Bridging the Gap
My original intent for this post was to embed Part 2 of Patagonia’s current Footprint Chronicles series, called What Comes Next?, which speaks primarily to the notion of whether any manufacturer can truly call itself “sustainable”, and briefly discusses what an overwhelmingly consumptive culture we have become all over the world – especially in the United States.
Sadly, the episode isn’t embeddable yet, so I’m going to postpone that particular video until a later day (although you can watch it on the Patagonia site linked above if you really can’t wait). In the meantime, since I’ve propped myself up onto something of a social responsibility soapbox this week, I’m posting a few other videos in a similar vein, which speak to some issues I’ve mentioned before in previous posts. Each one is only a few minutes long, so they shouldn’t take too much time out of your weekend.
The clips all come from Patagonia’s previous Footprint Chronicles offerings, which began in 2007 for the purpose of examining various aspects of responsible manufacturing and consumerism. There are literally dozens of videos to choose from on the website (and on YouTube), and it’s this series more than anything else that gives me a ton of respect and appreciation for the company.
Remember how I said that you can find positive information about a company from its website, but were pretty much out of luck trying to learn about their shortcomings? Patagonia stands out as the exception: they’re not only willing to put themselves under the microscope, but they then take the additional – and unthinkable, to most companies – step of discussing their problems in public, on the Internet, for all the world to see.
This first clip is a perfect example: Patagonia’s Footwear General Manager, Craig Throne, appraises the positives and negatives of the company’s manufacturing process – things they are doing well, as well as things they aim to improve. It was filmed at the beginning of the Footprint Chronicles project, as a sort of “where we are now” in preparation for the revelations that would come in future installments:
The next clip is in response to the question of how a company can utilize Chinese labor forces in a humane and respectful manner. Stella Footwear is a partner company that employs over 50,000 people at its Dongguan City facility to make several brands of shoes, including Patagonia. Business Director Buddy Huang is an American-born Chinese who speaks to the importance the company places on providing a healthy work environment and a middle-class standard of living for all of its workers:
And what if a company claims to take care of its workers, but really doesn’t? That’s where something called social audits come into play. Patagonia’s partner companies are routinely visited and inspected by independent organizations to ensure they are adhering to Patagonia’s standards of conduct. Nicole Bassett, Patagonia's Social Responsibility Manager (how many corporations even have a position like that?), describes the importance of the social audits, and Alex Kaufman from Global Solutions, the third-party auditing group, describes how these audits are conducted in the apparel industry:
These videos certainly aren’t incontrovertible proof that every facet of Patagonia’s manufacturing process is 100% ethically sound, but it certainly shows a willingness to put itself out there for public scrutiny. In light of the difficulties I described yesterday regarding the knowledge gap between corporate business practices and consumer awareness, it’s nice to know that at least one company out there is working to bridge that gap as much as possible.


8 comments:
I think that agonizing over - or even 'reviewing' - the social or workplace ethics of companies such as Nike, Patagonia, et al., is simply an exercise in self delusion. Sure, if it makes you feel better, go ahead. But to pretend you can assess the worth or otherwise of a company's policies in terms meaningful to those they employ in Asia is simply a joke. You can't.
If you REALLY care, come to Viet Nam and speak with individuals employed by these organizations. Ask them about their life before Nike/whoever and about their life since. Talk with them about their employment goals. Ascertain their views on their employers policies. Then come back and write something insightful.
Who knows, if you manage to do this you may even start to make sense...
Ro - I think you're inadvertently confirming my frustration with this issue. So your suggestions are for every American or UK consumer to either 1) visit each factory ourselves and interview its employees, or 2) just don't worry about it? Why can't there be some middle ground?
Since you're apparently in Vietnam, can you educate us as to any of these specific organizations or work issues? That might be helpful for anyone reading.
I think that offering a detailed overview of the economic and social conditions in Viet Nam appertaining to employees of sporting goods manufacturers would be about as useful as your piece - i.e. not very productive.
Suffice to say that workers over here have choices - good choices - in terms of their employment. If they are unhappy they vote with their feet; employee retention being a major issue here for some manufacturing companies.
Do companies exploit? Yes, they do; it's in the nature of the beast. Should we make ourselves aware of this possibility and avoid the worst offenders? Well, unless we see with our own eyes precisely what's happening and place it into the social conditions surrounding the situation we're unlikely to gain a true perspective on whether or not the person being exploited is acquiescing to the exploitation. We shouldn't rush to support those who do little or nothing for themselves.
I think I can make it simple for you in terms of products from Viet Nam. The Vietnamese are tough little buggers who eventually always manage to come out on top. If Nike/whoever are exploiting them now, you can bet your bottom dollar the Vietnamese have a painful surprise in store for the company at some time in the future...
Hope this helps :-)
I think this is a valid topic and worthy of discussion. It saves me time and money when other people do research and present their findings for me to examine. At which point I can make a decision or do my own further research.
Isn't this the essence of journalism?
Keep on truckin' Donald.
Ro - I'll welcome anything constructive or educational you have to offer, but condescension and insults will get removed by me. Given that your blog is private, I'm sure you can appreciate some boundary setting. Besides, I'm not quite sure what your intent is in repeatedly coming back here. For something you decry as not very productive, you seem very intent on perpetuating your issues.
I find it surprising that you remove a post which was simply a quote from a highly respected journalist - nothing else. Either your comments are open or they aren't. You need to make up your mind on issues of free speech and the right - if you feel your readers have the right - to offer an alternative opinion.
I normally have no issue with you or your blog. It's highly informative and a genuinely useful resource. However, I do take issue with poorly researched, ill-informed or speculative writing presented as information. Why you choose to offer this on the subject matter of this post when the remainder of your blog is based on accurate measured data, not subjective opinion, is a matter of concern.
My intent? To continue to read your useful input on running and running-equipment related matters. If your intent is to continue writing on subjective matters which are poorly researched and then removing comments which point this out to you, tell me, and I can avoid coming here again.
If you wish to read my blog - though I have no idea why you would, it's simply about living in South East Asia - you may email me and request an invite. rohunte@gmail.com
Don't know if you've seen it, but there's a short video on barefoot running with Chris McDougall on the NY Times Web site home page right now.
Post a Comment