The dangers of wokewashing (in fashion)

I wrote this article originally for the Wellmade Clothes. It was first published on their website in November 2020.

What’s up with wokewashing?

You might be familiar with the notion of greenwashing. It’s where brands use empty buzzwords and pseudo-environmental initiatives to hijack sustainability and environmental issues. Brands use it as a marketing strategy to boost PR and profits. If you’re not vigilant, it’s easy to fall for the social media hashtags, brand policy statements and ‘eco-friendly’ product lines that used to distract from bad business practices. In reality, they do little or nothing to support the social cause they claim. It appears greenwashing tactics are not enough to deceive customers into buying products that could help ‘save the planet’. So, brands have now upped the ante.

Enter wokewashing. In this phase, brands are co-opting social justice issues like anti-racism, feminism, LGBTQ+, inequality and mental health awareness. They align themselves with trending socially conscious and cultural issues. Meanwhile, some of the same (or similar) issues they speak up against are being perpetrated within their own company and their supply chains. Nonetheless, some brands have no scruples about commercialising social justice issues. Such is the dubious art of wokewashing.

Why wokewashing is a thing

Through our purchases, we’re investing in brands. More people are choosing to support brands that do the right thing and give back. And on that note are holding companies to a higher standard of conduct. They’re expected to publicly take a stand on environmental and social issues. Their silence can also be deemed as a negative act. This notion has birthed socially conscious capitalism and brand activism.

How wokewashing can look like

BLM wokewashing

One of the most common areas to spot wokewashing in abundance is the Black Lives Matter movement, particularly when it went global in June this year. Fashion has spanned years of systemic racism, insensitive creative-decision-making and cultural appropriation. But the socials were lit with solidarity for BLM by fashion brands when the issue was trending. From posting black squares to performative allyship to statements of solidarity for racial equality and justice. Meanwhile, some of these brands had workplace cultures that were toxic to black people. After the LA-based sustainable fashion label, Reformation posted a solidarity message, for instance, it was accused of hypocrisy because of a culture of workplace racism by people claiming to be former employees. The brand Anthropologie was accused of racially profiling customers in-store.

Many brands that posted about this movement had seldom or never had Black, Indigenous or People of Colour (BIPOC) as models, nor as top-level decision-makers, executives in senior and even other roles within the company. Luxury French brand, Celine, got called out by Hollywood stylist, Jason Bolden. He claimed the brand lacked diversity and refused to dress black celebrities unless they were working with white stylists.  Adesuwa Aighewi, a high-profile model commented on diversity in fashion modelling saying, “Literally everything that I've done has been as the face of my race and as a diversity token....” #BLM is no longer trending as much as it was back in June and correspondingly, many brands have not followed through with the commitments they made.   

Fast fashion - COVID-19 wokewashing

Primark is a major fast fashion brand worth approximately $1.4 billion. In April this year, they donated 74,000 essential items to the Nightingale Initiative for National Health Service workers in the UK due to COVID. They did something similar in Ireland, Spain, the US and Italy. At the same time, they cancelled orders worth $273 million, from garment workers in Bangladesh according to Remake. Most of these workers were on poverty wages and the actions of brands like Primark sent them further into destitution, which in poorer countries puts them at risk of COVID because conditions for quarantine and safety become less available. 

Fast fashion brand Asos raised funds for the National Health Service in the UK for the pandemic by selling tops with the word ‘Heroes’. They also donated tops to NHS employees. Meanwhile, the Guardian accused Asos of being a ‘cradle of disease’ earlier this year when they had staff working in their warehouses without protective equipment and without social distancing measures. They were also accused of laying off staff without severance or notice.

Boohoo, another fast fashion conglomerate encouraged customers to stay home when the lockdown was imposed in March. Ironically, they forced employees to risk exposing themselves to disease by going to work on product photoshoots without respecting social distancing rules. 

Feminist wokewashing

Wokewashing happens in other sectors too. For instance, the automobile industry. In 2017, Audi garnered approval for an ad supporting equal pay for women. They received backlash when it was revealed that the company had a poor track record for promoting women to leadership positions.

 The dangers of wokewashing

The damage left after brands perform wokewashing can be devastating on the marginalised, disadvantaged and affected individuals and communities they claim to support. In the first place, it makes a mockery of the victims fighting for justice. It diminishes and cheapens their fight for their human rights, and a just and better world by reducing these campaigns to a mere marketing tactic. In my opinion, the lack of empathy in profiting from the pain of people is unfair, inhumane and ruthless. The loud, empty noise made by brands gives the false impression that genuine changes are being made to improve circumstances for the marginalised. In some cases, after the campaign has died down, the outcome is only short-term changes are made, compared to the noise of the campaign. Wokewashing can also scramble the original messaging and miscommunicate who or what the social movement was originally created for.

Secondly, brand loyalty and trust are of the utmost importance in today’s world of customer engagement and brand reputation. Brands have to be rigorously thorough with their ethos, otherwise, it can damage their reputation. For many years, the accessories brand, Matt & Nat claimed to be ethical, sustainable and vegan. In 2019, customers discovered that they were not transparent about their manufacturing and were using PVC material which is bad for the environment. Customers saw this as greenwashing and it affected their customer base.  

Fixing the wokewashing problem

Thanks to super clever marketing, the motives of brands can be hard to decipher. But not impossible.

1. Stay ‘woke’ on common deceptions

Familiarising yourself with some of the common wokewashing and greenwashing techniques can help to screen claims made by brands according to Gordon Renouf, CEO of Good On You. He suggests steering clear of brands that set future targets but fail to act on the issues now. He also recommends looking out for brand announcements with initiatives that have a few easy and insignificant initiatives that they’re working on. Especially the ones that are implemented at their head offices. One common trick is that brands will emphasise an initiative to divert your attention away from their harmful business practices but neglect to address all areas of impact.

2. Let’s check ourselves

As we’re calling out brands, I believe it’s important that we look within ourselves, our communities, networks, schools, communications and connections to be sure we’re not wokewashing in our own lives. Even if we don’t stand to profit, we should also stand by our ethos. Are we truly listening to the marginalised? Are we following through in our commitments long after the social media campaign is done and none of our friends can still be bothered? Are we unlearning some of the bad behaviour we’ve been taught? Are we educating ourselves and connecting with these marginalised groups long-term?

3. The devil is in the details (or fine print)

Be not deceived by brands that make big assertions, general statements and buzzwords without specific, measurable and substantiated claims in the fine print. At the end of the day, the outcome of these changes might be a very small percentage in comparison to the big noise they make. According to Ruth MacGlip and Alice Cruikshank of Common Threads podcast, brands need to show validation from a third party. Check if their claims have a legal and agreed-upon definition, rather than something vague like ‘natural’ and ‘sustainable’.  Also, check if the claim is relevant to the product.

4. Engage

If the claims look shady, ask the questions to the brands. Some brands are well-intentioned, but they might be going about things in the wrong way. Engaging in conversations might help them shape their initiatives in the right ways. And if you come to realise that it’s simply a case of old fashioned wokewashing, then CALL THEM OUT!  

5. Diversity and inclusion in the workplace

A buzz phrase we hear often and it’s incredibly crucial. No matter how genuine it appears, marginalised people can tell straight away when a brand is wokewashing on an issue that affects them. Diversity and inclusion in the workplace can help mitigate these situations by having representation in the room. Cheryl Overton, a veteran diversity and inclusion advisor says, “Brands have to start leaning hard into identifying (diverse) talent….” She insists this should be from corporate headquarters through to retail assistants. Furthermore, the internal culture should allow for them to have the space to create, influence, grow and contribute to the company.

6. Research

If you do your own research on a brand, you might discover whether the brand truly aligns with the values that they publicly claim. It’s important that we use our power to weigh and examine things that are presented to us rather than taking it all in without question. As stated earlier, it can be detrimental to those affected.

♥ Nina Gbor

Insta: @eco.styles

Fashion, women's rights and free trade agreements

Photo courtesy of ActionAid Australia.

It’s now common knowledge that the fashion industry is not only one of the most polluting industries in the world, but it’s also laden with a lot of social injustice issues such as systemic poverty, unfair wages and lives being lost due to manufacturing. Through the efforts of activists, ethical brands and organisations like Fashion Revolution, Wardrobe Crisis, Ellen Macarthur Foundation and Eco-Age, many people are demanding ethical standards from the brands who make our clothes. However, for a more thorough and holistic shift in these issues, we need the involvement of governments, particularly where laws are concerned.

I wonder at what point in our modern history we degenerated into thinking human life was so worthless. When did it become okay to place profits and economic growth over human lives under the guise of progress? Or has this notion altogether been slyly omitted from the era of modernity and civilisation? Earlier this year the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement came to my attention through AFTINET (Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network) and a human rights campaign created by ActionAid Australia called #TransformTradeForWomen. RCEP is a trade agreement potentially in its last leg of negotiations. If signed in its current state, it will have laws that in essence, trade corporate profits over human rights and the environment. Sadly, this notion of profit over people and planet appears to be a fundamental principle driving much of the top-level decision-making in many governments and business corporations.

Free trade agreements (FTAs) are international treaties between two or more nations that set the rules regarding trade and investment. FTAs reduce barriers to trade by giving more rights to corporations and reducing tax on imports for example. Through giving more rights to multinational corporations as an incentive to trade, they can create access to new markets for businesses in a nation and increased opportunities for foreign investment in that country. The idea is to boost economic growth of member nations. However, it’s quickly becoming a well-known fact that FTAs are rigged in favour of multinational corporations.  These agreements are increasingly becoming booby trapped with policies that heavily impact lives and rights of workers, especially women. RCEP is a massive free trade agreement between 16 member states that collectively make up nearly half of the world’s population. They include Australia, New Zealand and fourteen Asian nations, including the ten ASEAN member states. This agreement will have huge socio-economic ramifications on low-income countries – the workers, women and of course the garment workers. Therefore, if this deal goes through in the present form, it’ll boost the power of multinational corporations, to operate in ways that further damage the environment and human rights.

Whenever there’s a disaster of some kind, economic downturn or similar circumstance, women are always hit the hardest. About 80% of garment workers in the world are women. Because a significant portion of garments is made in some of the RCEP nations, the agreement can potentially have a lasting impact on the outcome of sustainability in the fashion industry (and other industries too). As FTAs are covertly designed to profit corporations at the expense of everyday people, the matter is systemically linked to women’s rights, gender equality and poverty. Therefore, signing a trade agreement with such a broad-stroke impact under these circumstances amounts to an act of brinkmanship.

According to information gathered by AFTINET, these are some of the ramifications of FTAs and RCEP:

1. The threat to women’s access to decent jobs

Trade agreements encourage multinational companies to manufacture in sectors like clothing by driving down wages and undermining worker’s rights. This is partially because normal labour rights and standards may not apply within designated “special economic zones”, drafted in some trade deals. RCEP will make provisions for corporations to employ and pay women unfair, low wages. It will validate corporations employing women in poor, sometimes unsafe working conditions. This is already a huge problem in low-income states; therefore, it will make it harder to find solutions to end exploitation and eradicate poverty cycles. Ultimately, it would make it even harder for female garment workers to find some form of self-empowerment.  

2. Temporary migrant workers could face increased exploitation

Temporary migration can be an avenue for women from low-income countries to make higher incomes, however, the reality is that these women often end up being exploited in poorly paid sectors.

3. Environment and climate change

FTAs can propel climate damage and threaten action on climate change. By inciting companies to take their manufacturing and polluting operations to nations with lower environmental safeguards, FTAs can contribute to climate change and other environmental issues. They also place barriers on the ability of governments to respond to climate change, which is unjustly impacting women around the world.

Some FTAs have a clause called the ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement’ (ISDS), which is a policy designed to give multinational corporations the impetus to sue governments if they feel a change in national law or policy will reduce their profits. For example, raising the minimum wage or laws to reduce carbon pollution. In other words, corporations can sue governments over laws that protect women’s rights over profits. Many cases presently being deliberated under trade deals include mining companies suing governments because of foregone profits from environmental regulations.

UN specialists have contributed to this theory, noting that the fear of being sued means governments are less inclined to pass laws that are crucial for people and planet. As of mid-September 2019, RCEP has excluded the ISDS clause from the deal.

4. E-Commerce inequality

In an article written in The Interpreter, Rahul Nath Choudhury has voiced concern from the perspective of most developing countries about the inclusion of e-commerce within FTAs. Some feel that it’s a covert method of using international rules that favour big tech corporations from developed countries to exclude developing countries from the digital economy.  

5. Access to public services like healthcare and education.

FTAs in general need tariffs to be reduced, which in turn minimises government revenue available for public services like healthcare, transport, and education which are a critical part of ensuring that women’s basic needs are met. By doing this they disable gender equality.

Healthcare – Amongst other health matters, AFTINET Convener, Dr Pat Ranald expressed concern over RCEP proposals for long-term monopolies on medicines that would delay the ability of affordable, generic medicines to be made available in developing countries.

Education - The lack of access to education for women and girls has a huge domino effect on so many things. It makes them more vulnerable to things like modern slavery, early childhood marriages, trafficking, etc.

Women make up more than half of the world’s population. And one can even say, that, that in itself equates to an enormous pool of resource and potential. UN Women has said, “Increasing women’s and girls’ educational attainment contributes to women’s economic empowerment and more inclusive economic growth.” Educating women and girls is the key to solving so many of the world’s problems. It means they’ll have opportunities to participate, contribute and have more leadership opportunities. And when it comes to issues like economic growth, empowering half of the population seems like a very long-term strategy for ensuring continued economic growth. So, when you look at it from that angle, it’s not practical to allow women to be disempowered in these ways. It really makes no sense at all to ignore the rights of women, particularly at the top level-decision-making. It affects economic development, politics, social development and the GDP. Billions of dollars of development and growth are lost from denying women access to education and from disempowering them. This is a fundamental pathway to creating positive change in the world. When women are empowered, the entire family, community and nation benefits. Which means the world benefits.

Just as women in the global north experience pay gaps, inequality, harassment and discrimination, women in low-income countries experience these injustices to a much higher degree. So, I believe that Western people being in a position of higher privilege, have the power to shift circumstances towards positive change, not only for garment workers but women in general.

FTAs can be a great way to systemise women’s rights. We have agency to use agreements like RCEP to change circumstances that will have huge ramifications on half of the globe in regard to women’s lives, communities and future generations. This is crucial not only for economic development but for progression in areas of politics, wellbeing, health, science and climate action. It will be on point for us to have RCEP amended to include the rights of women. And furthermore, using the gravitas of such an agreement, make it the standard for all future trade agreements to have women’s rights as a fundamental requirement before the drafting process even begins.

This is not just a women’s fight for women, it’s a people’s fight for the progression of humanity. And we hope that governments can see the value in it as well.

AFTINET - To stay up-to-date with developments on RCEP, follow AFTINET here.

ActionAid Australia - To learn more and support #TransformTradeForWomen, sign ActionAid’s RCEP petition here. You can also do the following:

• Look into joining your local activist group and find out how you can get involved with a campaign in your community.

• Watch their events page to find out if there is a campaign event happening near you. 

• Donate to help power the campaign and make sure they have the resources to run hard-hitting stunts, grow public support across Australia, and use creative tactics to target key decision-makers.

• Follow ActionAid on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to make sure you’re first to hear all the latest ways to take action on a campaign.

 Dr Patricia Ranald, Convenor of AFTINET will be speaking at The True Cost Movie screening event organised by ActionAid Australia on October 30th. Find tickets here.

- Nina Gbor

Sources: http://aftinet.org.au/cms/Regional-Comprehensive-Economic-Partnership-RCEP https://actionaid.org.au/actions/rcep-petition/