The diminutive but immensely powerful Japanese designer instils in her collections a very philosophical approach to fashion. In this essay, fashion historian Ángela Hurtado Pimentel dissects Kawakubo’s creative, cultural and philosophical vanguard

​

April 24th is the anniversary of the tragedy of Rana Plaza, the collapse of a Bangladeshi clothing factory sourcing for the largest fast fashion conglomerates that killed 1,138 garment workers and injured 2,500 others. The event served as a reminder of many negative issues concerning fast fashion and sparked outrage from dozens of international organisations, prompting the creation of ‘The Bangladesh Accord’, an agreement between brands and trade unions that works towards safer manufacturing environments in the South Asian country.

 

Since then however, changes in the Bangladesh garment industry have been inconsistent and incidents of different natures (fires, strikes, discovery of poor working conditions) are recurrent. In December 2016, tens of thousands of factory workers decided to strike against salaries below the national living wage – a garment worker can make as little as £54 a month – and the fact that their incomes were not enough to provide for their families. As a result of the strike action, 50 factories closed down for over a week.

​

Ashik, a former garment factory worker in Ashulia, was one of those protesting. He told German news outlet Deutsche Welle: “The collapse made it possible for us to go to workplaces that won’t kill us. Now we need jobs that allow us to live like human beings, with dignity.” But the backlash from the strikes was disappointing to workers, with factory bosses since enforcing mass dismissals and the local government arresting and persecuting employees at random. Ashik was one of those arrested.

​

​

Calls for action

 

These events revived an international conversation on workers’ rights and the fast fashion industry’s role in the pressing matter. Organisations including Fashion Revolution, the Clean Clothes Campaign, Labour Behind the Label and The Solidarity Center have been encouraging brands and the public to show their support towards Bangladeshi workers and demand that the local government takes decisive steps towards improving working conditions. 

​

In a collective plea for action, these organisations decided to send a letter on December 23rd 2016 to over 20 clothing companies – including Inditex, H&M, Gap and Next – who source from Bangladesh. The letter urged them to immediately begin a dialogue with the Bangladeshi government for the release of captured workers and correct the situation of the 2000 to 3000 employees who were dismissed after the strikes. Essentially, the letter called for a ceasing of “all forms of harassment and intimidation against labour activists exercising their fundamental rights of expression and association.”

​

"On December 23rd 2016, a letter was sent to over 20 clothing companies urging them to begin a dialogue with the Bangladeshi government"

 

Almost a month later, Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol based non-profit organisation and partner of the Clean Clothes Campaign, announced the creation of a new petition demanding “the liberation and dismissal of charges of 24 union leaders, union members and workers,” according to policy director Dominique Muller. This petition was initially directed at fast fashion conglomerates, yet another addressed to the Bangladeshi government soon followed. Although both petitions were addressed by major brands, they failed to secure efficient actions towards the demands.   

​

​

Finding a voice for workers

 

Bangladesh is the world’s second largest clothing producer, with an industry worth £21.8 billion that employs over five million workers. The government is proud of its contribution to the local economy – clothing exports represent 80% of the country’s earnings – as it has helped one of the world’s poorest countries head towards development. But the local industry has been heavily accused by international human rights groups of being flawed and protecting the interests of a few, proof of this being incidents such as Rana Plaza in 2013 and the 2012 Ashulia factory fire killing 117 workers. In December 2016, the workers’ message was loud and clear: ‘We want changes, and we want them now.’

 

Although critique towards industrial manufacturing conditions and the consequences of fast fashion in general has been heard for years, the Rana Plaza event was a definite trigger for growing international pressure and calls for both businesses and governments to take action. A key player here was Fashion Revolution, a movement founded in 2013 in response to the Rana Plaza tragedy. Every spring, Fashion Revolution Week incites consumers to question the origins of their clothes as well as demand that brands enforce dignified working conditions for millions of workers worldwide. The organisation, with delegations in 90 countries, believes it can “show the world that change is possible” and celebrates “those involved in creating a more sustainable future.” With the slogan ‘Who made my clothes?’ Fashion Revolution joins fellow campaigners as an agent of change within the fashion industry. 

​

"Companies spend millions on ethical trading initiatives, but poor working conditions and violations of the standards remain widespread"

​

Labour Behind the Label argues “companies spend millions of euros annually on ethical trading initiatives,” however “poor working conditions and violations of the standards remain widespread.” The entity now pressures brands into seriously committing to a code of conduct that ensures long-term solutions. “Some companies are more responsive than others when contacted,” Muller says. “While some assure us that they are pressuring governments, others simply don’t reply at all.”

 

Publicly, the H&M Group could be designated as one of the more responsive brands Muller refers to. As one of the founders of fast fashion and widely responsible for its spread in Europe, the brand nowadays dedicates important resources to openly communicating their efforts in sustainability. On January 11th 2017, H&M released a statement expressing its deep concern about “the recent unrest in the Bangladesh textile industry.” The company added it did not “support any illegal strikes or violent protests,” yet understood the need for a social dialogue regarding the local cost of living.

 

Iñigo Saenz Maestre, communications representative at H&M, adds that the brand “has a long history sourcing from Bangladesh” and that the company’s dedicated sustainability team “is responsible for making sure that every order is placed with the right supplier and following the strict requirements of our Sustainability Commitment.”

 

Saenz Maestre also referred to H&M’s 2016 Sustainability Report, which highlighted the brand’s efforts in its manufacturing countries, such as the implementation of wage management systems in over 140 factories, which will impact thousands of workers. “The base of our work is for people to be treated with respect and all our suppliers to offer their workers fair and good working conditions,” Saenz Maestre says. Whether the retailer’s efforts have made a permanent difference in workers’ lives is yet to be seen. 

​

Back in December, H&M joined fellow brands Esprit, Primark and VF Corp in prompting Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, to intervene in the labour crisis and related incarcerations, and to introduce wages that were more cohesive to rising living costs. Alongside Inditex, C&A, Next and Tchibo, the Swedish conglomerate also took a stand in February by pulling out from the 2017 Dhaka Apparel Summit, a yearly event organised by the Bangladesh Garment Manufactures and Exporters Association (BGMEA) that promotes the country as a top manufacturing destination, and for which the Prime Minister was keynote speaker.

 

Admittedly, H&M and similar brands have made themselves heard in the matter, yet the interdependence between brands and factories, as well as the shifting accusations of responsibility, make it difficult for measures to take place. At the summit, Sheikh Hasina used her speech to urge brands to improve the infrastructure of the country’s 4,500 garment factories and therefore avoid a new tragedy such as Rana Plaza. “Huge funds are required for the factories to be overhauled,” she said. “Various brands and buyers can come forward to assist them… the local government would continue to provide its support in this regard.” Neither the strikes – which caused losses of approximately £78 million, according to the BGMEA – nor the demands from workers, international organisations or brands were mentioned. 

​

​

Bangladesh is not an isolated case

 

Despite an increase in the national minimum wage in 2013, Bangladesh continues to be one of the countries with the lowest incomes for garment workers, closely followed by Cambodia (£78), India (£100), Vietnam (£102), Indonesia (£171) and China (£206). But poor working conditions are not only an issue in the third world. Back in January 2017, UK’s Channel 4 reported workers there were earning between £3 and £3.50 an hour – the UK minimum is £7.20 – at a Leicester factory that produced garments for retailers River Island and New Look. Both companies distanced themselves from the allegations.

 

 

"Under current legislation a company can easily recognise it's not doing anything in this regard, and that's unacceptable"

 

Baroness Lola Young, an independent member of the UK House of Lords, says the Modern Slavery Act in the UK asks brands trading in the country to produce an annual statement explaining their actions towards eliminating poor working conditions and forced labour from their supply chains. “This holds companies accountable and requires that they find innovative ways to stay away from negative practices,” she says. “The problem is, under current legislation a company can easily recognise it’s not doing anything in this regard, and that’s unacceptable.” She is currently working towards a bill to highlight to the government the deficiencies of the original act and to ensure the enforcement of both statements and actions across the industry.

 

Internationally, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has created the ‘Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector’, which comprises of thirty-five countries including the UK, the US and Australia, to follow “recommendations that address the risks in both manufacturing and sourcing materials, that are in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.”

​

Additionally, the European Union created the ‘Sustainability Compact for Bangladesh’, a document that promotes “respect for labour rights, in particular freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining,” as well as “responsible business conduct” in the Asian country. The appropriate implementation of all these initiatives could potentially generate important changes in the fast fashion industry, and turn the reporting and transparency of practices into a standard instead of a novelty.

 

 

Looking ahead, everyone’s invited

 

In the wake of the most recent events and as a result of years of repression, Bangladeshi employees now demand union rights, for charges against arrested workers to be dropped, and naturally, higher wages established though a fairer negotiation method. To help them, Dominique Muller from Labour Behind the Label advises consumers to take advantage of their positions and demand that brands take action against what is wrong in their supply chain.

 

She suggests some basic steps are having awareness of the consumption choices we make, supporting and following established campaigning groups (e.g. on social media), accessing as much information as possible on brands, wages, supply chains and regulations, and confronting brands on the manufacturing conditions of their product. The latter can prove challenging, however it serves to destabilise companies from underneath and plants a seed of uneasiness. “Truthfully, decisions we make as individuals can have a collective impact,” Muller says. 

​

There seems to be a general wondering surrounding the scenes we all witnessed a few years ago years ago: was this negligence from a few or are we to be blamed as a collective? Opinions here are divided and more so are the actions that follow them but recent events show speed is of the essence. Ashik is living proof of how individual actions can produce echoes of the most surprising proportions; to join his and his colleagues’ fight for better lives is something that, on a smaller or larger scale, we can all do.