* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Focus on Boohoo fails to address systemic exploitation of garment workers in Leicester and across global supply chains
Joanna Ewart-James is the Executive Director of Freedom United and a Trustee for Labour Behind the Label Trust
Over the past two weeks discussions abound on the causes of, and responsibility for the exploitation of workers in Leicester’s garment industry. Conclusions range from the home secretary’s statement that “cultural sensitivities” prevented police from acting, to the popular position that the heavily-advertised and so easily recognised brands, namely Boohoo, should squarely be in the firing line.
A cross-government taskforce has been set up by the Home Office to investigate how conditions allowed this exploitation. This has been welcomed in a letter by a coalition of NGOs led by Labour Behind the Label, which points to a decade’s worth of numerous reports detailing abusive working conditions in Leicester, and other factories both in the UK and internationally.
Indeed, Raj Mann, the police contact for Leicester’s Sikhs, explained that “The local authorities have known these sweatshops exist for decades but they’ve been loath to do anything about it for fear of being accused of picking on immigrant or refugee communities, as a lot of the exploited workers are of Indian background.”
On the face of it, this quote might support the “political correctness argument” but what it disguises is a tolerance of exploitation that is facilitated through restrictive immigration policies, the infamous “hostile environment” in the UK, and race discrimination in society at large that pushes people from minority ethnic groups, including migrants, into accepting illegal exploitation.
Labour Behind the Label’s report explains: ‘The lack of documented resident status or entitlement to work means that many workers are willing to accept poor conditions in exchange for a job – even one without formal contracts or minimum wages.
This also contributes to a situation where workers are unable or unwilling to speak out about labor rights abuses for fear of being deported or otherwise investigated.’ In the face of race discrimination reducing opportunities and undermining protections, even those with the right to work are easily coerced.
This is not a local Leicester issue, it is a nationwide, no global system that tolerates and even facilitates the mistreatment and exploitation of relatively poor peoples’ labour because of accepted social discrimination based on race, ethnicity or caste, for an industry bent on driving prices down, quick turnaround, and low labour costs, putting tremendous pressure worldwide on low-wage, immigrant manufacturing workers to churn out cheap garments whilst society comfortably turns a blind eye to what must be the true cost.
A lot less talked about is the role of consumers, the public at large, and their power to change the status quo that has facilitated this exploitation. Some consumers have posted their outrage on Boohoo’s social media channels, and may be surprised to have learnt that sweatshops are not only a blight for developing countries.
It’s possibly the western location of this site of exploitation has underpinned the swift backlash as Next, Asos, and Zalando dropped Boohoo, and Standard Life Aberdeen, a major Boohoo shareholder, dumped nearly all of its shares in the company. Boohoo’s stock has tanked, dropping 23% and wiping £1 billion from the value of the company.
Yes Boohoo must revise their purchasing practices but we need a shift from a constant game of campaigning by brand, to changes in the wider environment creating communities that are resilient to exploitation. That extends beyond the brands’ practices into a ‘slavery-free economy’, civic leadership, labour rights and consumer habits, to draw from Dr Alison Gardner’s modelling of the social determinants for sustainable resilience to slavery.
At the moment consumers are mostly left in the dark when it comes to supply chains and labour practices in garment factories, limiting their ability to leverage their consumer power without the momentum of a big media campaign.
That’s why transparency is a strong starting point, albeit far from the desirable end point of corporate action. Transparency is publishing full details of a company’s supply chain, it is not, as Boohoo’s action suggest, committing to publishing information and terminating relationships with suppliers on finding illegal practices.
Working towards an end to exploitation like we’ve seen in Leicester is about everything from changing business practices to building consumer knowledge through transparency and so behaviour; measuring success not simply by measuring profits; being firm on tackling discrimination; providing legal routes for migrant workers; enforcing employment law; and much in between.
Together, as society, we can reset expectations creating the will for change in a system that sadly makes exploitation of some people for others’ benefit all too easy today.
