Fast Fashion Industry and the Gross Violation of Labour Laws

FAST FASHION INDUSTRY: INTRODUCTION

Fast fashion has been defined as cheap and trendy clothing that is similar to expensive and designer outfits of models, celebrities and influencers.

The cause of concern is that they are often discarded after just a few wears to avoid the apparent fashion ‘faux pas’ of repeating an outfit. Moreover, the idea is that in order to stay relevant it becomes necessary to have the latest look. Hence, it forms a central part of the toxic system of overproduction and consumption that has made fashion not only the world’s largest polluter but also a threat to labour rights.

Some leading worries that are common in a fast fashion brand include: (i) offshore manufacturing where labour is cheap, there are no adequate labour laws and a complex supply chain with poor visibility beyond the first level; (ii) usage of cheap and low quality materials like polyester causes microfiber shedding as well as fast degradation resulting in frequent discarding; (iii) thousands of styles touching all the latest trends coupled by limited quantity or stock availability of a particular apparel so as to subconsciously feed the brain of the shoppers that if they do not buy it right now, they will probably miss the opportunity, (iv) extremely short turnaround time between when a trend or garment is seen in media on a celebrity and when it gets on to the shelves of a shop.

LABOUR PRACTICES IN FAST FASHION

It is an emerging pattern that fashion companies across the world are keen to take their production unit and thereby their subsidiaries to South Asian countries like Bangladesh, India and Vietnam not only because of the proximity with the cotton production but also lack of oversight that occurs during the actual textile production. Brands often consciously choose to have minimum control over each step of the supply chain so as to prevent legal liability.

Subsidiaries remain mostly unregulated because of which they are often discharged of responsibility for the unethical production practices that such subsidiaries undertake for procuring clothing at extremely low costs.

Also, the textile industry is notoriously infamous for child labour as the work involves low skills and children with nimble fingers are easy to exploit for a lower wage. Separately, synthetic chemicals used commonly in the manufacturing of fast fashion clothing endanger the lives of workers in such industries as most often such chemicals have been shown to cause cancer.

The lethal collapse of Rana Plaza Factory in Bangladesh in 2013 brought to light the structural dangers that can be avoided by simply complying with existing laws. Approximately 1,100 people were killed and more than 2,500 were injured.

Factory management and owners often terminate employment of pregnant workers during maternity leave, and protesting workers who participate in strikes or form unions are always apprehensive of losing their jobs. Moreover, the workers are inherently expected to work overtime or risk losing their jobs. Furthermore, male managers and supervisors have often been accused for sexually harassing female workers under them. A young garment worker at an H&M supplier factory in Tamil Nadu (India) was allegedly murdered by her supervisor after suffering months of sexual harassment and intimidation by him.

POSITION IN INDIA

The textile industry in India is regulated by the Code on Social Security 2020, Industrial Relations Code 2020, Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions 2020 and Code on Wages 2019.

The Code on Wages 2019 consists of four vital legislation – Minimum Wages Act 1948, The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code 2020, Code on Social Security 2020, Industrial Relations Code 2020, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970.

Fast Fashion brands generally outsource their production to a contractor who has been defined under Code on Wages 2019 as a person who undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods of articles of manufacture to such establishment, through contract labour or who supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.

Basically, the subcontractor is generally the one fulfilling the contract and its requirements between the contractor and the brand. The brand is the ‘principal employer’ i.e., the head of the overall functioning. The subcontractor is the one manufacturing for the contractor and not the original employer of the company.

Consequently, there is no unmediated connection in the supply chain between the fashion brand and the garment workers. As a result of which clean and transparent supply chains are difficult to find and often fashion brands hold defence of being unaware of such subcontracting networks. Though they are found widely in the international circuit.

The legislation which majorly governs the fashion industry is the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act 1970. This Act protects workmen employed by or through a contractor, with or without the knowledge of the principal employer which is known as “contract labour”. The contractor here is seen as the one supplying the labourers and the employer as the one who is actually responsible for the work of the organisation. This legislation further mandates compulsory registration of necessary establishments along with the principal employer’s liability to provide basic amenities such as canteens, restrooms, and safe drinking water.

Additionally, the legislation also ensures provisions like guarantee of minimum wages. Further, there are penalties including imprisonment for up to three months and fine up to 100 rupees for every day of contravention continued after conviction for the first such contravention.

Every woman worker is entitled to a payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period of her actual absence, the period should be preceding the day of her delivery, the actual day of her delivery and any period immediately following that day, as per the Maternity Benefit Act. But such benefits are barely available to the woman labourers in fast fashion industries.

SUGGESTIONS

The fast fashion industry is growing exponentially as a result of demand for larger quantity of clothing for cheaper price. This has further led to dangerous exploitation of the labour force. The foremost steps which could be taken to ensure ethical production are increasing transparency about clothing origins and taking personal responsibility.

The Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord is the first modern era legally binding agreement between workers, factory managers and fashion brands ensuring safety of the workers and fair wages. Other countries should also enforce a similar contract in order to curb the arbitrary and inhumane practices of these brands.

Additionally, countries headquartering these fast fashion brands can introduce regulations de-incentivizing outsourcing offshore or mandating greater control of supply chains of brands planning to outsource production offshore. States should give preference and incentives to brands that operate domestically just like California where a legislation was passed giving contract preference to companies that continued to operate in United States.

Even though the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration of Philadelphia recognized, and the international community agreed that labour is not a commodity and hence it cannot be negotiated for profit or lower prices, a solution to fix this problem has not been forthcoming yet. It must be noted that India too is a signatory to this declaration but labour law violations in India suggests otherwise.

The role played by International Labour Organization (ILO) in providing various recommendations and guidelines for improvement of labour standards would be better implemented if they are complemented with, “sanctions”. Sanctions should be imposed on fashion brands that violate human and labour laws. There is a further need to hold these brands accountable and to introduce a set of parameters to check the progress of such brands.

Furthermore, as the supply chains of such transnational corporations become complex involving many countries with different laws there is always scope for such corporations to easily escape the implications of a certain country’s domestic laws, as most domestic laws do not have a clear charter to implicate cross-border parties and even if they do, the process of bringing such foreign parties to justice is complicated and expensive. Consequentially, international organisations such as the ILO could consider imposing penalties on violating parties who clearly fail to come within the jurisdiction of a country’s laws due to involvement of multiple countries and legal system.

It is dismaying to note that despite having one of the largest textile industries in the world with a large workforce involved, India is not a party to Forty-Hour Week Convention 1935, Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised) 1970 and Night Work Convention and its Recommendation 1990. If India is to truly make a difference to the life of its workers, it would do well to become a party to these conventions and implement the guidelines of ILO and in this way play a pivotal role in ensuring a healthier, safer and securer work environment for its textile industry workers.

Lastly, fashion brand houses should be vicariously held liable for the acts or omissions of their subsidiaries or contractors. Only then can the ills of the fast fashion industry be countered.

The author, Smera Sarnath Sonker, is a third year student at Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University.