I bought a pair of tennis shoes recently that I've been exceptionally excited about. They look cool, not exactly mainstream yet, and have a big label that says Swiss engineered on the side of them. As a consumer, I made an assumption that a big label such as 'Swiss engineered' actually means the shoes were made in Switzerland where first-world wages, laws and regulations are applicable. It wasn't until I was meticulously cleaning them that I saw the inside label which stated...any guesses? You probably got it right. 'Made in Vietnam.'
At this point, I still gave the company the benefit of the doubt. I thought to myself, 'maybe working conditions in Vietnam aren't that bad. Maybe what I've heard in the news about excessive labor in various countries isn't as bad or as widespread as one might think.' Afterward, I found myself becoming more educated about the chain of delivery on exactly how so many well-known brands arrive in our closets. I knew going into the process that I could end up only wearing potato sacks, but I wanted to know. I had to scratch the itch.
The discoveries made can be summarized with this thought, 'human behavior, especially in a capitalistic context, will stabilize along the barriers put in place.' What do I mean by this? In the case of tennis shoes and their production chains, companies are playing by the rules. Big box companies aren't exactly going around in ships, picking up workers from undeveloped soils, throwing them in chains, and forcing them to sew clothing. Not at all. If put in the hands of a talented marketing agent, you would read something like, 'we're providing safe and clean working opportunities in communities and paying wages that are aligned with businesses in those areas.' Sounds straight forward right? Even noble?
The argument falls apart when you break down the pieces that make the whole. In an analysis published on choice.com, a pair of tennis shoes costing $180 in stores has a shocking intrinsic labor value when made in Indonesia. Any guesses? Maybe it's half the cost. No, that's too much. Maybe a third? That seems right. It takes a lot of effort to get these shoes shipped, etc. No. Guess again. It's $3.80 per pair of shoes, or 2% of the cost of a pair of shoes you and I will gladly pay for and slap on our feet for our daily treadmill lap in the gym. What are some of the other pieces of the pie? I'm glad you asked, $39 goes to the brand while $69 goes to the retailer. That's 22% and 38% respectively.
At what point do we inject ethics into the capitalistic algorithm? Why is it enough to stop at the lowest common denominator? If a minimum wage is in place, we might as well pay that. It's the law and it'll make our shareholders happy back in the states. Why does it stop there? What would international business look like if we changed the profitability equation stated above to make the production value more balanced with the brand and the retailer? How amazing would it be for a company like Nike or Adidas or Apple to be able to say, we pay our employees 4x the amount they would normally make in their regions. For every pair of shoes we sell, we're helping feed a family, elevate a baseline, provide education for a community. Will there every be policies like these in place?
I think it's time we ask our businesses these hard questions. I think if our dollar is our vote in many of these situations, we use it to go towards something that actually benefits humanity rather than pad the pockets of the elite. I personally would much rather wear a brand that symbolizes hope and benefit rather than oppression, pain, suffering, or idolization. I've left a few links of some sources that provoked many of these thoughts. Maybe your conclusions will be similar to mine, and maybe we can all work together to work towards true change
https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-sneakers-the-answer-is-probably