On accountability, fashion has been having it both ways for decades, avoiding real regulation and blaming failures on its suppliers. And when the pressure to fix a problem becomes unmanageable, such as collapsing factories or violence against women workers, the apparel industry calls for collective action or a global standard. Both are hard to produce because so many different interests have to be accommodated. That has also suited the industry which doesn’t like to make investments that it can avoid.
Will climate adaptation be different?
Extreme heat was not a priority for fashion brands and retailers in 2023 when the Global Labor Institute (GLI) published its “Higher Ground?” report with Schroders on the economic and human costs of extreme heat and intense flooding. It is now acknowledged in the industry as a major issue.
This makes sense because climate breakdown is bad for everyone – workers, manufacturers, buyers – and it is accelerating in many of the apparel industry’s favourite supplier countries.
In GLI’s analysis, failure to reduce heat in factories and flooding around them will cost the apparel industry US$65 billion in earnings and about one million potential jobs by 2030 in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan and Vietnam.
And dealing with high heat stress has some upside for everyone. Safer factories and homes mean healthier workers, higher productivity and better margins.
Finally, workers toiling in 35 or 40 degrees Celsius (95 to 104 degrees Fahrenheit) and high humidity is the return of the literal sweatshop. That’s never in style.
Everyone in the business knows that the problem the industry faces is not a technical one. Figuring out how to cool workers, pay for the improvements and hold down carbon dioxide emissions is not that hard. Top suppliers are already doing it.
The problem is a political one. It’s about power: who is going to pay? At present, workers are paying with their health.
