DISCOVE (RED)

It's fashionable today to be charitable. Or to at least be involved in some form of charity.

But let's get real: true charity, true compassion, which requires real, personal sacrifice will never be fashionable, nor popular. For example: GAP adopts Product Red, which supposedly donates a percentage of the product's profit to some nebulous humanitarian projects in Africa.

Consequently, GAP gains priceless exposure and consumer loyalty through its Product Red campaign. A million shoppers appease the guilt of our consumerism by consuming Product Red. Suddenly we’re all better people than we were and we’re making the world a better place and we hardly had to do anything different than the way we did it before!

Then some punk freelance journalist shoots some footage of a factory in India and reality strikes, like it did this weekend when the story broke that some of GAP’s wonderfully cute baby clothes are in fact being made by 10-year-old kids sold as slaves to textile factories in India. Of course, GAP denies any knowledge of this.

I mean, yeah, how the hell should they ever suspect that the Indian contractors bidding to make their gorgeous little sweatshirts at cut-throat costs might be exploiting kids to get it done?

Gimme a break.

Moral of the story: if it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Comments

[Anne]

Hey Lynn,
I read that article over the weekend and was similarly disappointed with the news. But by the same token, this unfortunate occurrence happens frequently to retailers who have their products made overseas. The same happened to Nike a few years ago. Same with Liz Claiborne and more recently, Mattel’s problems with lead in toys manufactured in China. These companies set high standards for the manufacturing of their products. They have to because consumers demand it. However, the vendors subcontract various parts of production and the subcontractors often subcontract to another and another vendor. As you can imagine, the standards get watered down and too often, an eye to profit allows everyone to overlook poor labour standards.

I’m not by any means excusing the GAP from responsibility but my point is that it is often too easy to vilify the corporate giant. Some of the responsibility also lies with the native subcontractors who are corrupt enough to employ child labour and with the governments themselves.

In choosing to manufacture their products overseas, the GAP, Nike, Liz Claiborne, Mattel and companies like these have an increased responsibility to protect vulnerable employees. Thanks to universal health care and public education, Canadian children don’t have to face these kinds of horrors but like I said, the problem goes beyond the corporate giant. Surely some of the responsibility also lies with the governments to protect their citizens. To create an environment where parents don’t have to face the decision to sell a child just to survive.

In my opinion, the GAP and others can easily rectify the situation simply by choosing to produce their garments in North America.

As for the product RED items that GAP sells and the pink products that donate to breast cancer, I can’t see the problem with this. It’s a brilliant marketing solution that raises the profile of the cause, allows consumers to give to a cause they may not normally give to and it allows the company to show their corporate social responsibility. This is a classic win-win situation.

There is also spill over benefits for non-profits involved in the same cause. How much money would hands at work have to raise to get the same profile for AIDS in Africa that the GAP has given it? There is no way a small not-for-profit could do it which is why it’s important for large organizations to shine the spotlight. Moreover, there’s not a non-profit group in the world that would turn down the significant donation the GAP makes on the basis that it promotes consumerism – senseless or otherwise.

Not everyone will go to Africa to do what you and Jayme do. I’ve said it before - it’s highly unlikely that I will ever follow in your footsteps. That said I’m more than happy to donate to an organization that will send people/supplies/money to a cause even if 30% goes to administrative fees. And believe it or not, that cheque is actually written with a lot of compassion. Moreover, sometimes the best thing charity can be is fashionable and popular – how else can we change the world?

But then again, maybe it’s just me.

[boyd]

I think a big part of the problem lies with the consumer and our constant demand to "get our money's worth". Organizations like the GAP are under pressure to deliver high fashion at a low price but somehow I can't help but think somebody is doing some crafty marketing and making a buck off the misfortunes of others. It is good however, to see some of that wealth getting spread around and consciousness being raised.
Still, we'd be fools to think that when Walmart "miraculously" slashes their prices yet again that some child somewhere in the world isn't suffering a bit more.
May we all shop in peace

[Lynn]

Thanks, Anne, for your considered response...much more considered than my post. I understand your argument about Product Red, but I'm still not a Red believer. But that's a long discussion.

Also, I’m certainly not anti-business. As Boyd says, I believe that consumer demand for the ever-lower priced shirt is largely to blame. I also believe that investor demand for short-term value gains is also to blame. But I still also believe that a lumbering corporate giant like GAP has a responsibility beyond simply signing an agreement with its less-resourced partners in 3rd-world countries to play fair and right.

It’s true that 3rd-world business leaders need to take responsibility and do what’s right. But GAP is the one that sets this entire chain into motion. They lumber into these countries and wave wads of cash under the noses of of 3rd-world start-up businessmen, most with little-to-no experience or mentorship in governance. They know very well that such a lucrative offer creates temptation to do whatever it takes to score the contract.

Yes, 3rd-world leaders need to learn to keep their heads in such business deals, and they can’t forever swoon at the attention of GAP-like money. But GAP knows this situation well. To my worldview that means they have a responsibility that goes beyond passing the buck based on a flimsy agreement. I believe they have a responsibility to the people they make money off of. They have a responsibility to share efficiency models, to mentor managers, and to advise.

[Anne]

Some good news. I hope the link works!
Anne

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2204881,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Lynn]

Thanks, Anne. That is good news.
And it's a good example of how the media, coupled with the threat of consumer activism, can affect change.