Does a rise in Western poverty give us permission to produce more?

Last week we heard that the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority was investigating Asda, ASOS and Boohoo for misleading customers about their sustainable credentials. The basis for the investigation is the UK’s new Green Claims Code launched last September, which came out of a review that up to 40% of sustainable claims are misleading. Now at this stage it’s worth noting that the companies are only under investigation and does not mean they did anything wrong. Although it would be nice to have some transparency around why these businesses particularly were singled out, I think it would give a lot of people peace of mind, especially as a lot of greenwashing claims are simply unintentional. Ultimately businesses need more support when it comes to understanding new legislation, whether it’s around verifying claims or whether they have a net zero strategy. This can be expensive for small businesses, which is why understanding the touch points between the CMA and Asda, ASOS and Boohoo before the launch of the investigation is important to know.

Anyway, we’ve digressed quickly. Back to the original point.

A friend of mine posted on LinkedIn with the statement that Asda can’t really be calling themselves green when they sell a slogan t’shirt for £2. The comments got lively pretty quickly and we’d leapt from the CMA investigation to how people need to have access to fast fashion, given the current cost of living crisis, in less time than Lewis can get round a lap at Silverstone. Going off tangent slightly again to just pick up whether someone with limited income is really the target demographic for a slogan t’shirt. My experience of designing the cringe worthy Christmas slogan t’shirts for BHS (god rest their souls), that would read things like “Jingle My Bells”, I can assure you that the people being targeted here are not on limited income. Never mind that, even 15 years ago, these t’shirts were a lot more expensive than they are now, while still be manufactured out of the same country. Keep that last point in mind, I’m going to swing back to that later.

Access to clothing is actually part of our human rights, not just for protection but also identity. It tells the world what community we belong to and communicates who we are. It’s a powerful as our free speech. We know a global recession is about to bite, mixed with a war in Europe and climate change bringing the mother of all ass kickings. Life is about to get really tough for so many people across the globe. So does that mean we should be producing more clothes so people continue to have access to cheap clothing and ensuring we don’t decimate the economies of countries who rely on us producing more stuff?

For those of you here who don’t spend their time analysing lay plans and garment costings; for Asda to sell a £2 t’shirt they need to be ordering millions of garments. Most likely the fabric will be utilised across multiple styles to drive the price down and make comparisons a little tricky (ironically part of the Green Claims Code asks brands to be more specific about their claims and ensure they are comparing relevant products when making a claim, which is actually tricky when it comes to something as complicated as clothing). An average t’shirt uses 0.7m of fabric (already this claim is breaching the Green Claims Code because I’m generalising!), if Asda have bought 1million of them and they’ve managed a pretty reasonable consumption of 96%, that will still leave 28,000m of fabric that’s either going to be landfilled or incinerated. That distance is more than a half marathon.

That’s before we’ve even gotten onto what the fabric is made of in order to achieve that price. If it’s cotton then it’s most certainly not organic, it’s not going to be a long staple fibre (they’re more expensive as they give a nicer handle, drape better and last longer), and I would put money that the supply chain after tier 5 is murky at best. We only need to look at last year’s scandal of the Better Cotton Initiative to be pretty certain. Cotton grown under these conditions uses a lot of water and chemicals, mainly in countries with water instability. If it’s not cotton, it’s polyester. This is not the time to talk about the pros and cons of polyester and cotton, and which one is worse. At the end of the day, the only best thing in this scenario is to produce less.

Which then moves us on to a point we all need to consider, which ever side of the fence you are on; whose poverty are you concerned with most? Now you could answer that producing more is good for both those who purchase and those who make. But this is where I want to swing back to the point I made after telling you about those ‘Jingle My Bells’ t’shirts. Even 15 years ago brands were targeting 80% profit margins, the same margins they target now. And Bangladesh was duty free then too (although Cambodia and Myanmar weren’t, trade deals and the like is also a conversation for another time), which is where a lot of this product was made. Offshoring became popular in the 80s as a way to make more money through cheaper labour, which was helped through government trade deals. In theory, this should make everyone richer. The businesses based here in the UK and bring more money to the countries that produced the clothing. Although who profits from access to cheap clothing in the UK is a murkier than the water treatment facility at a dye house. Philip Green didn’t have even close to the wealth he does now when he started Topshop put it that way.

So in theory, people in the countries producing these items should become wealthy. More jobs are created, taxes paid to the state, everything gets better. But when everything gets better, costs rise, and wages have to rise to meet it. Except here’s the kicker, and it bucks the trend we’ve seen over the last 4 decades of offshoring; products made out of Bangladesh are cheaper than they have ever been. The head of the Bangladeshi Apparel Export Group claims its down to the rise in competition and someone always willing to do it cheaper, and brands always willing to move at the drop of a hat, or rather the drop of a few cents. Now this also effects quality, because if you don’t have a stable relationship with a supplier they aren’t going to be investing in improved quality because the business might not be there in a year.

So who are we benefitting, and who are we keeping in poverty here?

Data also doesn’t support that people with limited income choose fast fashion to clothe them. They are more likely to invest in pieces that can be worn for a long time and are well cared for. In previous recessions brands that claim both well made and sustainable products do well. They don’t see the drop off fast fashion does. In fact, its only in times of boom that fast fashion sees a rise. And we’ve been in boom such a long time, even with covid the western economies did relatively well, that western businesses are so reliant on fast fashion for their own profits.

I discussed the impact on the UK’s economy during the exodus of the garment industry with a new connection after the said LinkedIn post. They mentioned that other industries quickly filled the space. Which they’re right, who would now know the UK used to be the world leader in clothing production? But we’ll always offshore, so those new industries will move in their place. It may end up being that it’ll be cheaper to produce here in a few decades. That’s before we address that Bangladesh is only 2m above sea level with 3 major rivers running through the country. In our lifetimes it may not exist anymore. Then we’ll have millions of migrants to find places in other countries.