This will probably open a whole can of worms, but does the research you're working on touch on whether or not the political agenda of these designers has some measurable impact on the political landscape? Or, are these just references to political ethics that are adopted in the spirit of being decorative when juxtaposed with the construct of current design? Personally, I think your original statement about Nike's holds more true, and the fact that you might by chance find an item beholden to a particularly agreeable agenda is just icing on the cake. Furthermore, is ethicality an earned excess? Just go in your local natural foods grocery and compare prices to the unnatural food store, and I think you'll see what I'm getting at. I think your thoughts about the dwindling connection are pretty accurate. Whatever happened to those hemp Adidas from years back during the hemp craze?

OK, maybe we should steer clear of highly charged terms like 'political' and stick to ethical. Just found this article, which is a fairly good overview? I hadn't heard of Anti-Apathy before.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ethicalbusiness/story/0,14713,1434292,00.html

Personally, I'm not so interested in the statement/slogan clothing side of things, though I can see how the history of this would be important to your research. What I suppose I am intrigued by is how... porous fashion is.

Take the fur issue. Amusingly, some of the ad campaign imagery was labelled 'vegan porn', but a decade or so ago there was an anti-fur movement backed by photographers, designers, supermodels etc - it was a specific issue people in fashion were prepared to not just to lend weight to but also to lead on. Now fur is back on the catwalk. Trend over? (Personally I draw the line at by products of anything I'm also happy eating, and I'm not vegan so cow, sheep, even ostrich are fine - but no baby seal or whatever)

Currently, you have organisations like the Burma campaign naming and shaming businesses who continue to profit from the sweat shop situation there, though this is more high street than high fashion as far as I can tell.

That designers pick up on popular style trends, like punk say, is one thing. That they respond to consumer trends, like ethical concerns, is another?

And now I'm spieling...

F:lux, sorry to come across as a political raving lunatic. I was caught up in the punk rock mention above. The Guardian article is interesting. Especially the mention of how these companies are positioning the products, and steering clear of the old, somewhat failed eco-friendly crunchy image.

Are you kidding! fifty50, the two questions you ask at the beginning of your post are bang on - I was busy writing my crap at the time so I couldn't see your input which I think is much more to the point. Yeah, let's leave politics in the equation. I suppose I suggested sidestepping it because I was suddenly aware that it might make people twitchy. But if I'm really honest, I think that what's really dangerously borderline arrogant is worrying too much about what other people think, and cynicism.

Either way, this is just a forum discussion - let's talk!

Okdok. I think I was being a little bashful since I'm American. I was trying to avoid the raving lunatic moniker that is sometimes associated there. Get ready....

Anyway, my feeling is that ethicality occurs on a top down basis. Responsibility starts with the process of the materials manufacturer. If, for instance, American Apparel were to use cotton sourced from China for cost, then how much does that bolster their sweatshop free label? (just an example; not in any way confirmed as true)

If you go back to Ben's statement about it being a nightmare to source visually exciting clothing, then you become aware of the physical properties of working in such a manner. Chemical dye lots have a more saturated look and range of color than vegetable dyes, synthetic blends may have a greater range of weights, and feel, etc....From zippers,to dyes to thread, how in the world could all of the elements that go into a piece of clothing be ethical? Anti-fur was easy...just don't wear it.

In response to the original post...I guess I vote trend? Or, maybe brilliant marketing scheme (especially if said products are placed next to a $200 pair of 7 jeans). It would seem to be more about perception than reality.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are thinking about these things, but as far as anti-apathy goes, when I get that pair of Adidas I've been eyeing for a week, it's not realistically in my mind that I can turn the tide by purchasing something eco-friendly. It's almost as if that social responsibility needs to be conveyed to the heads of the high-level business community (meaning holding the most capital) to direct a broader research effort with those goals in mind, and thereby making an ethically sound stance viable.

"The fashion industry as a whole is too lazy, too ignorant and too disinterested in fair trade and the environmental issues surrounding its sourcing of raw materials and manufacturing. It makes too much money from the low cost of outsourced cheap labour to be interested in making a change. Only pressure from the consumer in the form of boycott of unacceptable materials and manufacturing processes can make it change." KATHERINE HAMNETT

For the rest of this text go to http://www.katharinehamnett.com/

I suppose this kind of partially answers my question about fashion porosity. It can't just be top down, it has to be bottom up too. Expecting profit making businesses to take full responsibility is lazy. And if "Anti-fur was easy...just don't wear it", why can't the same be said of Adidas? (Oh no, don't get me on the subject of men's shoes...)

NOKI MAKES ETHICAL FASHION
http://www.novamatic.com/noki.htm

sometimes ago, when people all over the world was trying to fight and boycott "cheap labour" in asia, like nike did. and also people in my country, i mean the labours was complaining about the low wage at the factory, the shoes company took a drastic movement, which is, leave this country and abandoned hundreds, even thousands of employees to be unemployment while they move to another asian country with lower wages and without any complaining. so... which is better? low wages but you can still live? or unemployed? hhmmmm...

Hi zeroh, thanks for posting the link to noki. I wasn't ignoring the many references to that, just was off on another tack. Shorthand response - really inspiring stuff you guys do together! Hope that doesn't seem as lame as I fear, end of busy day...

Hi didi, see above? I really hope other people take an interest in this discussion - at least one with an understanding of global ecomomics might help sometime. But from my very limited understanding of these things, the whole Fair Trade movement is trying to combat the thing you describe above. In your country there is obviously a wealth of trained labour which could be a valuable ressource to a design company with the right ethical approach. How to encourage a connection?

yeah, i read that flux, but my english is not too good, so sometimes i don't really understand the point...
although labour in here is paid cheaper, but there's some flexibility done by some of the companies, like they sell their stuff also cheaper and according to the value of money here. so it's a little advantage...
well, not only in fashion, starbucks also pay their barista with so much lower payment that in US while the price of a cup of coffee is the same price as in US, and the place rent here is so much cheaper.
i think u're right about the global movement that's need to happen, because where our people try to demonstrate and ask for raised of payment and facilities, the business just simply move out of the country. it's need to happen from bigger countries, or just what bono from U2 did, he and his wive and partner have a jeans company in 3rd world country but paid with decent salary. sometimes example is more relevant than protests