B: Bangladesh

With approximately 28 euros per month per month it has the lowest minimum wage in the world for factory workers. Between 2006 and 2012 more than 800 clothing factory workers have been killed as a result of fire and building violations. An estimated 4500 textile factories in the country are unsafe. And although officially banned, the deadly sandblasting technique is still in use in sweatshops. These are some of the sad facts about the 15 billion euro textile industry in Bangladesh.

These unfair labour practices, although taking place in a distant country, are not unrelated to our wardrobes. Bangladesh is among the top three producers of European clothing. H&M is the largest buyer of clothing in Bangladesh. The Rana Plaza factory disaster, which killed over 1000 garment workers in April 2013, demonstrated unequivocally that Bangladeshi factories produce for high street retailers such as Zara and Benetton.

So what can be done to make things better? In Spring 2013, the Dutch government announced its intention to coordinate international donations and efforts to improve factory safety in Bangladesh for the next two years, which would result in a widely shared action plan. In the meantime, a growing number of international fashion retailers, including H&M, C&A, Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein, have signed the binding Fire and Building Safety Agreement which was initiated by the Clean Clothes Campaign amongst others.

Worryingly, companies such as Disney have announced to stop producing in Bangladesh, and move business to countries such as Myanmar and Thailand. Obviously this wouldn’t help garment workers in Bangladesh, nor contribute to fair labour practices in its rival developing countries. Another challenge concerns our clothing shopping habits. A Dutch survey held a mere week after the Rana Plaza factory collapse revealed that just 24% of consumers intend to check clothing labels in shops in order to see where an item was made. No more than 1% of Dutch consumers think they are responsible for the Rana Plaza tragedy. The majority of respondents says it’s primarily up to the Bangladesh government and factory owners to take action.

The good news is that the Dhaka factory collapse has put the labour rights situation in Bangladesh's garment industry firmly on the agenda of governments, brands, retailers as well as consumers. This awareness could put the spotlights on fashion labels that are producing ethically in Bangladesh, such as Tulsi Crafts and People Tree. And surely once Western consumers become familiar with the appeal of these types of brands, they will be more likely to embrace sustainable collections in favour of the cheap, fast fashion that is at the root of the problems in the Bangladesh garment industry?

L: Local fashion

Wool made of British sheep. Clothing made of nettle grown in the Dutch polder. Shoes made in Italy. The European production of clothing and shoes is a niche market. Textile production having been moved to low wage countries in Asia, Africa and South America, very little of our current wardrobe has been made locally. The negative environmental and social effects of this shift have become evident. To name but a few: energy intensive global distribution processes, water pollution, child labor in cotton harvesting, and sweatshops where factory workers earn less than a living wage while working 80 to 100 hours per week.

The gravity of these issues have stimulated sustainable fashion labels to search for more planet & people friendly production processes. At the same time, pressure by Greenpeace, the Clean Clothes Campaign and others have made mainstream fashion companies more aware of the need to consider the environmental and social impacts of their ways of doing business in low wage countries. What’s more, recent developments in Asia, where wages are getting higher and transport costs are increasing, have made these companies consider the benefits of producing closer to home.

In the UK, initiatives like Handmade in Britain and the Campaign for Wool have attempted to stimulate local textile and fashion production. For consumers, local enterprises promise to offer high quality, often unique products with a good story – about authenticity, heritage and sustainability.

In a similar vein, a growing number of Dutch fashion designers have chosen to work with local production facilities. Many of these are (subsidized) sewing studios for disadvantaged groups, including physically challenged men, women with a psychiatric background, immigrants who don’t yet speak Dutch or teenagers who have dropped out of school. The reason why labels such as Ellen Willink, Coverbee, i-did and Ami-e-toi work with these production facilities is not just out of a concern with labor standards in low wage countries and a commitment to enable vulnerable groups to participate in the job market. They also take into account the environmental benefits of producing locally. And the fact that they create unique, feelgood products? For all of us consumers that’s a free bonus.

N: Naming & shaming – and beyond

In October 2012, Textile Exchange put the spotlights on ten companies that are committed to organic cotton. Anvil Knitwear, C&A, Dibella, Ethicus, Gossypium, H&M, Hess Natur, Nike, Patagonia and Veja all received a Future Shapers Award, a reward for their growing use of organic cotton and for their ambitions to adopt more biocotton in their future collections.

Textile Exchange is a non-profit organization that aims to accelerate sustainable practices in the textile value chain. It was founded in 2002 in the United States and works with clothing brands as diverse as Adidas, H&M, Patagonia, Anvil and Lenzing. The Future Shapers Awards ceremony was part of the annual Textile Exchange conference, which took place in Hongkong in October and celebrated the organization’s ten year anniversary.

Handing out awards to companies that have demonstrated a willingness to adopt sustainable practices seems to be more popular nowadays than the naming & shaming strategies that labour associations and organizations like the Clean Clothes Campaign have traditionally adopted. For instance, in 2012 a number of Dutch consumer groups launched the Push Fashion Forward campaign, which rewarded companies that publicly admitted to improve environmental and social standards in their supply chain. After critically reviewing brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, DIDI, Steps, Zara, Esprit, Mango, Only, Pieces, Jack & Jones and River Island, those that pledged to commit to more sustainable practices were surprised with a visit from a group of enthusiastic consumers. In the end, three Dutch brands – Hema, Sissy-Boy and Protest – received a Push Fashion Forward Award to celebrate their increased commitment to sustainable fashion.

Cynics will be quick to point out that it remains to be seen if mainstream brands such as Hema, C&A, H&M, Nike and Adidas will live up to the expectations that have been created by their elaborate CSR policy reports. I’m sure that organizations such as Textile Exchange and GoedeWaar.nl will keep an eye on that. And of course, let’s not forget that consumers can stimulate sustainable change as well, both through their buying behavior and by consistently pestering their favourite stores and brands about environmental and social standards.