Courtney Dootson
Graphic Design Student
Problems with non ethical brands
Continuing from the examples, these are the problems of what the brands do to make them unethical.
From the good on you website, they rated on how ethical Forever 21 is and how they recommend other brands that you can rely on for the right price and better quality.
​
They say that the environmental impact is very poor as they have failed to say anything meaningful about their sustainability policies, which makes shoppers believe that they have the right to know how their production practices impact on our environment. This proves we can't trust a brand that doesn't share what they do with waste etc. For the Labour conditions, Good on you said it's not good enough for our expectations and there is proof that they failed by receiving an overall score of D+ from the 2017 Ethical Fashion Report. They look at payment of a living wage, transparency and worker empowerment initiatives. They are one of the only fast fashion brands to still refuse to sign the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, which is a legally binding agreement that requires brands to ensure safe working conditions in supplier factories. For the animal welfare, the website said it was good, but overall they were rated not good enough to be an ethical brand.
Forever 21
Calvin Klein
Again, I used the good on you website to show how ethical this brand is and to be honest it doesn't look good for them as they are "Not good enough".
​
For the environmental impact, they are slowly improving the impact, but when I say slow, I mean extremely slow because they have not set specific targets to reduce carbon emissions or water usage, but they are becoming a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and promising to eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals by 2020. Calvin Klein was highlighted in the Greenpeace Dirty Laundry report as one of the brands linked to water pollution in China. With the Labour conditions, they were also rated by the 2017 Ethical Fashion Report as 'Not good enough'. They only trace some of their supply chain and do not publicly list their suppliers. They also have minimal worker empowerment initiatives and has made little to no progress toward ensuring the payment of a living wage. For the animal welfare, they don't sell or use fur, but the brand uses leather, wool, down feather, angora, cashmere and shearling without stating their sources.
I searched converse and the good on you website and overall they rated converse 'It's a start'. It shows previously they haven't been doing ethical things with their brand, but because times and changing and people become more interested in the background of clothing brands, Converse must've thought that they need to change. The environmental impact shows that they have set a goal to by starting to use a low proportion of eco-friendly materials including organic and recycled cotton and polyester and minimise off-cuts in parts of the manufacturing process and have a waste reduction strategy for most of their supply chain. However, they have made no commitment to eliminate hazardous chemicals, and their chemicals policy has attracted criticism from Greenpeace’s Detox Catwalk campaign. The Labour conditions show minimal worker empowerment initiatives, which is a D+, and received an F in relation to implementing a living wage or improving wages across their supply chain. And for the animal welfare, they have banned fur, and do not use wool, angora, down or any exotic animal hair or skin, however they still use leather.