Tommy Hilfiger’s new capsule collection aims to bring attention to extreme poverty in Africa. But what about the poverty that exists in the third-world garment factories where he manufactures?

Tommy Hilfiger has a reputation for producing classic, casual, on-trend fashion. But with its new Promise Collection, Tommy is making a foray into the world of social enterprise. The 30-piece capsule collection features “American design classes reinterpreted with African colors, prints, and motifs,” says the release, and 100 percent of all proceeds will benefit Millennium Promise, an international nongovernmental organization co-founded by economist Jeffrey Sachs that intends to halve extreme poverty worldwide by 2015.

The Collection debuted in April, with much fanfare and a look book featuring warm-fuzzy photos of Katie Holmes, the collection’s global ambassador. But with a fashion collection benefiting global poverty, one has to ask – how does Tommy Hilfiger’s business practices support – or perpetuate – conditions of poverty in the places that he manufactures?

Tommy Hilfiger blazed on the scene in 1985 with a youthful line of classic American sportswear. The brand has grown with much the same casual but classic aesthetic, with a Hilfiger denim spin-off label that focuses on the 18-28 demographic. With distribution in over 90 countries and $4.6 billion value, Tommy Hilfiger is one of the world’s leading apparel and retail brands.

The Good

Founded by philanthropist Ray Chambers and Sachs in 2005, Millennium Promise’s main purpose is to accelerate the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals, an ambitious set of aims – like reduce maternal mortality by three quarters and achieve universal primary education – that 189 member states signed on to achieve by 2015.

The MDGs reflect an understanding of the many interconnected factors that contribute to extreme poverty and include time-bound and measurable targets to address income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter and exclusion—while promoting gender equality, education and environmental sustainability. Bill Gates has called them “the best idea for focusing the world on fighting global poverty that [he has] ever seen.”

Millennium Promise focuses its efforts on Africa, and through the Millennium Villages project, it attempts to fight poverty at a local level by addressing issues in agriculture, education, health, infrastructure, gender equality, and business development.

According to press materials, Tommy Hilfiger was first introduced to the work of Millennium Promise in 2009, and he made his first visit to Millennium Villages in Ruhiira, Uganda, in 2010.

When I first visited Ruhiira in 2010 I was deeply affected by the level of poverty. Millennium Promise had already started to work towards improving basic health care, food supplies and access to water, but there was still a lot to achieve. It was an eye-opening experience and I knew, after that visit, that I had to be involved even more in putting an end to poverty on this level.

Full proceeds from The Promise Collection will benefit Millennium Promise projects in Ruhiira, a cluster of six villages spread out over several hundred square kilometers of southwestern Uganda. Through a digital campaign, customers will also be able to track how purchases have a direct impact on life in Ruhiira, in areas like food, health, education, environment, and technology. As of June 1, $1,466,929 had been earmarked for projects.

The Bad

While creating a capsule collection to raise awareness and funds is one way to go about addressing extreme poverty, it takes only a little bit of probing to see that Tommy Hilfiger’s global manufacturing practices aren’t exactly the most ethical. The hourly wage for workers producing Tommy Hilfiger garments ranges from 23 cents to $1.75, according to a PBS documentary on the denim industry. And sweatshop conditions have been reported in factories everywhere from Mexico to Thailand to the tiny Pacific island commonwealth of Saipan.

But perhaps one of the most disturbing recent reports came from Bangladesh, where a 2012 garment factory fire killed 29 people. It was later found that hazardous electric wiring, lack of safety equipment, and padlocked gates were to blame for the deaths, according to an ABC News investigative report. Details of the incident were oddly reminiscent of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City in 1911, which killed 146 garment workers, exposed sweatshop-like conditions in garment factories, and jumpstarted the American worker’s rights movement.

Confronted about the incident before his show at New York Fashion Week, Hilfiger initially said that he upheld a “gold standard” for worker safety, and that the company was no longer working with the Bangladeshi factories. However, shipping records procured by ABC News said otherwise. Later, Hilfiger and Emanuel Chirico, CEO of parent company Phillips-Van Heusen, agreed to a television interview with ABC News, in which they admitted that Tommy Hilfiger still works with factories in Bangladesh.

According to Scott Nova, executive director of the Workers Rights Consortium, Bangladesh is one of the cheapest places in the world to manufacture. “It has the lowest wages – 21 cents an hour – the weakest regulations, the weakest attention to workplace health and safety,” he told ABC News.

Hilfiger and Chirico maintain that the only way to create change in Bangladeshi worker conditions is to continue working with factories to improve their conditions. In the meantime, three other Hilfiger factory employees have died in recent safety-related accidents, one when a frayed elevator cable snapped and two others when workers rushed to open padlocked gates after a boiler explosion.

The Questionable

In press materials for the Promise Collection, Tommy Hilfiger said that he was “moved” by the challenges facing impoverished people in Africa and inspired to do something about it.

It was a lifechanging experience. The trip inspired me to raise even more awareness–as well as funds–in order to help this cause. As a designer the best way to do that was, naturally, to design a collection and donate 100% of all proceeds to the important work that is being done to eradicate extreme poverty.

As a designer, that may be one way to address poverty. But as the head of one of the world’s leading apparel brands, Hilfiger also has the power to address global poverty by simply doing better business – paying fair wages, insisting on improved conditions, and contributing to the communities in which they manufacture. While Bangladesh’s garment industry has provided that necessary first step out of extreme poverty, it is still a place where 50 percent of the population lives under the international poverty line of $1.25 per day. Before Hilfiger attempts to combat conditions in Africa, he needs to first look at the poverty that exists right under his nose, in the communities that produce his polo shirts, cabana shorts, and beach towels.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: H&M’s Conscious Collection

Behind the Label: Levi Strauss’ E-Valuate Program

Behind the Label: TOMS’ One for One Campaign

Behind the Label: Puma’s Vision and Clever Little Bag

Behind the Label: Anthropologie’s Made In Kind

Behind the Label: Is Stella McCartney A Sustainable Brand?

Read more Behind the Label here.

The post Behind the Label: Tommy Hilfiger’s Promise Collection appeared first on EcoSalon.

Our insider spills fashion industry secrets in Part 2 of a special series on American fashion manufacturing.

A Tommy Hilfiger advertisement proclaims, “Fresh American Style… discover style that truly fits the way you live.” The irony behind this statement is laughable. Here’s an “All American Brand” hardly designed by Americans, made far from American shores, that isn’t even primarily owned by Americans. Does American Eagle produce anything in America? Heck no. Think Abercrombie & Fitch is authentic? Forget it. Tommy Hilfiger sold his company to the Dutch and has been sitting pretty on his yacht ever since.

But the advertisement isn’t the only thing about that brand that is misleading. In 2000, Tommy Hilfiger, whose brand signified the great America dream, was caught manufacturing clothes in sweatshop conditions in the United States territory of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands. As a U.S. Commonwealth, clothes made there could be labeled “Made in the USA,” but federal labor laws including the minimum wage did not apply. Perhaps Tommy Hilfiger didn’t know what his production partners in Saipan were up to, but you better believe they pulled their production out of there as soon as the news hit the stands. Shortly after the story broke, the garment factories in Saipan were officially closed.

Are the companies entirely to blame? The pressure to keep profits high and the cost on the sales rack low is an issue driven by both investments of blind shareholders and consumers who want a good deal for name brand clothing. Where the product is actually produced is rarely even discussed with the shareholders, who tend to be more concerned about the return on their investment. For the consumers it’s clearly labeled, by law, in every garment we own: Made in Indonisa, Made in Guatemala, Made in Taiwan. The possibility that the companies that we are investing in could be harming others or destroying our economy doesn’t register for most.

For one company, this was not the case. It was the shareholders of Hugo Boss who helped keep their American factory in Cleveland, Ohio from closing. Hugo Boss has been producing its suits there for the past 23 years, in a garment factory that has been operating continuously since 1932. Recently, however, even this bright example has been tarnished. Last year, the company moved to shut down the factory. The Hugo Boss Corporation blamed consumer and shareholder demands for the decision to close. The company had issued notices to the workers that stated:

“Looking at the company’s goals, which were driven by our customer preferences and our shareholder responsibilities, it is our conclusion and decision that it is time to close the Cleveland plant…”

Image via blog.cleveland.com

The workers despaired, but turned to their union to rally against the threat of losing their jobs. It wasn’t until the union realized that a group of shareholders which had invested $150 million into the fund that owned Hugo Boss was an organization called the Ohio Public Retirement System (OPRS). When they were notified by the Union, they threatened to pull their funds out. Not surprisingly, Hugo Boss changed its tune and in the end the company agreed to keep the factory open – provided the workers take a pay cut from $13 per hour to $10 per hour. (Had these been workers in China working for one of the factories that Walmart sources with, no negotiations would be possible, and they might be paid as little as $.44 an hour, and $.65 hour for overtime hours, if they get paid at all.)

While the Hugo Boss shareholders’ interest appears to have been largely coincidental in favoring the plight of the factory and its workers, there still are some American companies so committed to keeping American manufacturers in business that they are willing to pay the extra cost of doing business here.

Images via Feral Childe Spring/Summer 11

Feral Childe is one such business. Says Alice Wu, one half of the design duo that makes up Feral Childe, “We definitely pay a higher price for Made in the USA. Saving in shipping does not compensate. We know there are manufacturers overseas that can do it at a fraction of the price, but it’s a conscious decision we make: paying fair wages, working with people we know, and doing it locally whenever possible. We’ve built a manufacturing community.”

Wu and her business partner, Moriah Carlson, are well aware of the global options, but choose to keep the operation in America regardless.

“It seems crazy not to look in your own backyard first to do business if you can. We have all the resources available to us right here – why would we do business in China when we can do it here with people we know?” she says. “Every step of the way there are people making the clothing – people we know, people we care about. You could say that everything we do is not only ‘Made in New York,’ but also ‘Made with Love.’ Everything is connected to our whole community of people and hopefully others will become aware of that.”

While she and Carlson have decided to do business in an unorthodox manner compared to the New York fashion industry, she does say that they run into problems from time to time with their homegrown model.

“We build our working relationships with manufacturers and the people we work with count on us to continue working with them to stay in business. They count on us to grow our business and therefore give them larger orders with each season,” Wu says. “They believe in us and that’s why the ones who are willing to work with small companies do it. We are all in it together, but we’re left in the lurch when mills and factories disappear overnight.”

This is something she and her partner have experienced on several occasions.

“One of the mills we’ve worked with for four years now recently went under (it was in Montreal), and a Texas mill that we were just getting to know folded before we had a chance to even work with them,” says Wu. “Our New Jersey-based textile printer closed up shop this past October after three seasons of working with them, just as things were starting to go smoothly and we had to scramble for a new printer and learn a new way of doing things.”

These issues arise as a direct result of many American fashion businesses deciding to move production overseas. If a mill or factory loses too many orders to manufacturers overseas, they can’t keep afloat, leaving no choice but to close shop. This in turn creates problems of scale for true American brands like Feral Childe. If they want to help keep their mills, factories, and themselves in business, they have to walk a fine line between large and small orders.

“The stakes grow higher as we grow which makes it difficult to finance and find consistent resources. Many fabric mills and textile printers don’t want to partner with the little guys, like us,” says Wu. “They want you to order minimums of at least a thousand yards at a time. We have great sewing contractors, but sometimes they get overwhelmed if we have more orders than usual. Manufacturing in the USA isn’t hard if you are just starting out or if you are a huge company, but it is difficult if you are in-between and growing.”

Image via MadeinMidtown.com

When asked what she thinks would improve the situation, she emphasizes consumer awareness and local pride.

“I’d put fashion manufacturing on the map. I think that the garment centers in different cities need a visual representation. They should be put on some kind of map so people know these are major manufactures within their cities,” she says. “New York, L.A., San Francisco, Chicago – all the major cities in the States have manufacturing facilities and the locals as well as the tourists should know about them, and understand the economic and social value of that. So instead of looking at old factory buildings and thinking ‘industrial wasteland’ or ‘real estate land grab,’ they should think of the rich history of a once-thriving industry. And they should be conscious of the industry which is still thriving”

Wu takes a moment to reflect. “I just wish people had a greater appreciation for where their clothes come from. People now are so removed from it. I’ve met people who are surprised when I tell them we make everything in the USA. They say ‘Where?'”

Fortunately, Made in Midtown has already started a map of this sort, with interactive images of buildings in the garment district to show what is manufactured in the Garment District buildings.

Editor’s note: Louise Lagosi is not the author’s real name. Catch up on Part 1 in this series here.

The post Made in the U.S.A., Part 2: What Goes on Behind the Business of American Fashion appeared first on EcoSalon.

Five low-impact suggestions to create a smart Fall 2011 wardrobe.

Thinking about our relationship to fashion beyond conspicuous consumption is a core principle here at EcoSalon and as we all know is as challenging as it is enlightening. Identifying what fashion truly means to you is the first step to figuring out how to re-design a stylish future that better serves you and the planet. For me, the fun of fashion is in its unique ability to express the outlandish, a sense of wit and imagination, as exemplified by icons such as Alexander McQueen, Isabella Blow and Diana Vreeland.

Vreeland, Editor-In-Chief of Vogue from 1963-1971, created the fashion media as we know it today. She imparted her sparkling wit and ingenuity into the style scene, qualities that are mostly missing in these days of carbon-copy consumerism.

Vreeland began her career as a columnist for Harper’s Bazaar in 1936. Her tongue-in-cheek “Why don’t you” columns – “Why don’t you use a gigantic shell instead of a bucket to ice your champagne?” and “Or paint a map of the world on all four walls of your boys’ nursery so they won’t grow up with a provincial point of view?” for example – inspired her post-Depression readers to think outside of the box and break the rules of fashion.

It was Vreeland’s fearless, slightly madcap voice saying “Why Not” that came to mind as I watched last week’s New York runways with a view to how I could adapt my own wardrobe to reflect some of the trends. In the spirit of fashion risk taking, and with humble acknowledgment paid to a true genius (she actually invented the word “Pizazz” for goodness’ sake), here are my five low-impact suggestions to create a smart Fall 2011 wardrobe.

Why not…tie one on? Menswear is a huge trend. With Yigal Azrouel, Alexander Wang and Prabal Gurung (above) showing tuxedo inspired ensembles, the easiest way to get the look is to borrow a tie or cut a thin strip of black silk. Tie the knot a little looser and lower  than you would on your male counterpart or forget a collar completely and rock the androgynous look with a tee.

Why not…stop playing so safe? It’s not until you’re confronted with a chartreuse dress or bright orange pants that you realize you’ve essentially been weaned on a diet of safe neutrals and black. If you’re going to buy one thing for next season, choose a piece that gives your neutral ensemble an unexpected pop of color, as seen at Peter Som, Preen and Phillip Lim (above).

Why not…chop off the arms of your old trench or jacket? If this idea makes you squirm, get your tailor to do it. Make sure to save the arms to create a bias binding to neatly finish off the look. Vest coats looked fresh at Alexander Wang, Richard Chai Love and Rachel Roy.

Why not…nix the match? Clashing textures, plaids and prints is the way to go, as seen at Marc Jacobs, Rag and Bone (above) and Thakoon. Consider it  the perfect excuse to try on all your old clothes again to see what clashes with what!

Why not…make a sweeping entrance? Flowing, mid-calf and longer skirt lengths feel radical, even mildly uncomfortable, after years spent in form fitting tops and skinny pants. Dig around your local thrift store and I guarantee you’ll find some floor-skimmers left over from the early 1990’s. Pair with a utilitarian jacket to get the new silhouette, as seen at Tommy Hilfiger, Rachel Comey and Tory Burch.

All images from style.com

The post Catwalk Considerations: ‘Why Not?’ appeared first on EcoSalon.