To think Beckham paying children 13p an hour to make his clothes is disgraceful

[jdoe8]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215728/Beckham-s-H-M-fashion-range-child-labour-shame.html

"David: Beckham pledged to devote his life to charity helping poor children of the world, but the firm selling his clothes used child labour paid 13p an hour"

Wow that is low IMO. I know the beckhams are admired by most on MN for being amazing, but seriously..

You know that companies hands aren't completely tied here? They have the option to manufacture in better regulated locations.

Surely the problem is that we want disposable and cheap clothing and this is how the factories make their money?

Hit the nail on the head. I loathe the disposable, fast fashion culture with a passion as it creates mountains of waste which can't even be resold through charity shops as it's so poorly made with cheap fabric. I don't think for a second that any celebrity who puts their name to a line of clothing makes decisions about which factory to use or where to buy the fabric. It's unfair to write the thread title as if DB sat down and made the conscious decision to use child workers and pay them buttons.

But of course this shouldn't be happening and it's good that it's been brought to the attention of H&M. UK sweatshops exist too - there was a recent C4 expose highlighting factories in Leicester paying less than £3 an hour, making clothes for the likes of River Island and New Look.

I think it's kind of obscene to license your name to sell clothes but divest yourself of any responsibility

Exactly, these people have got the money to insure that the supply chain is excellent else they shouldn't put their name on it. How much money does one person really need?

do you only buy clothes from companies you are sure don't exploit children

I do only buy from reputable companies, or buy second hand and have a very minimal wardrobe of about 40 items.

Supply chains are so complicated now that most (almost all clothing) supply chains have some illegal labour involved in the production.

Even if you get the raw cotton & spin it yourself... how do you think the cotton was grown & harvested?

these people have the money to insure the supply chain is excellent

This is a very naive understanding of how business works. H&M will have all their buyers with their long established links in the trade, their network of suppliers, their senior management team who've signed off on partnerships/rates/etc, their shareholders who don't want any surprises in relation to profit margins.

And in addition, the clothing industry is well known for having some of the most complex and murky supply chains in the world.

To suggest that Beckham can just snap his fingers and change all that is astonishingly naive. H&M would have no interest in that whatsoever.

Big companies that are trying hard, want to make sure that they can market themselves as highly ethical, struggle to make sure their supply chains are free of child-labour. Anyone wanting to be pristine, needs to grown your own flax, press & weave it, cut it up & sew it. Otherwise you're at mercy of whatever is going on internationally.

There is a whole 'nother argument about how sweatshop conditions can actually be liberating for young women, who suddenly have economic value, out from under the yoke of repressive home lives.

Dont forget wages are relative to what things cost. In the 70s working for less than £1 an hour was common, but things were cheaper. I was offered a job teaching in china. I would have been high paid for the district, but would have taken home so little in uk terms, i wof have been in real same of being trapped there..

To suggest that Beckham can just snap his fingers and change all that is astonishingly naive. H&M would have no interest in that whatsoever.

Poor old David Beckham. Compelled against his will to license his image for merchandise that he makes a fortune out if. Why oh why should he be forced to sign these contracts?

How were H&M meant to know? By having a proper grip on their suppliers perhaps, as they claim to have on their own website:
We are very careful before entering into working relationships with anyone..... We only allow our products to be manufactured by suppliers and factories that commit to our values and sign our strict code of conduct.
about.hm.com/en/sustainability/sustainable-fashion/working-conditions.html

I love clothes, love, love, love them but I'm sick to death of fashion retailers wringing their hands and saying they didn't know whenever they're caught out.

And David Beckham was not powerless here. He's not exactly without connections in the industry.

So it's Beckams fault because he's rich?
But no one else at all is responsible?

No one said he was forced to sign a contract, MrsDusty

I was refuting a poster who suggested he could ensure a good supply chain. Do read the actual post before wading in.

It's legitimate to criticise him for sponsoring a range in the first place, but then we should also be criticising all the many celebs who do the same thing.

The supply chain companies lie, and weasel out of talk-is-cheap contracts they signed.
They also rely on further suppliers that didn't sign the agreement.
Just because DB isn't turning hardass to hold H&M to account in holding their suppliers to account, doesn't undermine other good things he tries to do.

(Unless you're British & love to knock down the tall poppy)

I have a soft spot for David Beckham actually and I was defending him for a while on the previous thread. It doesn't make this right.

I was refuting a poster who suggested he could ensure a good supply chain. Do read the actual post before wading in.

I did read the post. I'm refuting the idea that if he can't ensure a good supply chain there's no option for him but to accept the way things are and sign up. You can be sure that if he wasn't getting his cut from the children's labour those contracts would have been torn up as fast as he'd run out of the offices.

I went on to say it's legitimate to criticise him for accepting the gig in the first place.

Well, in a later post.