the brand’s website saying they are committed to radical transparency by publishing their core list of suppliers, I couldn’t find a mention of this manufacturer there. Quick dig through the import and export records for this brand and I had established that the manufacturer was producing as much as 40% of the brand’s imported apparel, but this brand wasn’t going to be transparent about them. Needless to say I was intrigued, so the next step was to assess their audit report. Was there a reason for them being omitted from the list? While they weren’t a bad supplier, and did not have any unlawful practices, they did receive a pretty poor rating for the amount of overtime seen in the audited time period. And 60% of their workforce were migrants on temporary contracts. Again, while not illegal, we only need to look to some industries in the UK and their use of zero hours contracts to know that exploitation is rife and those on temporary contracts are often not able to refuse overtime. In garment producing countries the International Labour Organisation has found a direct link between the amount of overtime a caregiver does and the amount of time their children spend in education settings. With 85% of the world’s sewers being women, the more overtime they do, the less their children interact with formal education. In the same report the ILO also noted that as many as 45% of those sewers don’t make minimum wage, furthering the need for overtime. While reducing the access to education for their children, furthering the circle of poverty. To date, the manufacturer is still producing for this brand, and the brand still doesn’t have them listed. Yet the Fashion Transparency Index had them ranked as the 7th most transparent brand out of 200 they’ve vetted. Radical, right?
Image from Rawpixel
On the flip side we’ve seen a rise in brands trying to make their own voices heard. To communicate radical transparency in their own way. Which makes sense, as according to the sustainability consultancy Futerra; 79% of Gen Z think brands aren’t being honest about their environmental claims. That rises to 84% for working conditions in their supply chains. So you end up with great statements like Ace and Tate who wrote a blog post entitled Look, we f*cked up. And, to be fair to them, I can see why they made some of the decisions they did. Why they thought bamboo was sustainable. Why they thought they could reach net zero by 2030. They weren’t being negligent, they just didn’t understand. And they didn’t understand because each step has become a commercialised product. But the outcome has been some steps that they can implement to make the changes they want to see. There is no perfect switch we can make in terms of sustainability. Even Lyocell, the sustainable alternative to viscose, isn’t perfect. The chemicals used in the production is less toxic than standard viscose, but still toxic none the less. Thankfully with Lyocell being a branded product of Lenzing we know that the chemicals are disposed of carefully. Which is not always the case with viscose manufacturing across Asia. Especially when 99% of brands can’t trace their supply chain back that far.
But how honest are some of these companies who embrace a flawed image in the name of transparency. The idea, after all, is to build trust. So how much should we trust them? Ultimately, the larger the brand the larger their impact on the environment and their supply chain. Could we accept the sort of apology Ace and Tate produced by brands in the wake of Rana Plaza? While the Rana Plaza collapse made headlines for the severity of the catastrophe. There are plenty of instances every year of smaller scale disasters. I can remember an instance of being evacuated from a factory as a fight broke out in the packing room, resulting in the warehouse manager having a metal stake impaled in his head. Personally, the jury is out on the actual transparency here. Especially for larger brands who have a considerable workforce with the sole job to sell more products. I have come to that conclusion because I know first hand how hard sourcing is. And how it takes effort from multiple stakeholders in order to make the kind of impact we expect. But the more money a brand makes, the more they should be doing. The sportswear brand I mentioned above turned over 1.6 billion euros in the 2nd quarter of this year. I wonder how much of that went towards diversion tactics over transparency? Oooh, quick look, pigeon.
