Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Outsource magazine: thought-leadership and outsourcing strategy | August 18, 2017

Scroll to top

Top

No Comments

Fashion and apparel: labour practices in the supply chain

Fashion and apparel: labour practices in the supply chain
Global Sourcing Council

In 2015, the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress reported that the fashion industry globally is valued at $1.2 trillion. (Ref. 1) Of that $1.2 trillion, more than $250 billion is spent annually in the United States alone and this number continues to grow. Current reports show that the retail value of the apparel and shoe industry in the USA was valued at almost $360 billion (and counting) in 2015. (Ref. 2)

Labour issues are material to the fashion/apparel industry because “roughly 99 per cent of apparel and footwear…sold in the US is manufactured outside the country, typically by independent suppliers.” This is attributed to the fact that fashion/apparel companies enter into contracts with manufacturers which have the lowest manufacturing costs – significantly lower than the United States. In Bangladesh, workers are paid an estimated $0.24 per hour, compared with China’s $1.26 minimum wage. (Ref. 3) Labour practices, from a supply chain perspective, become especially critical for this industry due to prevalence of “sweat shops” in these manufacturing operations. Sweat shops have been described as the following: “any factory which may have unreasonably authoritative overseers, dangerous and unhealthy (both physically and psychologically) working conditions, and enforces long hours with low pay”. (Ref. 4)

Over the years there have been a lot of bad press and articles written about many fashion/apparel companies in regard to their labour practices overseas – “many Americans are unaware that their appetite for consumerism fuels a deeply controversial industry, and just as foreign-manufactured goods are often more than meets the eye, the sweatshop debate is highly intricate.” (Ref. 4) Poor labour conditions within the supply chain have the potential to create operational risks in terms of the loss of capital as well as potentially cause disruptions in production due to safety incidents or worker strikes. From a public relations perspective, this can also cause damage to brand reputation as well as value. Looking at it from a government view it can cause local governments to impose stricter regulations which will in turn increase costs of production. (Ref. 3)

All of the media attention focused around labour practices of fashion/apparel companies has caused companies to focus on this particular aspect of their supply chain as part of their corporate social responsibility, in order to outline their goals on how to improve labour practices and how they plan to achieve those goals.

From a business case perspective, there is clear evidence which suggests how powerful a company’s labour practices are and just how this can affect future business. In the SASB Consumption II Brief there are two examples of this: “…reputational impacts from labour problems in the supply chain can affect demand for products. For example, in 2011, Cornell University cut contracts with Adidas after the company failed to properly pay workers in an Indonesian factory. Additionally, in 2014, Cornell cut ties with VF Corporation, for deals estimated to be worth $4 million, after the company failed to address worker safety issues in Bangladesh.” (4)

Another impact is labour unrest which may lead to strikes – which is the case that occurred with Nike: “Nike experienced such stoppages in 2013 and faced weeks of supply disruptions and added costs due to worker strikes over low wages in Vietnam and Cambodia.” (4) This clearly shows the financial implications companies can face when dealing with labour issues in foreign supply chains.

Nike has been one of the leaders in trying to achieve best practices within their industry which can be attributed to the criticism they faced in regard to labour practices in its supply chain in the 1990s. In the SASB Consumption II brief there are some noteworthy contributions which they have made: “In 1999, the company helped to found the Fair Labor Association, and in 2005 it became the first in the industry to publish a complete list of the factories that it contracts with. Nike currently audits and provides rankings for more than 785 contract factory locations on labour issues, including minimum age requirements, compensation practices, fire safety management, and worker hours.” (4)

Additionally, companies such as PVH and Adidas signed the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh. Other companies such as Wal-Mart Stores and Gap have also set out to improve working conditions in facilities in places like Bangladesh. They have achieved this by “setting up a voluntary safety standards organisation known as the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety. Through a $42 million fund, the organisation hopes to improve factories’ access to capital for safety upgrades.” (4)

For the future of the topic of labour within the supply chain of the fashion/apparel industry, there will be a focus on the continued improvement on the issues which surround labour in manufacturing facilities overseas. There are two paths in which the continued improvement can be carried out: either by companies taking on the initiative of creating standards and organisations which promote fair labour practices in manufacturing facilities; or having regulations imposed on them by governmental agencies in host countries in which they are manufacturing goods.

We should expect to see more meaningful disclosure in companies SEC annual filings. Currently 10% of the companies in the fashion/apparel industry provide no disclosure on the SEC annual filings, and 50% provide only boiler plate disclosures. This leaves only 40% which supply industry-specific information on labour conditions within their supply chains.

GSC Jan 2017 graphic 1

 

Conclusion

Over the past two decades there have been great strides and progress made in improving labour standards in manufacturing facilities overseas. This is a topic which has received a great deal of attention due to the negative press surrounding many fashion/apparel companies based here in the United States. This is also true for other industries as well such as the electronics and toy industries. Companies really need to ask themselves if making an extra $0.50 in profit on a product manufactured is worth sacrificing the health and safety of the workers who produce those products in offshored manufacturing facilities. With the push for companies to publish their corporate social responsibility goals and achievements, this allows visibility to everyone on what exactly is being done in relation to labour issues (as well as many others). The public does not have to wait for a scandal to break before learning what companies are doing but can educate themselves on a daily basis and determine whether or not they would like to buy a company’s products or services based on their investments in corporate social responsibility.

References

1) The Economic Impact of the Fashion Industry. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from https://maloney.house.gov/sites/maloney.house.gov/files/documents/The%20Economic%20Impact%20of%20the%20Fashion%20Industry%20–%20JEC%20report%20FINAL.pdf.

2) President, B. S. (n.d.). Apparel and footwear: U.S. market value 2011-2016 | Statistic. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/491214/apparel-and-footwear-united-states-market-value/

3) Posted by Annabelle Wong on May 1, 2013 at 2:27am View Blog. (n.d.). Two Faces of Economic Development: The Ethical Controversy Surrounding U.S.-Related Sweatshops in Developing Asian Countries. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/two-faces-of-economic-development-the-ethical-controversy

4) Consumption II Sector Industry Briefs. (2015). Retrieved December 11, 2016, from http://www.sasb.org/approach/our-process/industry-briefs/consumption-ii-briefs/


About the Authors

Katy Wilson 150Katy E. Wilson obtained her BS in Finance at Villanova University. For the past twelve years she has worked for several companies in the luxury retail industry in which she has held positions in the area of financial planning and analysis. She went on to receive her Masters in Business Administration with a concentration in Finance from Montclair State University. Being interested in understanding in more detail the operational aspects of business, she decided to pursue a Masters of Science in Supply Chain Management from Rutgers University. Katy has just completed her degree in December 2016. She hopes to apply what she has learned in order to achieve future career goals. From this program Katy became most interested in the impact of supply chain sustainability and corporate social responsibility.

Maung Min 150Dr. Maung K. Min is a Board Member of the Global Sourcing Council. The GSC is a non-profit organisation focused on sustainable, socially responsible sourcing practices. Dr. Min is an experienced management executive with over 25 years of track record of leading functions and initiatives in the areas of Sustainability, EHS and Supplier Management, IM, Manufacturing, and Quality Systems (including Operations Excellence/Continuous Improvement). He has led initiatives in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Dr. Min has held roles in Italy as well as in Puerto Rico and is passionate working in a global and multi-cultural setting. He is Director of Business Programs and Faculty at Penn State University – Lehigh Valley.

 

Submit a Comment