making money matter more

(RED)

Because of some reading I was doing today on the (RED) campaign, I stumbled across Gap Inc.'s social responsibility page, which is full of fancy smooth language about their efforts in improving factory conditions. I'm wondering what to make of it, since most of the language is so vague I'm suspecting it's full of crap. (Check out what's written about the Gap at Responsible Shopper: http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=229)

There's a website/non-profit called Buy Less Crap that criticizes the (RED) campaign, which if I'm not mistaken, designates certain consumer items with RED, indicating that proceeds from the purchase of that item will be donated towards combating AIDS in Africa and other causes. Various news sources have highlighted the fact that more money was spent on these advertising campaigns than actually donated. However, other bloggers have indicated that there are residual effects from this campaign that are positive-- raising awareness of AIDS in Africa and increasing the connection between sales and corporate social responsibility.

So who knows whether Gap Inc. is honestly pursuing social responsibility or whether it's a slick cover-up of a really despairing truth or whether it's just another corporate strategy to sell more stuff? I don't think Dov Charney of American Apparel actually cares very much about social responsibility. I think he just found a good way to distinguish his line of clothing and make money. And philanthropy is an industry that sells moral feel-good and social status, but in the end, it funnels money to a variety of good causes. Perhaps in this broken world, we can't avoid broken ways altogether.*

If being socially responsible really means greater profits, then corporations will pursue that route and perhaps there will be some benefits to our society. So to some degree, I appreciate the fact that Gap Inc. is atleast trying to be vaguely "socially responsible" (let's be honest though-- minimum wage in Thailand isn't much), even if it may be more publicity than truth. It's a step in the right direction. *

But for us as consumers, we have to be careful that we don't just believe what the marketers say. We have to investigate deeper than some company's social responsibility website. And for us as individuals with agency, to remember Buy (Less) Crap's open invitation "Join us in rejecting the ti(RED) notion that shopping is a reasonable response to human suffering". Believe it or not, it's more effective to give money to a good cause directly than it is to give it indirectly via (RED).

*Though how do we go forward acknowledging the good that broken ways achieve, while still striving for better ways to do more good?


** All that being said, even if Gap Inc. were producing their clothing ethically, I don't particularly feel the urge to rush back into those store doors and start shopping. It's relieving to have an easy reason to say no to a store. My sweatshop-free year (it's almost been a year) may not have freed many indentured servants laboring in garment factories, but it's certainly helped free me a bit from the constant desire of wanting more, and is teaching me how to be content with what I have.
*** In the meantime, I've recently found a few garments in Zara produced in Cambodia, so their entire "stream-lined in Spain" doesn't seem to hold true. I'm disappointed.