If I were to say, \u201cethical brand\u201d, you\u2019d likely have an image in your head: small scale production, a focus on artisanal skills, and a three figure price tag. Often, you\u2019d be right. Higher wages, responsibly sourced fabrics, low order quantities, and valuing skills all come at a price.<\/span><\/p>\n For<\/span> Hiut Denim<\/span><\/a> that price is somewhere between \u00a3185 and \u00a3250 for a pair of jeans. For<\/span> Bearmade<\/span><\/a>, it\u2019s \u00a3195 if you\u2019re in the market for a backpack. As living standards plummet, that isn\u2019t an accessible expression of what it means to be ethical for everyone, but it does highlight just how cheap \u2018normal\u2019 clothes are.<\/span><\/p>\n In<\/span> 1957<\/span><\/a> we spent 10% of our weekly household income on clothing and footwear. Between 2019 to 2020, when we were buying<\/span> much more by volume<\/span><\/a>, it was<\/span> 4%<\/span><\/a>. A complete value shift, facilitated by the introduction of ultra-cheap fashion, means we want more items of clothing, but we expect to pay much less for them.<\/span><\/p>\n Still, you can\u2019t magic up money you don\u2019t have, so if you can\u2019t afford those higher prices, you may need to look elsewhere. Perhaps to a bigger brand which can produce more and sell it at a lower price.<\/span><\/p>\n But can scale and ethics coexist? David Hieatt is the co-founder of<\/span> Hiut Denim<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> which is bringing denim production back to<\/span> Cardigan<\/span><\/a>, the Welsh town which used to manufacture 35,000 pairs of jeans per week. He asks himself that question often. \u201cIs <\/span>growth really something we want?\u201d he asks. \u201cOur dream is to get 400 people their jobs back, but actually, the tension is: we want to be low impact but everything extra we do has a greater impact. So then you become this hypocrite. You say you want [to create jobs] but in order to get that you have to have growth.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n But can scale and ethics coexist? <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s perhaps one of the quandaries at the heart of \u2018ethical\u2019 business: to grow, or not to grow? Oscar Boatfield co-founded<\/span> Bearmade<\/span><\/a>, a backpack brand which funds a programme<\/span> reconnecting people with nature<\/span><\/a>. For him, growth doesn\u2019t even come into the equation. \u201cWe have definitely sacrificed growth. We actually just decided that we\u2019re only going to make 25 bags a week,\u201d he says. \u201cWe have no interest in being a massive business.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n While growth – and therefore more production – is often considered unethical on a planet already bursting at the seams with stuff, Patagonia \u2013 a global company which has made founder Yvon Chouinard a billionaire – was cited as a shining example of ethical business by multiple interviewees for this piece. In fact, it\u2019s the company\u2019s reach and spending power which has helped it gain ethical status, paying a<\/span> self-imposed tax for the planet<\/span><\/a>, investing in<\/span> regenerative farming<\/span><\/a>, and<\/span> financially supporting environmental entrepreneurs<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, Woodford notes the power that Alpine Group has to accelerate the progression of the industry. Examples of this include creating textile-to-textile recycled fabric and partnering with Fashion for Good to pilot innovations such as turning algae and CO2 into<\/span> low impact black pigment dyes<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n We have no interest in being a massive business<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Debbie Shakespeare, Senior Director of Sustainability, Compliance, and Core Product Line Management at Avery Dennison RBIS, believes you can be ethical at any size, with some key caveats. Mainly clear, immovable standards and targets such as<\/span> Science-Based Goals<\/span><\/a> (which are, put simply, goals set to help cap warming at 1.5 degrees). With these in place, \u201ccompanies are able to grow as much as they desire, but in a way that helps to mitigate the carbon reductions,\u201d she says.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI think we need a new definition of what scale and growth mean,\u201d she continues. \u201cPromoting a circular economy is key\u2026 keeping products in circulation for longer, and repairing, reselling, and using recycled materials and less materials overall. While a degree of waste is unavoidable within fashion, it\u2019s an issue that must be addressed. There is no room for excuses either. The standards are very clear.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps, then, scale and ethics can coexist but only when growth is the result of ethics-first decision making. This can be guided and tracked by factors such as becoming a<\/span> B Corp<\/span><\/a>, committing to the<\/span> Science-Based Targets Initiative<\/span><\/a>, and, as Alpine Group is, undertaking the<\/span> Future-Fit Business Benchmark.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n We need a new definition for scale and growth<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Boatfield\u2019s case, growth would have meant ethical compromise. \u201cAt pretty much every turn, we could have made more money but done worse things,\u201d he says. But if the focus is on circularity, as Shakespeare suggests, then actions aligned with growth, even for small businesses, could be ethical. The growth of a repairs and alterations business, for instance, would mean more clothes staying in circulation, a necessary step towards a more sustainable future. <\/span><\/p>\n We know, however, that many ethical brands aren\u2019t services, they\u2019re in the business of making new stuff. How does that track ethically when we need to make more use of what already exists?<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPart of me is like yeah, we don\u2019t need new brands, we don\u2019t need more stuff. It\u2019s a debate we have internally all the time,\u201d says Boatfield. \u201cBut I think what we really want to do is prove that this model works. We can say you don\u2019t have to go for the other alternative which is to make shit stuff and sell it cheap. My view of a sustainable future is that everything becomes really local, and for that to work you need people to start trying to do it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Hieatt shares this sentiment.<\/span> \u201c<\/span>If we have a reason to exist in this world it\u2019s to be a good example. There are many communities in our company. There’s your customer, there’s the people who work for you, and there\u2019s planet Earth, this silent shareholder. If we can be a good example of a low impact company, and we show that we can be a business – a really good business – then other people will follow us because people don’t follow failure,\u201d he says.<\/span><\/p>\n Everything becomes really local<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n While a cliched picture of what an ethical business is certainly exists, the true definition of what one is shifts according to myriad factors: self-definition, individual perception, third-party verification, impact, intent. There is no perfect archetype but there are examples: global businesses which use their enormous wealth for progress, tiny brands which flow funds into social good, local brands providing local jobs. <\/span><\/p>\nThe ethics of scale
\n<\/b><\/h3>\nGrowth for good?
\n<\/b><\/h3>\nActions count
\n<\/b><\/h3>\nSetting an example
\n<\/b><\/h3>\n