Fancy them saying they “convinced” the family the child was better off in school! I’ve never heard anything so ridiculous. If the family could afford to send the child to school its obvious they would have. It’s nice of them to pay a fee to the family (did that fee even cover the cost of the child’s schooling?) but what about all the other families that would love to do the same? As greenwash goes, paying a tiny monthly fee to one family to send the child to school is a pretty cheap way of doing it.

I’d love to think H&M cared about more than just the bottom line as I love the clothes, but all the evidence I’ve found so far suggests their one of the worst offenders and just a little better at covering it up than most. If not, they’d at least be able to manage *some* external verification.

What a terrifying thing for many a corporation should people become content with what they have, to know that they have all that they need, to no longer think themselves ugly, uncool, unfit, unclean, unhappy. The fear would be that we stop buying. And the machine would stop. And we could stop. And I wouldn’t have to see the ugly neon lights that block out the stars.

Slavery and child labor are essentially legal in many of these countries, and slavery around the world is alive and well in 2007 because so many companies are refusing to take responsibility for their role in exploiting workers who have no rights. I would also point to FLA Watch, http://www.flawatch.org/welcome.htm, which demonstrates that this organization, FLA, does little more than provide public relations cover for companies who use sweatshop labor.

I have never set foot in an H&M store and never will until they get a seal of approval from Sweatshop Watch or a similar organization.

Take a trip to Uganda, China, India, Sri Lanka and find out for yourselves before condemning companies offering good labour conditions and stable jobs to all these people who need them and choose them, in order to survive.

To Ted – If you have evidence that H&M abuses workers in their factories, we’d love to hear it. But to assume that H&M engages in suspect manufacturing practices without doing any research, or without having any evidence to back up your claim, is dangerous. Just because a company manufactures goods in developing countries where labor costs are cheaper, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is exploiting its workers or engage in suspect practices. Many companies working overseas in this day and age make a pointed effort to engage in socially responsible business and bring economic opportunities to the countries in which they work, because they know people are watching them and it helps their brand.

To Juha- If you are from a small rural village where there is no work to come by, and the only economic opportunities for unskilled young people agricultural work, prostitution, and factory work, – you can bet that working for $10 a day in a factory is probably pretty appealing. Factory workers choose their jobs – and usually work in factory because those jobs provide the most economic opportunity. I’m not saying that every factory is a great place to work, but H&M has gotten consistently high marks for implementing high standards of worker safety and welfare at their factories:

“Child labor is a frequently covered subject within the company, along with other strict regulations for safety, worker’s rights, factory, housing, and the environment. H&M reports that unannounced visits are made, often by a third-party organization, to ensure all policies are being followed.”

-Jill