Garment worker exploitation: who is able to make a change?

It is estimated that only 2% of garment workers around the world are paid a living wage (Fashion Revolution, 2019). 

In addition to inadequate wages, garment workers in countries such as China, Bangladesh, India and even the UK, experience unsafe and inhumane conditions in their workplace. Upon the discovery of people working up to 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, being exposed to cancer-inducing chemicals and life-threatening structural dangers, it is blindingly obvious that something has to change. Yet the question remains: who is able to effectively improve the situation? And where does the responsibility lie?

While current commentary often involves the need for consumers to drive a change in fast fashion companies and the treatment of garment workers in their supply chain, this article will evaluate instead whether its governments or the companies themselves, who can really have an impact.

What is the issue?

Global fashion consumption has quadrupled in the past two decades, with total revenue estimated to reach US$760bn in 2024 (Statista,2023). In order to rapidly meet the increasing demand for a higher quantity and variety of clothes, manufacturers across the world have lurched into action, regardless of safety or ethical considerations.

For a low-income country with no previous specialisation, this presents an unmistakable financial opportunity. After China’s colossal economic transformation in the past three decades, the ever-expanding fashion industry acts as a glimmer of hope to dredge countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia out of recession. In theory.

The unanticipated reality revealed that it is actually the fashion companies that benefit the most financially. In 2021, Inditex group (responsible for brands such as Zara, Bershka and Pull & Bear), had the highest retail turnover, at 17.5 billion euros (Statista, 2021). They achieve such high revenue by requiring scarily low production costs from their suppliers, leading labour conditions in the factories, and subsequently the workers, to end up paying the price.

What role do governments have in ending garment worker exploitation?

Wage exploitation of garment workers is getting out of hand. On a global scale, around 327 million wage earners are remunerated equal to or below the applicable hourly minimum wage; 152 of which are women (ILO, 2020). Due to the adverse effects this has on a nation's poverty rates, it is in the government's best interest to implement measures ensuring fairer and higher wages. 

Consistent with this objective, Bangladesh introduced a proposal in November 2023 to establish a new minimum wage at 12,500 BDT ($113). However it was met with mass discontent and fatal protests, seeing as the wage is still 10,5000 BDT too low,  “condemning workers to a struggle for basic survival for the next 5 years” (Clean Clothes Campaign, 2023). In an ideal world, in order to combat the exploitation of the 4.4 million Bangladeshi garment workers (ibid.), the government should implement a minimum wage high enough to force fast fashion clothing companies to make a change. In theory, this is a foolproof method for the government to pull their desperate citizens above the poverty line. Yet in practice, this sort of change can not occur instantly, especially within a government as deeply entangled in the threads of fast fashion giants as Bangladesh’s. 

Contrary to popular belief, this issue is not endemic to low-income Asian countries. Almost six years ago, it was uncovered that workers were being paid as little as £3.50 an hour in certain clothing factories in Leicester, UK (FT, 2018). Leicester, a city once renowned for its booming clothing industry, took a downturn in the millennium due to the shift of manufacture to countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Yet, as some factories still remained, they clung onto survival in ways they saw fit: cost cutting. Unbeknownst to many, these illegal factories operated for a number of years before being exposed. Since being labelled ‘Operation Tacit’, the investigation into the ‘allegations of modern slavery in Leicester’ (GOV.UK, 2023) has continued up to the present day. Although it has not yet explicitly been published, the UK government is finally taking the measures needed to combat the issue. 

How effective are governments at improving the situation?

It could be argued that the real reason the government didn’t raise the minimum wage to as high as was needed, was due to the fear of bankrupting factories who cannot afford to pay such a wage. Implementing this microeconomic measure runs the risk of causing unemployment in competitive sectors like the garment-making industry—a more unfavourable outcome than refraining from intervention. However, if the fashion companies set a higher purchasing price in the first place, it would not be such a struggle. Setting a minimum wage is not always as easy or as effective as it seems. 

Garment workers do not only suffer from wage exploitation, but also general mistreatment regarding working hours, health & safety, and abuse. From a governmental standpoint, how easy is it to improve the situation? Institutions such as the International Labour Organisation play a key role in persuading countries to pledge against injustice and mistreatment in the workplace. The ILO has identified eight “fundamental” Conventions, addressing topics deemed fundamental principles and rights in the workplace (ILO, 2024). For example, “the elimination of all forms of forced labour; the effective abolition of child labour; and the elimination of discrimination in employment” (ibid.). Out of the eight top garment producing countries, only Pakistan and Indonesia have agreed to all eight Conventions (CCC,  2015), yet the ILO still strives to “achieve social justice” (ILO, 2024). 

Should it be the brands themselves who make a change?

On the other hand, the responsibility may lie with the fashion brands themselves, to improve business practices and pay their workers a fairer wage. As previously mentioned, governments struggle to solve the issue because their main tool (setting a minimum wage) can have detrimental impacts if raised too high. Nevertheless, if fashion brands put as much effort into setting a higher, fairer wage for their workers as they do to achieve the highest profit margins possible, then this would majorly combat the issue. 

Upon the discovery of unethical labour practices and working conditions, many brands claim that they were unaware, since their supply chain is so complex that it is difficult to investigate every single supplier. This is a lousy excuse. In fact, the fast fashion giants have set up their supply chains to harbour vicious competition between small, thirld-world suppliers, leading them to cut corners where possible to offer the lowest price. 

It is not impossible to have a 100% transparent supply chain. In fact, the B Corp certification insists on it. 8,139 corporations have disclosed their full list of suppliers, which have met the required standards to pass the ‘B Impact assessment’.  even fashion brands such as. International fashion brand Patagonia has been a B Corp since 2011, with an overall score of 151 - 200% higher than the median score. Moreover, Patagonia was the only brand that explicitly supported the Bangladeshi trade union demand for 23,000 BDT, despite H&M, Next, Uniqlo and M&S all having long-standing living wage commitments (CCC, 2023).  Patagonia’s estimated global revenue stands at $1.50bn (Statista, 2022) so it is hardly as if they are sacrificing financial success for the chance to operate sustainably and ethically. 

Regarding unethical labour practices within factories in countries such as Sri Lanka and India, corporations can make a change by carrying out more thorough and reliable auditing procedures, and hiring personnel to maintain higher labour standards. Although this is potentially wishful thinking, it is a clear way of improving worker’s treatment in the workplace, if the company were actually prepared to do so. Similarly, if brands carried out proper investigations into suppliers prior to doing business with them, then this would be far less of an issue. In the Leicester garment factories, after having revealed the pitiful wages workers were being paid, and the lack of protection during the COVID-19 pandemic, Boohoo stated that they were ‘unaware’ of what was going on and will ‘investigate further’ their suppliers (FT, 2020). Whether this occurred, and if proper action was taken, still remains unclear.

What fast fashion brands may not consider, is that public opinion is changing. Although it still remains popular to make a quick, low cost purchase from a brand such as Boohoo or Asos, the number of conscious consumers will continue to grow. Increased investment in the sustainable fashion market will lead to greater funds to afford lower prices, making conscious consumerism more accessible to lower-income individuals. 

What is the answer?

Garment workers and factory owners all over the world are trapped in a corrupt web of international fashion companies. In an industry - and global economy - driven by money, businesses are confronted daily with the dilemma: in a downturned economy, competition is high. As a business, how do you outweigh making a stand against ethical issues, and succeeding against competitors? With the help of governments, organisations such as the International Labour Organisation and B Corp certification, they can help incentivise corporations to operate sustainably and ethically. 

At the end of the day, no change is going to occur overnight. Such deep-seated corruption and exploitation is hard to alter. Despite the importance of ‘voting with your wallet’ as a consumer, the cost of living crisis has made it more difficult for individuals to boycott fast fashion brands and only shop sustainably. Instead, we should be writing to MPs and CEOs to persuade them to make a change. It is the companies at fault and the governments with enough resources and influence, who can put an end to garment worker exploitation. 

joanna.b107@gmail.com

Bibliography

BBC, 2020. Government 'must stop garment worker exploitation'. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465977.

Clean Clothes Campaign, 2015. Facts on the Global Garment Industry. Available at: https://cleanclothes.org/resources/publications/factsheets/general-factsheet-garment-industry-february-2015.pdf. 

Clean Clothes Campaign, 2023. Bangladesh government proposes new poverty wage of 12,500 BDT ($113) per month, ignoring the workers’ desperate calls. Available at: https://cleanclothes.org/news/2023/bangladesh-minimum-wage-announcement. 

Financial Times, 2020. UK ministers promise crackdown on Leicester clothing factories. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b1ff70c6-0da1-4157-802f-47d03f51ccd0. 

GOV.UK, 2023. Independent report: Review of Operation Tacit. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-operation-tacit/review-of-operation-tacit#reporting.

ILO, 2001. Bonded Labour in Pakistan. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/publications/WCMS_096991/lang--en/index.htm. 

International Labour Organisation, 2020. Global Wage Report 2020-21: Wages and minimum wages in the time of COVID-19. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/global-wage-report/2020/WCMS_762302/lang--en/index.htm. 

International Labour Organisation, 2024. Introduction to international labour standards: Conventions and Recommendations. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conventions-and-recommendations/lang--en/index.htm. 

Statista, 2021. Leading fashion and clothing retailers in Europe in 2021, based on turnover in Europe. Available at: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/711107/turnover-of-clothing-retailers-in-european-union-eu. 

Statista, 2022. Patagonia Inc. Available at: https://www.statista.com/companies/c/25207154/patagonia-inc#companyProfileFinanceSection. 

Statista, 2023. Fashion - Worldwide. Available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/fashion/worldwide.