76
sustaInaBlE FashIon : a handBooK For Educators
Outcome: The final outcome can be shared at the
conclusion of the group discussion.
Upon learning that their goods were being
subcontracted to child workers, Primark responded
that it was not acceptable to have children working
on their clothes. The retailer stated that the work was
subcontracted without their knowledge or consent. They
immediately cancelled all new orders with the suppliers
and withdrew the goods made by child labor from sale.
They called their local suppliers together for a meeting to
reinforce their standards. NGOs criticized the move by
Primark to terminate their relationship with the suppliers
implicated in the use of child labor. The NGO groups
argued that workers were punished by this move and, by
leaving the factory, there was no-one left to advocate for
improvements in working conditions.^10 Primark was seen
as not doing anything to improve worker rights. Primark
defended its action as being tough on standards and
responding to shareholders’ needs. They partnered with
an NGO to act as their “eyes and ears” in southern India.
They also set up a foundation to offer financial support
to NGOs focused on improving the lives of children.^11
2B. Case study on child labor in the supply chain: Gap
in India
Students are provided with the following information:
The UK’s Sunday Observer broke a story about children
in bonded labor producing clothing for Gap in India.^12
The clothing had been subcontracted by a Gap supplier
to an informal cottage industry (i.e. homeworkers)
where children were employed. The working and living
conditions of the children were deplorable. Some slept
in the factory or lived on the roof. One workplace was
found to have raw sewage leaking into the aisle ways.
Many children were not earning any wages at all, but
instead working off “debt” of payments allegedly made to
their parents in exchange for teaching the child a skill. The
children worked long hours and were even physically
abused. Some were tattooed with the number of the
sweatshop to which they were bonded.
Roles: The following roles are assigned to specific students
or groups of students. Approximately 15-20 minutes
should be provided to discuss the case study, with
students sharing viewpoints based on their assigned roles.- Gap representative
- Consumer
- Factory production manager
- Child worker’s parent
- Labor rights activist
Outcome: The final outcome can be shared at the
conclusion of the group discussion.
Gap stated they prohibit the use of child labor and that
the subcontracting to child home workers occurred
without their knowledge or permission. The retailer
responded by launching an investigation, cancelling the
order, destroying the goods made by children, and calling
an emergency meeting with all regional suppliers to
re-emphasize their standards and prohibitions against
subcontracting.^13 However, Gap did not sever their ties
to the supplier. The NGO and media response to Gap’s
actions was positive. Many viewed their response as
being strong and effective in addressing the situation.^14
Gap brought in an NGO to help return the child
workers to their families. The local government was
involved to ensure the processing of the children and
their return home.The following questions may be considered with the
students at the end of the second two role plays:- What were the similarities between these two case studies?
- Were the outcomes different? If so, why? What can we learn
from this? - What should other brands learn from these case studies?
Estimated time for session: 30-45 minutes per case study.III. conclusion
Together, these different sessions bring students a
comprehensive and interactive introduction to the
complex issues of globalization and supply chain working
conditions. This learning module has been presented
in classroom style trainings in the corporate world in a
modified form. Participant feedback has been positive,
especially where the level of participation and discussion
helps students understand the complexity of the issues.(^10) Labour Behind the Label, Primark Actions Branded “Irresponsible” by Campaigners, http://
http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/campaigns/urgent/primark/246-primark-actions-branded-
irresponsible-by-campaigners
(^11) See Primark response to Panorama exposé: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/
panorama/7461496.stm
(^12) McDougall, D. Indian ‘slave’ children found making low-cost clothes destined for Gap, Sunday
observer, 2007.
(^13) Gap statement on media reports
http://www.gapinc.com/public/Media/Press_releases/med_pr_vendorlabor102807.shtml
(^14) McDougall, D.Gap plan “sweatshop free” labels. Guardian, 2007.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/nov/04/3
McDougall, D. Embroidered T-shirt, Price: £4, Cost: Misery. BBC News, June 2008.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7468927.stm