Theoretical Code: LEARNING

5.2.6.7 Theoretical Code: LEARNING

(active knowledge seeking for informed decision making)

Data suggested that in order to manage and work through their confusion about ethical fashion, consumers had much to learn. The suggestion within the media texts was that fashion consumers needed to be pro-active in their knowledge seeking “…looking out not just for Fairtrade labels, but also for companies who state openly that they have programs in place to ensure their employees in factories abroad are getting a fair wage.” (Fairtrade process code report) The claim being that “… consumers are the biggest driving force in the trend for socially and environmentally sound clothing." (Fairtrade process code report).

Those in the know predict that fashion is set to go the same way as food. Yes, we'll all be checking our labels for seals of approval such as 'organic', 'fair trade' and 'ethical' by the end of next year in the way we do our chicken or coffee. (ref)

However, unlike the familiar terms of ‘organic chicken’ or ‘Fairtrade coffee’, ethical fashion was presented using terms which appeared to be less familiar. In his 2006 report ‘Clean Up Fashion’ Martin Hearson rated UK high street fashion retailers by their ethics. In his report, Hearson claimed that customer confusion surrounding the various 'Fair Trade', 'Eco' and Ethical' labels in relation to fashion and clothing, was hindered by lack of representation by one single body, which in turn led to half-hearted promotional campaigns by retailers that “masquerade as conscientious”.(Fairtrade process code report).

It would appear that consumers were being asked to become more informed in their decision making and active in their pursuit of information about both the social and environmental impacts of their purchasing decisions. However, within the same media texts was the suggestion that readers should retain a somewhat cynical stance in their interpretations of retailer communications yet no firm advice could be offered in terms of where to seek the information required. While the BBC promoted their ‘Threads’ website as a ‘one-stop shop’ for information about ethical fashion and organisations such as the Ethical Trading Initiative and the Ethical Company Organisation are referred to, the breadth and depth of the information required to inform decision making seemed to require an easy to locate resource that would enable a high level of analysis if a consumer wished to simultaneously consider the impact of water-use, the use of chemicals, issues of landfill and matters of social inequity in the production and choice of fashion garments.

5.2.6.8 Theoretical Code: INVESTMENT

(buying desirable products means paying a premium)

136

Fletcher (2008) proposed that consumers “look within themselves at how they spend cash." As presented and discussed in section 5.2.6.4 the exclusivity of ethical fashion products appeared to be driven primarily by price and the market level of active brands. The examples of £150 for a pair of jeans and £1400 for a dress suggest that to participate, consumers would be expected to pay a premium and invest their ethical fashion wardrobe.

Indeed, journalist for The Mirror, Fletcher (2008) posed the question, ‘Is ethical shopping a luxury we can’t afford?”. As the ‘credit crunch’ hit the UK and the availability of fast fashion reached its peak, Fletcher asked his readers, “…can you really afford to care?”. Reporting on the exposure of Primark’s abuse of child labour, Fletcher asked mainstream consumers whether they were willing to pay a premium for products that would avoid social inequity.

The overriding response was that, despite recognition of the inherent moral issues and desirability of purchasing more ethical product choices, given the economic climate, it was

“… easy to forget ethics”

5.2.6.9 Theoretical Code: COMMITMENT

(safeguarding producers and safeguarding the environment)

Despite the comment above, a YouGov survey commissioned in 2006 by Marks & Spencer prior to the economic downturn, found that 78 per cent of consumers wished to “…know more about how goods are made, including the conditions in the factories where they are produced; 59 per cent admitted already buying fair trade products, while almost one-third said they had chosen not to buy an item of clothing because they felt concerned about where it had come from or the conditions under which it had been made.” Thompson (2006).

It would appear that a good number of mainstream consumers had the will to participate in more ethical purchasing decisions however, the impact of the economic climate had a severe impact upon the ability or the will to commit. It could be argued that, given the complex nature of the information that was accessible via mainstream media channels coupled with a lack of clarity about where to seek further, reliable information, the ability of the mainstream consumer to commit was severely hindered.

5.2.6.10 Core Category: Retailer Behaviour

Figure 5:10 below represents the core category of RETAILER BEHAVIOUR. Discussion that follows will make direct reference to the media texts that illustrate and account for each theoretical code and the selective codes that expose the ways in which the behaviour of retailers was represented in relation to ethical fashion during the period 2006—2008.

137

Figure 5:10 Core Category: Retailer Behaviour

5.2.6.11 Theoretical Code: COMMITMENT

(acknowledging challenges & committing to ethical practices)

"There are two broad criteria that brands should be judged on; their commitment to the environment and their commitment to the human rights of their work force, from production to shop floor" Hearson (2006)

The call for retailer commitment was clearly expressed within the texts although a recurring theme was that of a ‘half hearted’ rather than a ‘genuine commitment’ Sankey (2007).

Horror was expressed at the fact that retailers could “specify the exact width of a hem or position of a pocket yet claim they can't find out about or stop child labour in their factories.”

Thompson (2006).

The challenge of commitment to ethical practice was recognised in the reporting of high street brands that had made attempts to address some pressing issues. While Tesco was berated for its reputation for forcing down rates paid to suppliers to keep prices low in the shops and for their fuelling consumer appetite for 'throwaway fashion', Monsoon and Sainsbury's were acknowledged for their 'responsible' practices in cotton production and Fairtrade. However, both Monsoon and Sainsbury’s also came under attack for ignoring human rights issues associated with their supply chains.

Within the sample articles, readers were exposed to organisations such as Labour Behind the Label and the Ethical Trading Initiative; organisations which were associated with commitment to ethical practices. However, reports were clear in expressing that while retailers may have signed up to the Labour Behind the Label or the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), agreed with their principles and pledged to do more, neither were regulatory bodies, and membership did not require a guarantee of ethical trading; merely an intention ‘to be better’.

138