Cotton Campaign » boycott

LL Bean vows to exclude Uzbek cotton

admin — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:44:04 +0000

Duckboots back on the shopping list

Of all the companies named by the International Labor Rights Forum on this year’s Sweatshop Hall of Shame for the use of Uzbek cotton, LL Bean was the fastest to respond, and vowed to (eventually) exclude it from their supply chain. Let’s hope their follow through is as exhaustive as their initial response was rapid.

Read more on the ILRF blog here. If you buy LL Bean products, take time to let their corporate office know that this is important to you.

LL Bean, Hanes, Gymboree: child exploiters

admin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:56:24 +0000

The International Labor Rights Forum released its list of Sweatshop Hall of Shame inductees for 2009. They include some of the best-known American retailers of children’s clothing…who refuse to stop profiting from the exploitation of children in Uzbekistan. ILRF writes:

While over 25 companies have committed to boycotting the use of Uzbek

cotton until the government ends its abusive labor practices, there are still

many companies that haven’t stepped up to the plate. Gymboree, Hanes,

2

and LL Bean have been contacted and yet they refuse to concretely address this pervasive

problem.

While over 25 companies have committed to boycotting the use of Uzbek cotton until the government ends its abusive labor practices, there are still many companies that haven’t stepped up to the plate. Gymboree, Hanes and LL Bean have all been contacted, and yet they refuse to concretely address this pervasive problem.

My holiday shopping list sure has changed, and I hope many other consumers will do the same.

Dubai defaults…on human rights

admin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:25:24 +0000

It wasn’t too much of a surprise to read that the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre bonds were placed on credit watch negative recently, after being downgraded to junk status in June. Is a business model built on willful, knowing exploitation of forced child labor really sustainable in any sense?

Maybe five years ago, traders could claim ignorance about Uzbekistan’s mass child enslavement for the cotton harvest. Not anymore. Multiple actors have approached the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre with the evidence directly, at least from 2008. In July of this year the American Apparel and Footwear Association, in league with the (U.S.) National Retail Federation and two other major trade groups, wrote to the DMCC director, David Rutledge, and requested action. The DMCC, after all, is a critical actor enabling the Uzbek government to profit from it exploitive practices. And what action was taken? A big roll-out of new services at the Tashkent Cotton Fair, and more cotton purchases: the DMCC traded 20,000 tons by October and placed an order for 70,000 more! (Dr. Rutledge has since been replaced by the former head of the Dubai Gold Exchange, Malcolm Wall Morris.)

As the cotton works its way up the production chain, consumers are sending the message to retailers (and many retailers are reacting…and those that are not are being called on it). But the first-line facilitators of this outrage such as the DMCC have an obligation to act, too.

Independent World Report calls out European brands: join the boycott!

admin — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:42:20 +0000

Editor Tasneem Khalil put together an amazing piece of work on the issue, asking why political entities (the EU) and the intergovernmental set (UNICEF) are lagging behind corporations in taking action on forced child labor in Uzbek cotton. They clearly need to do more–much more—to catch up with corporate actors who have taken the lead. There are, though, retailers who hide behind the supposed hurdle of traceability, and Khalil found that two of them–H&M and Inditex–are likely using Uzbek cotton through finished good suppliers in Bangladesh:

When I emailed H&M seeking its comment on my investigation that revealed two H&M suppliers in Bangladesh are using fabric made of Uzbek cotton in their productions, H&M emailed back: “We do not demand that our suppliers in Bangladesh keep us informed about the source of fabric or yarn. We can not exclude the possibility that some of the suppliers you have been in contact with could supply fabric or yarn for H&M products.”

Another major European company that does not publicly boycott Uzbek cotton is Inditex. As my investigation found that two Inditex brands – Zara and Bershka – are directly sourcing their garments from a supplier in Bangladesh who imports 45%-50% of its cotton from Uzbekistan, I asked Inditex for its comments on specific findings of my investigation. However, Inditex chose not to comment on those specific inquiries.

But the cotton can be traced, and is being traced by retailers who care enough to do it:

Juliette Williams [of the Environmental Justice Foundation] refuted the claim saying, “Identifying the source of cotton used by major brands and all the steps along the supply chain is possible. It can be done and has been done. No one thinks that tracing cotton is simple. But, it is certainly not impossible. Look at companies like Tesco and Wal-Mart, which have made a public commitment to avoid Uzbek cotton. The fact that cotton at its various stages of production and processing is traded internationally is important, as there is always paperwork that enables transit through customs. In short, we know that at every stage somebody knows where the cotton is coming from. Companies need to spend some effort, ask the right questions and let their suppliers know what is required, or, in the case of Uzbek cotton, what they want to avoid. They do it for quality reasons, why not for ethical reasons too?”

Read the entire article here: http://www.independentworldreport.com/2009/09/blood-cotton/