Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mark Donne

GET UPDATES FROM Mark Donne
 

Topshop Boycott: A Sister Act That is Well Overdue

Posted: 09/01/12 00:00

Two years ago I conducted a film interview with Alexa Chung which I suspect is unique in the thousands she has given, in that every question related to current affairs. Neither Mulberry nor Miu Miu were mentioned.

Alexa was advised against participation by a PR assistant but resisted, broke away and we talked. I found her to be charming, bright, well informed and while clearly without any agenda, definitely tapped in to the social/political world around her. One of her starkest observations stood out then, and has snowballed ever since.

At 00.31 here, you can view Alexa describing being "pulled in" by Topshop prices, even though they use "sweatshop labour". As genuinely uncomfortable as she was with this, she spoke for a generation of young women magnetised by cheap style. As a man, I have observed the hypnotic lure of Topshop over girlfriends, sister and friends. It is the undoubted high street fashion touchstone, its flagships stores mini meccas for cool consumers.

Topshop has been accused of using overseas sweatshop labour - carried out under truly appalling working conditions - to produce its most desired lines (including the Kate Moss lines) too many times for anyone's comfort.

The Topshop group was also exposed by the Channel 4 Dispatches team for using sweatshop labour suppliers here in the UK, with "dirty, dangerous and appalling conditions" uncovered, as well as employees being illegaly paid at half the minimum wage.

When the Sunday Times ran a front page story on Topshop sweatshop practices, owner Sir Phillip Green was asked by a ST journalist why his group were one of the very few UK retailers not to sign up to the Ethical Trade Initiative, Green replied that he had already offered to punch her colleague "on the nose...and throw him out of the window".

And despite owner Green paying himself a £1.2 billion dividend a couple of years back, in its London stores Topshop still refuses to pay the London Living Wage to staff; the hourly pay rate that the Mayor of London (no radical, tent-dwelling hippy) and the Greater London Authority say is the amount an employee working in the capital must earn to attain an acceptable standard of living. The Living Wage is paid by many London employers including Westfield, Barclays, LUSH and the Olympic Delivery Authority.

As the Evening Standard's campaigning journalist David Cohen pointed out, "the first step to addressing deprivation and inequality in London - where 40% of inner-city children live in poverty - is to pay a living wage." Quite so, agrees Boris, it is "not only morally right, it makes business sense."

Add to this litany of unethical behaviour the fact that Phillip Green has been identified and pursued by groups like UK Uncut (if not yet the taxman) for alleged tax avoidance on a major scale, which of course depletes our local and national economies and curtails spending on schools, hospitals and care provision, and you have an ethical dilemma for any prospective customer.

But for Topshop, it is no generalisation to say this dilemma will be overwhelming for women, often young women.

Critically, a majority of those working in overseas sweatshops are women, a majority of UK employees in working poverty - often retail - are women and as has been widely recorded to the prime minister's immense discomfort, those most negatively hit by the current cuts agenda - seriously exacerbated by tax avoidance of the systemic Phillip Green variety - are also women.

Terrifyingly, Green has been advising David Cameron on how to be more financially efficient.

So it would seem to me, that if one could say that an endemic culture of utter disregard for fairness exists within the highest echelons of Topshop, and that women at home and abroad are disproportionately harmed by this endemic disregard, then women who care should vote with their purses and boycott Topshop with immediate effect? As a man I do, because sartorially and socially they ain't my style; but I get that the former would be harder for young women.

Topshop and its parent Arcadia Group are not alone in their ongoing exploitation of those producing, selling and consuming its products, but they are the most visible and their lines most popular to this generation of young women - in the public arena and ubiquitously across social media - questioning the decency of world they live in.

From St Paul's to Fleet Street, I cannot recall a time when young women were taking the lead more against gender specific and economic injustices, and so I make a direct appeal: send a message to the mercantile Sir Phillip Green and, painful as it maybe, boycott Topshop until they change their policies at home and abroad.

The fact that Green and Topshop consistently operate in this way looks characteristic or even hard wired and it is the young who are challenging them, with students opposed to sweatshop labour and activists furious about tax avoidance closing Topshop branches literally every week, including Liverpool this Saturday just gone.

Incidentally, I would also appeal directly to Harriet Walker of the Independent and Rosamund Urwin of the Evening Standard - in my view the two national newspaper columnists covering gender issues and style in the most interesting, counter intuitive and increasingly authoritative way - to remind their growing readerships and twitter followers that cheap style for one woman should not mean degraded life for another, and until Topshop seriously accept that ethical behaviour and style go hand in hand, they should be out of fashion.

 

Follow Mark Donne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/donne_mark

Two years ago I conducted a film interview with Alexa Chung which I suspect is unique in the thousands she has given, in that every question related to current affairs. Neither Mulberry nor Miu Miu we...
Two years ago I conducted a film interview with Alexa Chung which I suspect is unique in the thousands she has given, in that every question related to current affairs. Neither Mulberry nor Miu Miu we...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:36 on 12/01/2012
While totally sympathising with the plight of underpaid workers in London, I'm a little astonished that paying them more is the "first step" toward correcting the situation- surely the 1st step is to stop ripping them off with inflated rents and living costs. Why should anything cost more just because it's in the capital. Low paid workers across the country struggle to survive- should they all move to London? Like all the issues highlighted in this article the problem is greed, sooner or later those controlling the economy need to wake up and stop taking more than their fair share (yes, naive I know)!
18:37 on 10/01/2012
Hi, after reading this article I started this https://www.facebook.com/#!/events/145157558932604/ if anyone else doesn't want to keep helping Phillip Green violate human rights please attend and tell your friends. Screw you topshop!
17:20 on 10/01/2012
I love the women who have replied here trying to flame you for a well thought out and informed post. Some people will find a sexist comment anywhere they want purely so they can unleash their blind and misguided rage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
azbenahmed
13:47 on 10/01/2012
Agree with the issues raised but why is the onus on women? If you compare men and women in general, it is women that are more ethically aware.. so what about getting men to boycott Topman and Burton, which is another shop owned by the Arcadia Group? No mention of the BHS job losses (Arcadia again). Plus there are several more shops owned by Arcadia such as Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins, as well as concessions in larger department stores like House of Fraser and Debenhams.
17:05 on 14/01/2012
That is a silly game of pass the buck you are playing. Ask around, there must be males in your life who tire of it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
azbenahmed
14:37 on 15/01/2012
what on earth are you talking about? i agree with the blogger but don't see why it is aimed at women only, when the arcadia group owns several mens clothing stores too
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PimlicoTab
13:44 on 10/01/2012
REPORTED ON THE SAME PAGE
"Topshop parent company Arcadia set to close up to 260 stores after dip in profits
Arcadia - the retail giant behind high street favourites like Topshop, Miss Selfridge and Dorothy Perkins - has reported a fall in annual profits of... "

How many shops do you think would close if wages were higher in countries that supplied Topshop? Phillip Green creates many thousands of jobs worldwide and I remember the man when he had just one little shop in Bond Street selling left over, unwanted, designer labels. The man is a legend and attacks on him by people like Mark Donne, who provide no work for the citizens of third world countries, are just the tappings on a computer keyboard.

As far as tax avoidance; Green is bound by the same tax rules as the rest of UK taxpayers, he pays many millions in tax and provides employment for thousands.

Apart from tapping on your keyboard; "what employment do you create Mark?"
15:43 on 11/01/2012
By your remarks you condone murder, war, plague and famine. Surely someone who commits murder creates a job for the teams of police who try to detect it. Surely war creates many millions of jobs for soldiers, designers, weapons manufacturers and builders. Plague creates jobs for doctors, nurses and pharmaceutical companies and famine for charity, and aid workers. Ethics, or the lack of them, is the point of the story. Just like war, famine and plague we should endeavour to eradicate the Phillip Green infestation.
12:52 on 10/01/2012
The screaming irony here is that HuffPost doesn't pay its numerous bloggers a cent (unless Mark Donne can tell me otherwise). Presumably, not paying your workers anything at all is only an acceptable business model in modern journalism.
22:55 on 09/01/2012
Could you be any more condescending if you tried? "I found her to be charming, bright, well informed [...] As a man, I have observed the hypnotic lure of Topshop over girlfriends, sister and friends [...] this dilemma will be overwhelming for women, often young women [...] in my view the two national newspaper columnists covering gender issues and style in the most interesting, counter intuitive and increasingly authoritative way"

Men shop at Topshop too. Why don't you mention them? What about the men who run and profit from the sweatshops? If people continue buying from Topshop, are the bosses absolved from responsibility for how they exploit their workers?

How about men stop expecting women to be 'fashionable'/'attractive' etc? How about starting by ditching the stereotypes you have indulged in your article?
14:51 on 10/01/2012
1. Nothing condescending at all in the piece; I often find other men/women i meet charming and well informed, I also often find them dull/ignorant; a simple observation of how i found the person in question.

2. I have witnessed a specific appeal from topshop to women many times; perhaps if i said i had noticed specific appeal from sky sports to men you'd suggest that was ondescending? Both evidence based generalisations.

3. The dilemma is overwhelmingly for women; topman does not compete with topshop in terms of sales or profile and as i argue, it is women that are disproportionately harmed by their unethical practices.

4.It is beyond me to see how describing two columists as authoritative and great - given the 2 columnists in question often get flack for covering social issues and style/fashion - is in anyway condescending?

5. Yes men shop at topman, I don't, I have boycotted it, yesterday via twitter i appealed to all men to do same, but this would have less impact and less potency as a campaign than a female boycott. But yes, we should/I do.

6. I have not indulged a single sterotype, are you saying young women don't like topshop? If yes you are deluded. Perhaps it is you who is condescending me/men by suggesting that women being attractive comes down solely to how they look or the clothers they choose to wear. It patently does not.
19:49 on 11/01/2012
1. On this point I will only add: were you surprised that Alexa Chung seemed intelligent and well informed? If so, why?

2. There would be nothing condescending about noting that Topshop appeals to women, but you imply that "as a man" you are not susceptible to its "hypnotic lure". This is a false generalisation, and it invokes the sexist stereotype of the suggestible, irrational woman.

3. It's good that you highlight that women are disproportionately affected by Topshop's practices, but this doesn't mean that women are more responsible for sorting the problem. Why not appeal to 'people who shop at Topshop' etc.?

4. For one thing, if I was going to pass judgment on "columnists covering gender issues" as a man, I would be sure to do it with some humility. Instead you damn Walker and Urwin with the faint praise of being "increasingly authoritative".

5. Why can't it just be a boycott? What's specific about female consumers' relationship to Topshop that means they should be targeted separately?

6. See 1 and 2. This is not about whether more men or more women shop at Topshop, and I do not dispute that Topshop is popular among women. I'm glad you don't think women's attractiveness comes down solely to looks or fashion, but I don't think that is the message that society generally sends out. Furthermore there is still a problem of women's worth being measured by their attractiveness no matter what the criteria.
18:08 on 09/01/2012
Well, I used to be a stocktaker, and had to stocktake Gap, which is another on the list of sweatshop labourers, I think there is a global issue, not an isolated case. Needs to be more fairness and equality in many cases! Just wish we could have quality at a reasonable price!
16:08 on 09/01/2012
Last month, a Primark opened in Edinburgh, so I went in to have a look. I was disgusted by how cheap the clothes were and how much stuff people were buying. I'm ot particularly rich, quite the contrary in fact, but it was just too cheap. The exploitation was simply too obvious, I guess. I hardly ever go to Topshop, but the same problem comes back with other high street brands.
You highlight a real problem, but it's not that easy to shop for ethical clothes when you're on a budget. Plus, you need to spend an awful lot of time (usually online) to find affordable, ethically produced clothes.
15:14 on 09/01/2012
Great post - thanks Mark!

As part of our Pay Your Interns campaign, we have also discovered that Topshop only pay their interns £3.50 a day, despite admitting that they do lots of real, valuable work for the company:

http://graduatefog.co.uk/2011/1629/topshop-internships/

Any idea how anybody is supposed to live on that in London?

Tanya de Grunwald
Founder, GraduateFog.co.uk
This comment has been removed.
09:38 on 09/01/2012
What about Topman and the other Arcadia shops whose target market is men?
22:13 on 15/01/2012
The point about boycotts is that you start somewhere. If you don't start somewhere, you don't start. If you agonise overly about where you start, you never start.

If you don't start somewhere, nothing will change. If nothing changes, it's because collectively, we didn't want it to. Which means that really, we didn't care that some poor sod is getting 6p an hour, or whatever.

Start somewhere, and the retailers will quickly see which way the wind is blowing, and jump into line.