Activist to Bono: Retire!

August 5th, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

A fella from Chicago is demanding that Bono retire:

“Bono’s philanthropy efforts are self-righteous, ineffective, & counter-productive;… The grassroots leaders of the global fight against AIDS didn’t ask for Bono to be their frontman. Its time for Bono to step down. We’ll all pledge donations to the Global Fund, but no pledges are collected until Bono retires from public life.”

So far this campaign has raised $1,002, which is nearly equal to the amount of money Bono raises scratching his butt. Although, the money will not actually be donated unless Bono does retire. Go ahead and donate a Gazillion-bazillion dollars because chances are you’ll never have to pay.

The main target of the campaign is not Bono, it’s the RED campaign. Bono is the angle to get people talking about it. I for one don’t want Bono to retire. Sure he’s got a big ego, but he’s got an even bigger fan base that he educates about poverty whether they like it or not. Plus, who doesn’t love U2?

It is almost always annoying when celebrities confuse their worldwide fame for being a worldwide expert. I’ve read that even the other members of U2 get fed up with Bono’s rants. But in my eyes, talking about poverty and AIDS is better than not. You gotta respect when someone tries to use their fame to do good. An argument can be made that his intentions are self-serving, but in that regard are there any true acts of charity?

I’ve planned from the beginning to donate a portion of my earnings from “Where am I Wearing? to organizations that work with garment workers, but I have thought better of it. I don’t want to be accused of using this as a marketing angle to sell more books. But even if I did include such a note, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that a win-win for both charity and author?

I will be donating, but I won’t be shouting it from the rooftops. Unless you consider this post shouting and this blog a rooftop and, in that case, feel free to criticize my charity. I can take it.

As for the RED campaign, it probably does need to be looked at if, in fact, they have spent $40 million more on marketing than it raised from selling RED products. But what is the value of raising awareness? Maybe the message funded by the $40 million discrepancy has reached 40 million people who are now more aware about AIDS in Africa or poverty in general. What’s that worth?

Read the RED manifesto: , browse their products, or if you think it’s all a bunch of hooey donate to the “Bono Retire” fund.

Decide for yourself.

On a different note, The Point is pretty cool site. You should check it out.

Can Creative Capitalism Save the World?

August 4th, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Bill Gates thinks so.

Gates in the pages of Time magazine:

As I see it, there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others. Capitalism harnesses self-interest in a helpful and sustainable way but only on behalf of those who can pay. Government aid and philanthropy channel our caring for those who can’t pay. And the world will make lasting progress on the big inequities that remain — problems like AIDS, poverty and education — only if governments and nonprofits do their part by giving more aid and more effective aid. But the improvements will happen faster and last longer if we can channel market forces, including innovation that’s tailored to the needs of the poorest, to complement what governments and nonprofits do. We need a system that draws in innovators and businesses in a far better way than we do today.

Naturally, if companies are going to get more involved, they need to earn some kind of return. This is the heart of creative capitalism. It’s not just about doing more corporate philanthropy or asking companies to be more virtuous. It’s about giving them a real incentive to apply their expertise in new ways, making it possible to earn a return while serving the people who have been left out.

A great place to turn for discussions about Creative Capitalism is THIS BLOG. The contributors list is basically a who’s who of authorities on economics and globalization. The posts and discussions from the blog are going to be anthologized in a book by Simon and Schuster in the fall of 2008.

In the most recent post Stephen Landsburg criticizes Gates’s example of fair trade as a form of creative capitalism:

Never mind the fact that “fair trade” seems to be a euphemism for the enforcement of monopsony power (enriching some producers by pricing others out of the marketplace); this isn’t the place to get into that debate. But this much is directly to the point: Lots of people feel a moral obligation to help poor people in general. No sane person feels a moral obligation to help poor coffee farmers in particular. So the “creative capitalism” solution serves a non-existent goal—and this was one of the best two examples the authors could come up with! (KT: the other was the (Red) program)

In fact, the whole fair trade thing is an excellent illustration of creative capitalism gone insane. You can pay an inflated price for your coffee and put a farmer out of work, or you can buy ordinary coffee, contribute to CARE, and feed a starving child. Please oh please don’t trick people into thinking the former is a good deed.

The questions at hand:

1. Is it better for a consumer to NOT pay a premium for products produced under ethical conditions and to take the money they saved and donate it to charity?

2. Is it better for a business to maximize their profits by whatever means possible and then use the maximized profits to do good?

My thoughts:

Bill Gates talking about how capitalism can cure inequities is kind of like the United States, which wasn’t hindered by environmental regulations during its own industrial expansion, telling developing nations to stop polluting. Bill gates got where he did with cutthroat capitalism, not creative capitalism and the Unites States got where it did by burning unclean fossil fuels.

Gates is more of an example of earning boatloads of cash via cutthroat capitalism and then taking all of his money and trying to change the world. And few would argue that there are any individual philanthropists doing more than Gates to help the world’s poor at this time.

Companies doing “good” would be great, but I think that’s shooting a bit high. I would settle for companies “doing no harm” – to the environment and its employees. A company that donates money to a good cause, but has its products manufactured by workers treated unfairly – unpaid overtime, working off the clock, underpaid, overworked, abused, etc – or does unnecessary harm to the environment, more than negates whatever good their philanthropy does.

Before a company tries to do right in the world, they should do right in their own house.

That said, I think marketing fair trade products is a perfectly legitimate niche. There are people that want to buy products made ethically, and they should have the option.

I find the debate very interesting, and hope to check out the Creative Capitalism blog regularly. I’ve added it to my Blogroll on the right.

The USA is a pucker and China is a hemorrhoid

July 23rd, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

I had someone email me today asking about where our clothes come from. Here’s the short answer: 97% come from outside of the U.S., mostly from China.

And here’s that answer visually, courtesy of worldmapper:

The map is accompanied with this interesting tid bit:

Of all earnings from international trade, 7% is earned from clothing exports.

Patagonia makes factory list public

July 10th, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Way to go Patagonia. If only I could afford more of your products.

Environmentally-friendly doesn’t mean worker-friendly

July 8th, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Prius Envy and the Greening of Wal-Mart: A Blind Spot for the Human Cost

Can it be that our green heroes Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt care about the cachet of owning a Prius but not about the abused workers making these feel-good cars?

A report from the National Labor Committee released earlier this month alleging abusive working conditions in Japanese Toyota Prius plants provides a much needed jolt to the environmental and business communities about the danger of viewing environmental concerns as separate from human concerns.

Regardless of where you stand on such a debate, you gotta give it to the Labor rights folks, they are pretty clever.

Ever really thought about the banana?

June 26th, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Dan Koeppel has. He wrote a book on the fruit titled Banana: The Fate of the Fruit That Changed the World.

Koeppel in the NY Times about bananas:

That bananas have long been the cheapest fruit at the grocery store is astonishing. They’re grown thousands of miles away, they must be transported in cooled containers and even then they survive no more than two weeks after they’re cut off the tree. Apples, in contrast, are typically grown within a few hundred miles of the store and keep for months in a basket out in the garage. Yet apples traditionally have cost at least twice as much per pound as bananas.

I’ll never look at ‘nanas the same.

An entire class asks: Where are we wearing?

June 21st, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

A while back a mother contacted me about her son’s class project where each student was supposed to trace an item of clothing all the way back to the field. Her son Caiman chose his shorts, which were made in Jordan.

She wrote about his research on her blog, Pretty Good Day:

We determined a plausible birth story for his shorts, and it wasn’t pretty:

1. Cotton grown in India, likely harvested by child laborers exposed to deadly pesticides

2. Buttons and zippers from factories in China

3. Stitched in a factory in Jordan by guest workers who’d their passports confiscated upon arrival and been cheated out of promised pay, forced to work 15 hours a day and routinely beaten for slowing down

That’s a pretty cool class project. We could use more teachers and moms like Caimans.

It’s Sunday, what better day is there to ask What Would Jesus Buy?

June 1st, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

Joshua Berman recommended this movie to me. I’ll watch it soon and report back. Looks hilarious.

American Apparel, a different kind of brand and a pantless CEO

May 23rd, 2008 | By Kelsey | No Comments »

I mentioned AA in the previous post and I write about them briefly in the book. I stumbled upon an excerpt from Rob Walkers soon-to-be-released book Buying In that features a profile of the company. Here’s some excerpts from the excerpt:

…At a moment when practically every clothes maker was offshoring to cut costs, American Apparel made its wares at a U.S. factory in which the average industrial worker (usually a Latino immigrant) was paid between $12 and $13 an hour and got medical benefits. The company had taken out ads in little arty magazines, noting that it was “sweatshop free.”…

…Another self-consciously ethical clothing brand, the union-friendly SweatX, had just gone out of business. The lesson of SweatX, Charney said, was that building a brand solely around a company’s ethical practices was not a good strategy for reaching masses of consumers…

…”That’s the problem with the anti-sweatshop movement. You’re not going to get customers walking into stores by asking for mercy and gratitude.” If you want to sell something, ethical or otherwise, he said, snapping the book closed, “appeal to people’s self-interest.”…

…The conversation paused when two designers working on men’s underwear appeared. They had just come from the factory floor, carrying several pairs of underwear that had been manufactured about 10 minutes earlier. Charney said they’d already gone through about 30 prototypes. “Imagine if we were outsourcing through China!”

He checked with me, then took off his pants and underwear and started trying on the samples. “I need a thin Sharpie,” he said, taking off one pair and putting on another. He wrote on the removed pair: Good but tighter. There was a great deal of chatter about the legs and the waist, about taking in a half-inch, about the fact that the factory shift was going to end soon. “This is a great pair that I have on right now,” Charney suddenly announced…

…It’s not that he cares less about treating his workers ethically, Charney insisted; it’s that he doesn’t think trumpeting work conditions will help him compete. Sure, he hoped quality or social consciousness or a distaste for logos would each attract some consumers. But he also hoped that selling a sexed-up version of youth culture to young people would attract others, and hopefully in greater numbers. If ethics draws in some consumers, great. But for others who respond to different rationales, he’ll provide those, too…

Walker’s book is released June 3rd. I wish it would have been out sooner because it looks like just the type of book I would have read to help me form ideas to write mine. I’ll still give it a read.

You can read a few chapters of Buying In.

Blood, Sweat, and T-shirts

May 6th, 2008 | By Kelsey | 5 Comments »

When I was in Cambodia and China I heard rumblings about a BBC reality show/documentary that followed young Brits as they worked in a sweatshop in India. The first episode of Blood, Sweat, and T-shirts aired last week.

“I don’t understand. Why don’t you just go to night school.”

“There’s like Poo on the floor” in the slums of Mumbai

Cotton: A fashion revelation or “I ain’t carrying that!” or “Do I look like an ork to you!”

For more of Blood, Sweat, and T-shirts GO HERE.