The collapse of the Dhaka building last week, killing at over 1,000 people, was a catastrophe waiting to happen. Public fury was directed at Primark, and rightly so, but few of our high street brands can claim the moral high ground. In fact, none of us can.
How many of us know where the products we use on a daily basis come from, or whether they’re ethically produced? Do we know if the corporation that produces them is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which, in theory, provides protection for overseas workers? (I say, “in theory”, because Primark is an ETI member, which counted for nothing in Dhaka). This highlights the need, not just for the policies, but to ensure they’re being implemented and monitored.
The existence of sweatshops and the proclivity of corporations to put profits before the interests of people and the planet is not new. Last month, the retailer Zara was accused of using sweatshops to produce their garments in Argentina. An investigation by The Argentinian Heath and Safety Association allegedly found evidence of child exploitation and holding children against their will.
A few years ago Top Shop was accused of producing garments made in sweat shops and of failing to protect vulnerable overseas employees. Yet, Sir Philip Green continues to resist calls to sign up to the ETI (unless he’s done so without my knowledge, in which case I would of course proffer a full apology). There’s also that nasty business of Sir Green’s alleged tax avoidance shenanigans. The more said about that the better, but that’s a whole other posting.
Despite PepsiCo producing, what has been described as misogynistic and, “arguably the most racist commercial in history” this week, profits are unlikely to take much of a hit. Ad agencies commonly employ foetuses (mostly male) in order to stay “on trend” and be down with the yoof. Yet, this ad is a throw back to the 50’s. An era wherein glorifying violence against women and employing cringeworthy racist stereotyping was deemed a competitive sport. That’s the problem with people who aren’t even born yet making ad campaigns. They inhabit an impenetrable bubble and think Mad Men is aspirational.
Ford’s recent ad in India, depicting scantily clad women gagged and tied in the boot of a car, is another example of male foetal disconnect with a world where women actually exist. Sometimes even fully clothed and driving a car, but not a Ford obviously. If Ford wanted women to buy their cars, they’d hardly portray them in such a demeaning, abusive manner now would they?
The pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (producers of Lucozade, Ribena, Macleans and, according to the BBC’s Panorama, dodgy trial data), has been accused of using black orphans in New York as guinea pigs for testing Aids drugs. The aforementioned Panorama Programme also raised concerns about the drug Seroxat (used in the treatment of depression in children) being linked to aggression, suicide and dependency. GSK was allegedly aware of some of these dangers for a number of years but withheld crucial information from the public domain, only publishing trials that showed positive outcomes.
Workers in third world countries, where their rights are non existent and regulation negligible, are easy targets for unscrupulous multinationals. British American Tobacco and others are being sued in Nigeria over allegations that they targeted underage minors to increase smoking rates in the country. It’s alleged the companies sponsored pop concerts, sporting events and even gave away free cigarettes to entice minors into the habit. Smoking is said to be responsible for more deaths worldwide than HIV/Aids. With depleting sales in The West, children in third world countries make easy prey for global predators.
Another serial offender is Nestle, a company that courts bad publicity in the way Pete Doherty approaches personal hygiene – with reckless abandon. Unlike Doherty, Nestle has proven quite impervious to even the most scathing of criticism. It’s accused of persistently flouting international regulations by marketing baby formula in countries, such as Africa where, due to poor sanitation, bottle feeding is unsafe due to water quality. Nestle is also part of a cohort of chocolate producers who source much of their cocoa from the unregulated market of West Africa. Last year it was reported that an independent investigation by The Fair Labour Association found Nestle in breach of numerous child labour regulations.
Yet, we continue to line the pockets of morally bankrupt companies. It’s our insatiable, unquestioning hunger, be it for chocolate or being seen sporting the “right” brands, that fuels exploitation. In order to break the pervasive cycle of abuse we cannot remain oblivious, and/or indifferent, to the hidden human cost of our brands. If we want the blight of modern day slavery to stop, we have to pay a price.
Fairtrade products can provide an ethical alternative but they too have come in for legitimate criticism. For not doing more for the poorest of the poor, for example. Small farmers who don’t have the numbers required to form a co-operative (a condition of Fairtrade accreditation) lose out. It’s also alleged that only 5% of revenue made from Fairtrade products in the West comes back to the farmers. A fair question then is, why pay over the odds for a Fairtrade product when so little makes its way back to the producers?
Fairtrade is a noble principle but we must hold the brand accountable for its practice, in the same way we would the corporations. Whether it’s Make Poverty History (accused of sourcing wrist bands from sweatshops) or Fairtrade, we can’t be complacent. As long as we fill our baskets with tainted wares, corporations have no reason to change the way they operate.
No comments:
Post a Comment