|
|
Printable version
Clothed in Deception
Polo Ralph Lauren: A Philanthropic Capitalist
By Nell Schaefer |
 | | "G.I.V.E it to me!" |
Polo Jeans at BU
On October 3rd, 4th, and 5th, Polo Jeans made an appearance in the middle of Boston University’s campus. Polo’s G.I.V.E. (Get Involved. Volunteer. Exceed.) program set up on Marsh Plaza as part of a monthlong “National Denim Drive” campus tour that will visit universities in Boston, Philadelphia, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Polo contacted the Community Service Center (CSC) at BU to reserve space on campus. The stated purpose for Polo’s “give your old jeans a new home” project is to collect donations of old jeans that will be converted into insulation for Habitat for Humanity, to be used in homes for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. They have enlisted Bonded Logic, Inc., a company that makes UltraTouch Natural Cotton Fiber Insulation, for the task. Bonded Logic manufactures insulation using 85% recycled natural fibers, mostly denim and cotton that they source from denim manufacturing facilities and then shred. Their insulation is environmentally safe, with no carcinogens or formaldehyde, and uses cotton, “a rapidly renewable resource” (www.bondedlogic.com). According to Viral Sheth, a CAS junior and program director for the CSC’s Student Food Rescue (SFR), a total of 650 pairs of jeans were donated during the BU campaign, which is enough insulation for one home.
For every pair of jeans donated, the Polo Ralph Lauren Foundation also makes a $10 contribution to the Points of Light Disaster Recovery Fund to help the hurricane relief effort. Points of Light is a non-profit organization that operates shelters where hurricane victims are living and manages volunteer centers in Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas that give suggestions and assignments to people who would like to help (www.pointsoflight.org). With the BU drive, Polo contributed $6,500. Polo will cap their donations at $100,000 (www.polojeans.com).
This National Denim Drive was also an effective sales campaign, as Polo Jeans images, a Polo emcee, and even a Polo Jeans store--complete with leather chairs and fancy rugs--was displayed on Marsh Plaza. Those who donated jeans were offered a discount on a new pair they could purchase on the spot. Women’s Polo Jeans typically cost between $49 and $89; men’s between $60 and $90 (www.polo.com). Polo was also promoting their painted jeans that cost $80, but were only $60 with a denim donation. Those who donated were not obliged to purchase new jeans. According to the emcee, Polo sold about one hundred pairs of jeans on October 4th. For this one day of sales, with jeans at $60 a pair, the company earned $6,000. The onsite manager, a Polo public relations representative, refused to comment for this article, so the exact number of sales over three days is uncertain.
Get Involved. Volunteer. Exceed.:
“Beneath the beauty, we find true leaders.”
The G.I.V.E. program is part of Polo Jeans Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation (listed as PRL on the NYSE). According to their website, G.I.V.E. “is a call to action, with a goal to inspire and encourage community service through volunteerism.” Polo Jeans claims that, “beneath the beauty, we find true leaders.” G.I.V.E. is led by a team of seven volunteers, who are also models, that are featured in Polo’s new advertising campaign linking Polo Jeans with volunteerism. one of these advertisements was featured as a full page in the Daily Free Press on September 29th, urging BU students to donate jeans on October 3rd, 4th, and 5th. These model-volunteers each have a favorite non-profit organization with whom they work. The G.I.V.E. program has already donated $1 million to about 50 organizations, including the American Cancer Society, the Jackie Robinson Foundation, Habitat for Humanity, and The Partnership for the Homeless. Polo Jeans has also developed a special G.I.V.E. jean. When purchased, 10% of the suggested retail price goes to the Polo Ralph Lauren Foundation to support these G.I.V.E. non-profit organizations (www.polojeans.com).
Using these models as examples, G.I.V.E. attempts to encourage other young people to volunteer, offering the “Top 10 Reasons to Volunteer” on their website. Reason #4: “Volunteering is the popular thing to do. Research shows that 70% of young people between the ages of 15 and 21 have been volunteers.” Reason #6: “On top of all the good that comes from volunteering, it also looks good on a resume or college application.” And reason #7: “Volunteering is a great way to meet new wonderful people just like yourself.” Amidst these vague inspiring statements, there are plenty of links to shop at polo.com.
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation
This image of philanthropy is nothing new for founder, CEO, and Chairman of the Board Ralph Lauren, who owns 89% of the company (Goldstein, Lauren, “Ralph’s European Invasion.” Time. 29 July 2002.). He is currently offering free shipping on his website in honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (www.polo.com). Ralph also gave $5 million to establish the Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention and set up the America’s Heroes Fund after September 11th, raising $4 million in a worldwide employee donation-matching program. And back in 1998, he was so moved by President Clinton’s State of the Union Address, that he donated $13 million to the Smithsonian Institution for the restoration of Old Glory, the flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner (Feitelberg, Rosemary, “A Man for All Causes.” WWD. 14 May 2002.). Lauren established the G.I.V.E. program in the hopes that his legacy of generosity will inspire young people to wear Polo Jeans while helping their community.
For fiscal year 2005, PRL conducted a $10 billion global business. Their net revenues were $3,305,415,000, the cost of goods sold (which includes expenses incurred to acquire and produce inventory and sale of the merchandise) was $1,620,869,000, leaving a gross profit of $1,684,546,000. So Polo sells garments for roughly 100% more than what it costs them to make. This allows Ralph Lauren to own a garage of antique cars, and many estates such as one in Bedford, New York, a duplex on 5th Avenue, a ranch in Colorado, and two homes in Round Hill, Jamaica (Karimzadech, Marc, “Toy Boy.” WWD. 14 May 2002.). Though the annual report mentions designers, retailers, other first world employees, the cost of raw materials and preparing merchandise for sale, it does not provide any information about the individuals who actually assemble the clothing.
The Garment Industry
The reason for this absence is because Polo Ralph Lauren does not directly employ the workers in the developing world who assemble their clothing. The garment industry operates through a subcontracting system that places retailers, like PRL and the department stores to whom they sell, at the top, distancing them in the supply chain from the workers. The retailers place orders with manufacturers, who hire contractors, who sometimes then hire subcontractors to assemble the clothing. These contractors recruit, hire, and pay the workers. There is fierce competition among contractors who own factories in the developing world where most brand name clothing is assembled. They must accept whatever low price the retailers offer, or risk losing their business. The contract prices are so low that factories are unable to pay legal wages or comply with safety standards. There is also frequently a risk that the manufacturer will find contractors somewhere else offering a cheaper price, and pull their business from one factory--and thus a community--leaving thousands unemployed. This continual outsourcing allows manufacturers to plunder one community for labor, not offering any benefits, long-term job security, or respect for the environment, and then move on to the next with the same disregard for individuals. Although retailers and manufacturers claim they do not directly employ garment workers and are not responsible for wages or working conditions, they do have the power to ensure safer conditions by offering a compliant contractor a better price (www.sweatshopwatch.org).
PRL has been involved in a number of incidents in garment factories in the third world. one of the most notorious cases of sweatshop labor occurred in Saipan, one of fourteen islands in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific. The garment industry has been booming there since the 1980s. Over 30 garment factories employ more than 10,000 workers, almost all young women from China, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and other Asian countries. The conditions in these garment factories are despicable. Government reports have documented food poisonings and millions of dollars in unpaid wages. In 1999, former and current garment workers, together with Sweatshop Watch, the Asian Law Caucus, Global Exchange and UNITE, filed three separate lawsuits against top U.S. clothing companies to clean up the rampant sweatshop abuses in Saipan. In September 2002, after more than three years of hardfought litigation, twenty-six of America’s biggest clothing retailers and twenty-three garment manufacturers reached a landmark settlement in the Saipan sweatshop lawsuits. In April 2003, the settlement received final court approval, creating a $20 million fund to pay back wages to 30,000 workers and develop an independent monitoring system to ensure compliance with strict labor standards and an end to sweatshop abuse. Among the settling retailers: Abercrombie & Fitch, Calvin Klein Inc., Gap, Inc. (Banana Republic, Old Navy), J.C. Penney Company, Inc., J. Crew Group, Inc, Oshkosh B’Gosh Inc., and Polo Ralph Lauren (www.sweatshopwatch.org).
PRL also contracts with Manufacturas Lajat, S.R.L. de C.V. in La Laguna, Mexico. Lajat employs 12,000 workers to sew, iron and launder garments, specifically denim. There is no drinking water available for these workers, limited toilets, and no lunchroom, forcing workers to eat on the production floor where their food can be contaminated with chemicals and other particulate matter. These workers use chemicals for stone washing without any protection. Individuals are forced to work up to 12 hours without overtime and are paid only 350 pesos/week ($32 US). Holiday and vacation bonuses are paid with jeans made at the factory, not wages (“Lajat Workers Breaking New Ground for Fair Union Elections in Mexico,” Sweatshop Watch, Fall 2005, Vol 11 no. 3). Furthermore, within special economic zones in Shenzhen, China, sweatshop workers toil from 7am to 9pm, six days a week for 23 cents an hour, making shirts that PRL sells for $50 each (Hightower, Jim, “Ralph Lauren’s Phony Philanthropy.” Alternet. 26 April 2000.).
Corporate
“Social Responsibility”
As more information has become available about corporations’ dishonest practices in the developing world, some consumers have started asking questions. The public pressure has been enough that many corporations have tried to renew their images, like Polo, as caring, “socially responsible” companies. In their 2003 annual report, Gap, Inc., notorious for using sweatshops, made their first mention of corporate social responsibility and labor standards (www.gapinc.com). In 2004, Starbucks issued a new line of pamphlets for their stores that discuss issues of corporate social responsibility and Fair Trade. And just recently, Nestle, the largest food conglomerate and the most boycotted company in the world, introduced its first Fair Trade Certified line of coffee for the UK. Equal Exchange spoke out about this move because they see it as “the latest in a long line of similar moves by some of the world’s largest food businesses to make small gestures that, ultimately, forestall real, substantial change for impoverished small farmers, and offer marketing and PR opportunities in its place” (www.equalexchange.com).
It is encouraging that there has been enough public pressure to necessitate corporations’ mention of social responsibility, however, we need to remain critical of corporations’ claims of philanthropy. Corporations are, by definition, driven by the bottom line; they exist to make a profit and will do so at all costs. If a responsible and charitable public image will help them turn greater profits for their shareholders and executives, corporations will create this image through advertising, public relations, and token donations to non-profit organizations.
This image of social responsibility is a façade behind which corporations hide their everyday maltreatment and exploitation of workers in the developing world. Though Polo will be happy to tell consumers about their donations to Habitat for Humanity and their help with Hurricane Katrina relief, they will not be so transparent regarding the wages of the individuals who work long, strenuous hours assembling their garments, which they then sell for 100% more than it cost to make.
Consumers are not the only ones oblivious to this fact. Their own employees, like those working for the G.I.V.E. campaign, are unaware--maybe willfully ignorant--of the systematic mistreatment of individuals and communities on which Polo relies. As sincere as their commitment to help others may be, the volunteers of the G.I.V.E. campaign are duped by corporate globalization. Though their efforts, truly generous, may indeed help first world citizens affected by Hurricane Katrina, they are also harming third world citizens with their promotion of Polo Ralph Lauren.
This paradox is troubling. Corporations, with profit-driven motives, are circumventing people’s goodwill and desire to help others back into the capitalist economy where goodwill has no place. Polo’s G.I.V.E. campaign is an example of corporations using first world philanthropy to blind well-meaning people so they cannot see third world suffering. Capitalism, prioritizing profit over people, has caused so many of the pressing problems in the world today; it just does not make sense that this same system can reverse the suffering of its own creation.
The Non-Profit Sector Meets the For-Profit Sector
The relationship between non-profit organizations and corporations is also problematic. In accepting corporate donations, organizations are willingly supporting the corporate cause. A corporation can then associate its name with that of the organization, bragging of its involvement with the organizations’ projects. Polo Jeans lists its involvement with the American Red Cross, American Second Harvest, Meals on Wheels, Teach for America, Rock the Vote, Habitat for Humanity International, Reach Out and Read, and Points of Light, among others, on its website. This is a difficult issue because charities and NGOs rely on donations for their work and can immediately apply funding to their beneficial projects. Can Habitat for Humanity realistically refuse money and materials that will help disaster victims? Yet isn’t fueling malevolent corporate practice in opposition to their objective of providing a better life for those who cannot afford housing?
To ensure human rights for all, to distribute resources equally among all people so everyone’s needs are met, non-profit organizations should not accept donations from corporations. There needs to be a break between corporations and non-profit organizations. Their interactions are like a negative feedback system that maintains the status quo. A slight redistribution of funding will not move beyond the ultimate problem of life within a capitalist system, which concentrates wealth in the hands of a few and alienates people from one another and from the earth through currency. Money creates a barrier between individuals, making it impossible to just share and barter with one another, acting only on reciprocity. When an individual contributes to a distant non-profit project, they are simply working within this system of alienation, donating excess money gained within the capitalist system. A corporation (legally defined as a person) or an individual can donate money, yet as they continue their activities of either producing or purchasing sweatshop garments and earning money within the capitalist system, they maintain the status quo of inequality.
We need to do something other than donate money: if we did not spend all of our time working for cash, there would be more time to help those around us. Unfortunately, we are all still connected to capitalism, but in recognizing the flaws of this system we can create alternatives. Resources can be easily found, not purchased, because of the excess of goods that are continually produced by corporations. Solutions to suffering can be realized on a local level, on a person-toperson basis. Working with local groups, although only one small step in the huge process of reversing corporate globalization, can create effective change. Food Not Bombs is one example. They receive donations from local supermarkets, dumpster dive to procure food that would otherwise be thrown out, prepare food for those that need it, and serve it two times a week on the street. Skillshares, where knowledge is exchanged without money, and bikes, which are operated by individual power and do not rely on the daily infusion of oil, are two other examples. Thrift stores are another great way to reuse clothes and other items, to avoid fueling the ever-increasing, unnecessary production that drives capitalism and keeps millions in poverty. |
Other articles by Nell Schaefer |
|
