H&M and Human Rights Issues
By Camille Ray
With a myriad of issues facing the world today, including climate change, plastic pollution, the devastation of coral reefs, water scarcity, and deforestation, to name a few, the fashion industry often goes unnoticed in the equation, despite operating as one of the main contributors to both environmental and human labor issues. No doubt, pressure for unrelenting growth coupled with insatiable consumer demand for cheap, trend-fueled fashion have played enduring roles in the failure of reducing planetary impacts.
Like all industries, the fashion industry is lodged in a broader system reliant on development, often contingent on brand missions demanding results by “any means necessary.” To put in perspective, fashion holds responsibility for around 10 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, equating to more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. On a human rights scale, fast fashion also relies on informal workers, often marginalized populations left to bear the brunt of labor consequences, to operate in conditions that infringe on numerous levels of human labor rights. For example, while the garment industry provides around 60 million jobs, one report states that 89 percent of H&M workers’ wages were below the international poverty line during the pandemic.
As more progressive times trudge forward, campaigns surrounding the transparency of both environmental and human impacts of production and sales are coming up to attract customers dedicated to sustainable practices. One such company paving the way for store transparency initiatives is The H&M Group.
Selling around three billion articles of clothing per year, H&M’s revenue pool sits among the top three fashion retailers in the world. As it sprawls ever farther across the globe, hopping from trend to trend, customers were left wondering where these garments originated and how far-reaching companies could keep track of it all. Currently, under the company’s “consumer-facing transparency layer,” viewers and store users can pinpoint not only the country where clothing was manufactured but also details on materials and recycling, the name of the supplier or authorized subcontractor where a garment was made; the factory address; and the number of workers employed there.
Despite its promising implementation, there are several limits to the level of detail each sustainability blurb can present to customers. For example, the tab doesn’t disclose that Jinnat Apparels & Fashion plant in Gazipur sprawls over seven floors, each the size of a football field, or that workers manufacture roughly 110 tons of clothing daily. With thousands of secondary manufacturing contracts, tracking and ensuring environmental and labor laws are upheld virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, as one of few high-profile retail companies with dedicated teams and sections of their websites marketed towards sustainability, H&M is paving the way for more companies to follow, putting extended pressure on poorly managed civil rights laws. That said, transparency is only a component on the road to actual sustainable practices. If anything, contorted efforts like H&M’s transparency mission merely prolong the existence of a system where profits are continually placed ahead of employees and the environment.
To further encourage sustainability practices, consumers must embrace their pivotal role in holding fast-fashion brands accountable for their impacts on the shared world rather than settling for unfounded company promises. While companies maintain a significant influence in framing and shaping demand for products and services, consumer spending is the most important driving force behind the American economy. In demanding better treatment of others and the environment, fast-fashion brands will be forced to adhere to customer desires or face bankruptcy on account of limited revenue bases.
As the prevailing culture of overconsumption, spearheaded by the fast fashion industry, forges ahead, sustainability efforts in the form of transparency should be recognized as a step in the right direction, but by no means a solution to the problem at hand. In order for a paradigm shift toward conscious consumption to occur in the mainstream market, the concept of responsibility without being misled by attempts at sustainability is paramount. Until the industry faces accountability for its actions, it will continue making money at the behest of corporate leaders unburdened by the mess they leave behind.