Ethical evolution @ Topshop

Topshop has recently announced an ethical stand against the fur trade and is now devoting the window of its flagship store on Oxford Street to a huge anti-fur display in association with charity Peta. While this high street fashion chain has to be totally applauded for saying no to fur, we the public might take more convincing that it is manufacturing and selling clothes with a clear conscience.

This year we've seen for the first time ever two 'ethical' concessions in Topshop's flagship store on Oxford Street. First MADE, a jewellery company which takes British jewellery designs to Africa where they are handmade by local crafts people and then sold in the UK, was given a front-store position for its launch back in March. Fair trade clothing company People Tree was invited to sell a range in the concessions area downstairs for a limited run, this has been extended and they are still there.

On the eve of London Fashion Week in September, Labour Behind The Labour published a report which slams Topshop's owner, The Arcadia Group, for 'complacency' when it comes to workers' rights. After questioning the company, Labour Behind The Label concluded:

"It's good to see that that Arcadia accepts the principles of a living wage and freedom of association, but we are unconvinced by its answers. We do not see how the existence of multiple ways to assess a living wage prevents Arcadia from developing a rationale and implementing measures to improve wages. Without any evidence that this is the case, it sounds rather like a smokescreen for inaction.

On freedom of association, Arcadia's response indicates that it does not appreciate that it is often factory managements themselves who prevent workers from organising. Meanwhile its monitoring and verification system seems poorly developed."

Despite the report saying it "would strongly urge it to join a multi-stakeholder initiative such as the ETI" Topshop, unlike Primark, has still not signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative. We asked Amy Elderton from Topshop's press office some questions about the company's ethical approach. Here's what she said:

1. Has Topshop EVER stocked fur - winter 2004 we are sure we saw secondhand fur coats on sale downstairs in the basement of the flagship store Oxford Street on a couple of occasions - in Unique area we think, bottom of the escalator opposite the cafe.

Topshop has a no fur policy.

We feel very strongly about the use of real fur in fashion and believe that the breeding of animals for their skins can not be justified.

To create the look, we use high quality faux and artificial furs.

Our vintage offer in 214 is run on a concession basis and whilst there is a remote possibility that individual items of clothing may have slipped through the net into this area in the past, we are very specific in our instruction to our suppliers and concessions alike that real fur is not permissible. Routine and regular checks are made to ensure this stipulation is followed.

2. Last season at London Fashion Week designer Chris Kane was a New Generation award winner - this designer recently used fur and his fur designs featured on the Saga Furs website as an 'example' of London designers who support the fur industry. How do you reconcile your position as a sponsor of designers who use fur and what would you say to Chris?

We would not expect to have control of independent, mainline collections of any designer which we sponsor and therefore cannot guarantee Christopher Kane not to use fur in his collections. His collection for Topshop will not use fur as Topshop has a no fur policy (see above).

Topshop doesn't pretend to be a charity or the biggest, purist supporter of anti-fur campaigning (which is why the release was sent out by Peta and not by us, and why the anti-fur window is in for a limited amount of time, as is info at point of sale) - we have chosen to put the anti-fur window in now as this is the time of year when other stores would be stocking real fur. We are not actively pr-ing this as we are not an anti-fur authority (and it would maybe be naive of us to think otherwise) - our aim is to maximise awareness of Peta

3. Will Topshop use its influence as a sponsor of LFW to discourage designers like Robert Carey Williams, Erdem, Michiko Koshino and Osman Yousefzada who all used fur in their a/w 06 collections?

See above, the New Gen award is given by the BFC and we do have limited influence over it's recipients (also see above)

4. Topshop manufactures in China -- does Topshop intend to continue this?

We are not strategically growing our level of business out of China, infact over the past seasons, sourcing from China has declined. It will however remain a relevant region for us as long it continues to offer some competitive advantage, over other sourcing locations.

5. Why hasn't Topshop signed the Ethical Trading Initiative?

At Topshop, our focus of the past 8 months has been on further developing and implementing our Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy following an intensive period of internal review and an assessment of our current position.

We have signed off on a significant programme that will impact positively on our entire supply chain.

We are committed to making improvements and have developed an initial 18 month schedule based on assessment, collaboration and remediation.

This does however require significant resourcing.

When we have made satisfactory progress into this leg of our programme we will of course review the possibility of joining a recognised Multi Stakeholder Initiative such as the ETI, when resource can be dedicated specifically to this.

Topshop manufactures in many different regions. I went to the flagship store on November 2nd and checked the labels on 10 randomly-selected garments. The results were: China 4 Turkey 3 Lithuania 1 Hong Kong 1. Obviously there are no guarantees but at least if they had committed to the ETI we'd know they were at least addressing workers' rights. On the phone, Amy told me that they were looking into signing the ETI and were in talks with them - she also said that the ETI charged a fee - I said I didn't think the fee involved could be an issue to the brand owned by a company which was so profitable. So I called the ETI where Julia assured me that no talks were currently taking place. She told us:

"We have regular contact with many companies who are not members of ETI. Some of them take part in our events and training courses, or buy our publications. Others come to us for advice. As yet we have had no membership application from Topshop".

"Companies joining ETI get fantastic learning opportunities, the chance to network with some of the real movers and shakers in ethical trade - plus ongoing advice on how to make their ethical trade strategy make a real difference to workers' lives".

The maximum membership for the largest company is £30,000 a year - not a weeny amount of money, but hardly a drop in Topshop's expansive ocean of profit.

We are talking to a few more people about this and we'll get their opinions on this online shortly. At the moment though, gotta say I am totally unconvinced. Fair enough Topshop didn't send out info on this but they are certainly going to benefit from the association with Peta. The cynic in me thinks it could be part of a ploy to win Stella McCartney over from Hennes! After years of not seeming to care less about ethics and the environment, within a few months Topshop has suddenly supported two fair trade labels and an animal rights charity. At the same time, it has no problem supporting and associating with the fur-touting title Vogue (which staged an in-store fashion show at the flagship on October 16) and remains a poor performer on worker rights issues.

Diana Verde Nieto is a marketing expert and founder of Clownfish Marketing. This lady has met with people at the Arcadia Group and having tried to persuade them the error of their ways and convince them on the importance of making changes at Topman and Topshop in particular, concludes that the company just doesn't care. She told us:

"I loved TopShop... I used to spend hours there, checking out the latest fashions and stocking up on the basics.

But now I have a dilemma. I prefer to give my custom to brands that demonstrate their commitment to environmental, social and ethical issues. I want to know what they stand for beyond profit, before I boost those profits in my own tiny way.

Having my own business also allows me to choose who I work with, and Topshop has long been on my new business target list.

Here's the problem: apart from some cause-related marketing, their stated opposition to fur, and a very limited range of organic clothing (People Tree), Topshop has completely failed to show me that they care about environmental issues. What are they doing to reduce their carbon and toxin emissions, encourage recycling, increase the amount of organic cotton in their clothes or minimise their demands on scarce water resources? What advice do they give me on how to use less energy in my washes? How are they discouraging me from chucking out my latest purchase right after the party I bought it for?

All of these questions are relevant to modern consumers, including me. For now, Topshop's combination of style, price and image continues to pull in the punters; but when the next hot thing on the high street comes along with a more responsible brand image, Topshop may wish it had embraced this agenda earlier.

I've been banging my head against Arcadia's door with nothing, so far, to show for it. As far as I can tell, they are entirely unconcerned with sustainability, and do not even have a CSR director, let alone appreciate the potential value of sustainability to the Topshop brand.

In the old days, I would simply have switched my custom elsewhere and worked on a different account. But I really believe that the only way to influence brands like Topshop is to bend ears and make a convincing business case, then to help them get to where they need to be.

Global warming is a fact. We can manipulate the facts however we like, but it does not change the reality. It's there for all to see, with trees blossoming in November and extreme weather events all over the world.

Change is good, and it does not need to cost more. It might take an initial investment of time, effort and a certain amount of money, but in the long run it will help the brand to keep itself young and in the heart of consumers."

As a marketing professional with expertise in helping companies operate ethicallty and with a conscious, responsible approach to envirnonmental issues, Diana really knows what she's talking about. Pity Topshop still won't listen.

Martin Hearson works for Clean Up Fashion told us:

"Topshop is part of the Arcadia Group, one of the worst offenders on workers' rights. When we surveyed major high street retailers to find out what they were doing to ensure workers get paid a decent wage, Arcadia's response was pitiful - http://www.cleanupfashion.co.uk/companies/arcadia.php.

Meanwhile its owner, the billionaire Philip Green, is worth over £5 billion. If he had any interest in the welfare of the workers who got him to where he were now, he could quite easily afford to do much better. And letting the Arcadia group join ETI would be a good start."

http://www.labourbehindthelabel.org/content/view/126/53/
http://www.cleanupfashion.co.uk/