The UK Parliament is currently examining
the social and environmental impact of clothes production, especially items
produced cheaply and quickly in response to changing fashion trends - commonly known
as 'fast fashion'.
The House of Commons environmental
audit committee (EAC) have recently asked several fashion retailers how they could justify
such low prices. Primark's spokesman Paul Lister said the firm spent nothing on
advertising and had tight profit margins.
Representatives from brands including
Boohoo, Misguided, Asos, Burberry and Marks & Spencer also gave evidence to
the committee.
Labour MP Mary Creagh, chair of the
committee, asked Primark's head of ethical trade and environmental
sustainability, Paul Lister: "How can you justify selling T-shirts in your
stores for as little as £2 or £3, and how can you be making a profit on
those?"
Lister replied that: "Primark has
never done any significant advertising at all, and that can save us in any year
£100m to £150m, compared to some of our larger rivals. That goes straight into
price. That keeps our pricing low. It's our business model that takes us to a
£2 T-shirt."
On the subject of waste, Mr Lister
said that Primark had very little unused stock and was planning to launch a
take-back scheme for consumers next year, where old clothes can be returned and
used again by overseas charities.
Ms Creagh suggested that by making
garments so cheaply, they were being devalued. But Mr Lister replied that:
"Every item that we make, we're looking at durability. We are proud of the
quality and durability of our garments, they're not built to throw away."
Why is Parliament looking at this
issue?
Producing clothes results in carbon emissions.
Global textile production produces 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon emissions a
year- more than international flights and maritime shipping.
Last month, MPs on the committee
concluded that the fashion industry was a major source of the greenhouse gases
that are causing climate change. They believe that the throwaway nature of
fashion is also fuelling fast turnarounds among suppliers, which might result
in poor working conditions.
As well as questioning Primark, the
committee also took evidence from Carol Kane, joint CEO of online fashion house
Boohoo. She was asked how the company could sell dresses for as little as £5
when the minimum wage was £7.83.
She replied that this only applied to
a small number of dresses intentionally sold at a loss, to drive more traffic
to the site.
Ms Kane said that: "I believe
this all comes back to consumer demand. I've been in the industry for 32 years,
and in that time I've seen prices decline."
Jamie Beck, from the Arcadia group,
which includes Topshop, Burton, and Dorothy Perkins said: "These garments
aren't designed to be a disposable item, to be bought for [just] a holiday.
They're designed to be long-lasting."
What about high-end fashion brands?
It’s not just the cheap ‘fast fashion’
brands who are accused of being wasteful. During the hearing, the premium
fashion brand Burberry also defended criticism from MPs for dumping clothes.
Earlier this year, Burberry was
criticised for burning £30 million ($39 million) of stock. It admitted destroying
the unsold clothes, accessories and perfume instead of selling them off
cheaply, in order to protect the brand's exclusivity and value.
Leanne Wood, Burberry's chief of
corporate affairs, told MPs the firm was committed to stopping the activity,
but she added: "It is an industry practice. We're the only luxury business
that's reported it in their accounts, but it is something that happens in the
industry."
Boohoo, Misguided and Asos were also questioned
on their relationships with suppliers accused of exploiting workers in Britain.
Paul Smith, head of product quality
and supply at Misguided, said the company had cut the number of businesses it
worked with in Leicester - where many of the factories are based - from 35 to
just 20 due to concerns about pay and conditions at some sites there.
After the hearing, Ms Creagh said that:
"Evidence we heard today justifies our concerns that the current system
allows fashion retailers to mark their own homework when it comes to workers'
rights, fair pay and sustainability.”
"Marks and Spencer are supposed to
be a leading light in corporate responsibility, but even they pulled out of a
scheme seeking to achieve living wages for garment workers through collective
bargaining. Boohoo did not convince us that it had a grip on the potential
illegal underpayment of their Leicester-based workers."
The View of The Customer Service
Blog
All of these investigations into the fashion
industry present some important (and awkward) questions for MPs. Where does the
customer fit into all of this? It’s fine for highly paid middle class Members
of Parliament to be critical of cheap clothing companies. But people who are
surviving on low pay or on state benefits are delighted that the prices of
clothing items have been falling over the last decade.
Companies like Primark might not
provide the highest quality items, but if you are a parent on a low income
trying to clothe several children, then cheap items are a godsend. And because
kids grow up so quickly, many of these items will be disposed of within a short
time period, regardless of whether they cost £2 each or £20 each.
It is strange that Mary Creagh, a
member of the (Socialist) Labour Party is so concerned about cheap clothing,
when it is the very people that she represents who desperately need help to be
able to afford the essentials in life. And cheaper clothing is a massive help
to poorer families.
Obviously action needs to be taken to
reduce waste, and ultimately to reduce damaging carbon emissions. But this
committee of MPs seem to have taken a lot of evidence from the clothing
companies themselves, but have not listened to the views of the long-suffering
customers.
To see hundreds more articles click here to visit our archive
To see hundreds more articles click here to visit our archive