Against Sweatshops: the EU Ban & Forced Labor Imports

Two dollars a day. That’s how much money a child working in Bangladesh earns. For many businesses, there's a lot of profit to be made by hiring people, including children, in developing countries. The labor laws are much less regulated, which leads to millions of people subject to forced labor. Any situation in which a person is coerced to work through the use of violence or manipulation is forced labor.

This can be very subtle: threats to denounce an illegal worker, withholding pay, seizing the worker's identity documents, debt bondage (forced work in order to pay off debt), etc. Workers are also subject to terrible conditions such as long hours, physical and verbal abuse, and sleep deprivation.

Subsequently, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, is looking to prohibit imports from forced labor and child labor. This statement additionally fits in the current geopolitical climate with China’s oppressed Uyghur population, some of which are currently interned in a sort of “cotton gulag” (as described by the Uyghur Human Rights Project). As a matter of fact, China’s Xinjiang region, home to Uyghur internment camps, produces more than 20% of the world’s cotton. The cotton picked is then used by numerous fast fashion companies such as Nike, Uniqlo, adidas, and North Face, just to name a few.

What about the other 80% of the cotton produced? 99% of the world’s cotton farmers are based in developing countries where labor laws are substantially less controlled. Although this does not necessarily signal exploitation, it does tie considerably more fashion companies to easy made profit on the backs of the underprivileged.

So, what can we do about it? Boycott all fast-fashion brands? But then again, which brands should we, as consumers, stop supporting? All businesses are looking to make profit, and profit can easily be made when your employees are subject to unfair labor conditions and the environmental impact of your company is overlooked.

Most people would think of boycotting cheap brands that have already been under the spotlight for their controversies, such as H&M and Shein. However, they aren’t the only ones who would be concerned by the aforementioned import ban.

It is very interesting how almost no one talks about the use of unethical cotton for high-end fashion brands such as Burberry, Louis Vuitton, Hermes, and Gucci. Because of the high price tag and the history sustaining them, people assume that these brands are morally better than buying Zara, for example. Yet, apart from the price tag, not much differentiates high-fashion and fast fashion in terms of environmental impact, labor conditions, and tacky designs.

The hype surrounding these brands is all about reputation. Think about it: the Hermès Birkin bag is made inaccessible and is thus more attractive to consumers. It represents status and money when one wears it. Furthermore, since the brand literally chooses who gets to buy a Birkin, the brand is not tarnished.

As we have all seen before, a brand’s reputation can quickly change. This happened with Lacoste that used to represent old money, and is now worn for the banlieue look in France. Since reputation is such an important factor in a brand’s success, why aren’t these brands exposed for their involvement in forced and child labor?

The sad reality is that most brands, no matter the price range, have been exposed many times. But do consumers actually care? For brands like BooHoo and Shein, the attractiveness of the brand comes from their cheap prices and their ability to produce trends very quickly. Even if the quality is not great, the trend becomes obsolete within a few weeks anyway, and thus begins the consumer cycle.

For high-end brands, their attractiveness comes from their uniqueness. They create expensive clothes that stand-out and that everyone recognizes.

Everyone recognizes the flashy red Louboutin soles, the LV monogram, or the timeless Burberry trench coat. It’s in human nature to want to stand out, and flaunting money and status is the way to go for many people. Luxury brands also use the popularity of celebrities/influencers to promote their clothing.

IN THAT WAY, WEARING A BRAND THAT PROFITS OFF EXPLOITATION IS TOTALLY FINE: IT WAS JUST SO CHEAP AND THE DELIVERY WAS JUST SO FAST. OR YET AGAIN, RIHANNA WAS WEARING IT, AND SO I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO BUY IT.

From a pessimist standpoint, I would say that nothing’s ever going to change. Brands know exactly how to market their clothes, and this marketing is tailored specifically to us: You don’t have to feel guilty for buying from us; look, we posted a story on how good we are on our Instagram. In a way, they are right. It shouldn’t be the consumers’ problem to try and buy ethically. Some people can’t afford it, some people lack ethical alternatives, or some people simply just don’t care. If we place the responsibility of buying ethically on consumers, the problem will never go away.

However, the EU proposal shows promise in my opinion. If brands are pursued by justice, they will have no choice but to stop buying cheap, unethical cotton. If we can make it less expensive for them to buy sustainably than to not be able to sell their clothes to the EU, change can happen. Money and profit are the key in enabling this.

The problem is, who will make sure that brands are actually keeping their promise? There will always be loopholes, someone to bribe or blackmail, and lawyers covering up a brand’s tracks.

It’s always a step in the right direction though, even if this law might be badly regulated.

What would this law mean for consumers? Actually, not much. As I had mentioned before, reputation is key when it comes to marketing clothes. If a company is known for being reliably cheap, they can’t drastically change their prices to match the price movement from buying cotton made in Uyghur internment camps and law-abiding cotton. From that standpoint, this proposal will have almost no effect on us.

However, even if EU regulations are able to prevent fashion brands from the use of forced labor, this still won’t address the underlying issue of the human rights violations conducted towards severely underpaid workers, including children.

While the EU ban will reduce exploitation of workers in sweatshops and children, it won’t address the issue fully as these workers will still be exploited for production in Chinese domestic markets and other countries that don’t impose labor laws. In the same way, the Uyghur population will still be persecuted as a result of the actions conducted by the Chinese government.

The import ban would still be a strong political move though: on top of pushing other countries to do the same, it’s a sort of “fuck you” to China. With this import ban, the EU is basically saying that they are willing to stand up to China, even at the cost of impacting global markets in the effort to protect human rights.

Only if this proposal actually takes place will it pave the way to a modern world that protects human dignity. Yet, the EU manages to stay in their comfort zone- China has always been perceived as "the bad guy": it's easy to point fingers at a specific country and ignore the widespread exploitation of workers.

Could the EU ever hold their allies accountable for similar actions? By this, I'm referring to the sort of modern slavery taking place in US prisons today. Working for as little as 2 cents an hour, with the threat of solitary confinement and possessing no constitutional rights, prisoners in the US are on the fine, almost indistinguishable line between prison labor and forced labor. I'm also referring to the undocumented immigrants working in Californian farms for little money. Or the exploited immigrants working in construction sites, farms, and slaughterhouses in Europe.

Will the EU ever address the global exploitation of workers?