Questioning the Ethics of Calvin Klein

   

  

Calvin Klein (CK) competes as one of the "sexiest" product  in the fashion industry. Their advertisement is sexually provocative and makes the consumer envision a state of beauty and self-confidence. In CK’s early 90’s, it portrayed youth models to promote CK’s obsessive image to its mainly youth market, targeting ages 15-21 and using sexually poised models to promote CK’s Jeans. The TV campaigns portray young people flirting, crossing the boundaries between “fashion and pornography.” 

The American Family Association wrote letters of concern because of the pornographic look of the youth models, eliciting an investigation by the law. This controversy led many magazines and advertising agents to remove CK’s adds from their media platforms. Regardless, CK”s jeans became popular among young adults and CK was known as the “bad boy” product that many youth strived for. Calvin Klein is named after its owner, who started a men and women's coat shop in 1968, inside the York Hotel in New York City.  

Within ten years, CK's revenue rose to $30 million making CK among the top competators in the American Fashion Industry. Throughout the 1980’s CK continue to see growth, seeing up to $600 million in retail sales and the opening of  12,000 stores across the US and in 6 locations globally.

Presently, CK’s products supply wide consumer needs, selling products such as sports clothing, jeans, home collection, underwear,  fragrances, handbags, watches, jewelry and more.  CK’s advertising trends continue to appeal to youth and are also recently targeting middle class citizens using sexual provocative adds, portraying sexual apeal to lure its consumers. CK’s continues to stretch the boundaries of societal values and in the 1990‘s were accused for condoning unethical labour practices.

"While Calvin Klein may be well represented at Red Carpet events, its labor record should make any celebrity think twice about wearing its clothing."

-- Green America published in April 25, 2011

Human Rights Issues

in 1998, Joshua Brown, a human rights inspector went into a Taipei factory, and while conversing with local workers and managers, Brown discovered that previous human rights inspectors fudges generic findings about the labour practices of local factories that source CK and other brands in Taipei. It was the factory workers that confess to the inspector about working conditions and how brutal their employers had been treating them. Other factory locations in China showed poor working conditions with local workers mentioning that CK and other brands new about these harsh working conditions, but were reluctant to address the issues with the supply factories. Below are some the findings discovered by a human rights activist regarding the labour practices of the supply chains in China and Taipei:

• Dangerous metal-melting chemicals being mixed in vats by workers wearing flip-flop sandals
• Overtime not being paid at legal rates
• Imported workers denied access to their passports
• 90 hour work weeks

The Human rights inspector mentioned that an agreement was made with international brands to discontinue business with supply factories that failed to upheld human rights labour standards. However, the poor practices above had been documented for over two years prior to the 1998 inspection, but CK, in conjunction with other brands, ignored the harsh working conditions. 

In 2006, about 200 Bangladesh immigrant workers protested their harsh working conditions and bad labour practices: "severe beating, verbal insults, threats of deportation and forcing them to sign blank documents...detailing the abuse inflicted on them by their employer.” The reports also mention that four women were legally deported following the protest. Sources say that the Bangladesh government condoned the poor labour practices of the textile factories. 

Video about Brands coming clean

Change of Ownership 

In 2002, CK was sold to Phillips-Van Heusen (PVH) who, due to the public awareness of environmental hazards and human rights movements, was pressured to re-evaluate their business ethics of their supply factories. In 1991, PVH took immediate actions to join Fair Labour Association and devised a comprehensive strategy to ensure transparency in its supply chain. However, various sources tied unethical business practices to PVH production factories. PVH websites provides detailed information about their business ethics, but generic information about their supply chain. However, their new campaign on “Social Corporate Responsibility” informs the public about a new initiative to uphold human rights standards in their business dealings. “We are trying to do the right thing” says PVH CEO Manny Chirico. For the last thirty years, Chirico says his company has worked to ensure transparency in international business. PVH is the third largest apparel company in the world. It has 750 vendors, 1,750 active factories, and conducts about 3,000 audits per year. It also owns other brands such as: Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, Izod, and Arrow. PVH sourcing facilities are found in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, China, Honduras, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Mongolia, Singapore, Thailand and Taiwan. PVH brands such as CK rely on factories in developing countries to produce their resources due to cheap labour costs and the labour intensity of textile production. 

In March 2012, PVH published in its investor relations regarding a signed agreement with other non-profits to ensure ethical labour practices. Below is the recent agreement: 

• A two-year program to be led by a multi-stakeholder task force for the purposes of establishing an in-factory training program
• Facilitating the creation of factory health and safety committees; reviewing existing building regulations and enforcement
• Developing a worker complaint process and mechanism for workers to report health and safety risks and advising a Chief Inspector.

PVH has been cited for labor violations in Saipan and Guatemala and sourcing from a Jordanian factory where workers went on strike to protest the verbal and physical abuse they were subjected to. - Green America 04/25/2011

Global Environmental Concerns.

In 2011, Green Peace International published a report that featured a toxic water pollution caused by the release of hazardous chemicals by textile industries in China. These chemicals contain “hormone-disrupting properties,” which threaten the ecosystems and human health. Reports show that many international brands including CK management neglected to devise policy that informs the disposal of chemicals in their entire supply chain. Green Peace published findings regarding the effect of these hazardous chemicals disposed by textile industries:

• Water scarcity and water pollution are the two top environmental concerns of the world’s population.
• Textile industries are responsible for dumping 300–500 tones of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other waste each year into the waters globally.
• About 70 percent of China’s rivers, lakes and reservoirs are affected by water pollution.
• One in four people in China do not have access to clean drinking water.
• Shanghai’s 20 million residents are dependent on the Yangtze for drinking water. This river has around 30 billion tonnes of wastewater dumped into it every year.
• 20 percent to 30 percent of all of China’s water pollution is a result of manufacturing goods for export.

As the supply source for CK and other popular brands continue to discharge toxic chemicals into water ways in developing countries, chronic poisoning is surfacing in animals and humans globally. This poisoning can cause various health issues including birth defects, developmental disorders such as learning disabilities and severe Attention Deficit Disorder.  Animals such as birds, whales and polar bears are found with hormone disruptions around the world. When Green Peace contacted textile companies regarding this phenomena, reports show that some companies including CK were hesitant to take immediate action. Green Peace believes that Major textile brands can control the supply source by the choice of design in their products.

As much as efforts have been made by PVH to negotiate with governments and source factories to maintain ethical labour practices, it appears that CK’s management and its parent company PVH prolonged the workers' rights negotiations and environmental concerns until their brand reputation began suffering.  Without doubt their international negotiations can be complicated due to regional and national economical labour laws. However, global retailers such as PVH can influence a change in poor labour decisions by sanctioning business interaction against unethical supply sources.  Although one may be hesitant to blame global corporations suck as Ck or its parent company PVH for patronizing unethical factories, these findings suggest that textile corporations such as CK can abrogating responsibilities if organization such as Green Peace become reluctant in holding them accountable. Thus, PVH reluctance to act swiftly against the unethical business of their source factories, puts a question mark on PVH's business integrity.   A partial solution to this issue is continual campaign to make the public aware of their decision to purchase brands made using harsh working conditions. It appears that as unethical corporation loose public trust in their business, it can influence them to adhere to public concern as well hold them accountable to ethical practices.  

REFERENCES:

Confessions Of A Sweatshop Inspector
Jordan: Bangladeshi workers protest against abuse
Calvin Klein: A Case Study
BANGLADESH: PVH commits $1m to improving factory safety
PVH social responsibility
CKs 90's adds
polluting' China rivers
Detox Facts
PVH 2010 Corporate and social responsibility
Responsible shopper: Phillips-Van Heusen
Simple Steps to Tackle Complex Supply Chain Sustainability Issues
Water contamination