We're
drawn in.
Whatever I like,
I buy.
Hip and these days
eco-friendly, right?
Every piece of clothing we buy or wear
contributes to the pollution of our waters.
Textile factories are still
poisoning the planet’s rivers.
How can
that be?
And how do those toxic
substances end up in our food?
A new branch of clothing chain Primark
opens in the German city of Bonn.
Bargain hunters
are out in force.
And so are the
climate protesters?
Live a better life without
Primark, they chant.
But there’s no spoiling the
party atmosphere inside.
And shopping at Primark
has its advantages:
It’s unbeatable in terms
of value for money.
You get really nice
things super cheap.
The clothes are perfect
for kindergarten.
It doesn’t matter if the
children get into a mess.
So let’s take the Primark
principle to the extreme.
We offer these clothes
to the public for free.
But there is a price,
which gets paid here:
in our aquarium, which in our experiment
stands for the rivers in Asia.
And this bottle of liquid represents the
dyes that run into the water untreated.
That’s cool,
so what do I have to do?
Pour this poison
into the fish tank.
No, they’re living
creatures, I can’t do that.
No, the symbol suggests
it’s something poisonous,
I don’t want to pour
that in with the fish.
Shall we take that for Daddy?
Let’s find out what the catch is.
It’s right
here.
OK,
maybe not.
Won't
do it.
Why not?
Because they're animals,
they're living creatures.
Maybe the same thing happens when clothes
are manufactured but you don’t see it.
It’s not like
doing it yourself.
All just panic
mongering?
The high street stores would
no doubt see it that way.
Times have changed,
they say.
The production of
their clothing is now?
Sustainable!
Eco-friendly!
And saves
water!
We want to know
the truth.
We begin with the Sieder family in the
town of Mettmann, in western Germany.
They’re fairly
typical shoppers.
Benni and Vincent are
into sports labels.
Mum and Dad just want to be well dressed
while for their daughter Sophia,
fashion is very important.
We want to look at the
process used to dye clothes.
Did you know it takes an average of 6l water
and dye to color just one long-sleeved top?
Dye that is packed
full of chemicals.
That’s bad.
Plants and animals could die.
It’s really a lot when you think of
the masses of clothes that are made
and how much water that consumes
and the wastewater that results.
But there’s more
wastewater to come.
The top still
needs to be rinsed.
And that’s
just one item.
What if they add up
all their clothes?
Each one weighs the
contents of their closet.
Because in practice,
the calculations are done in kilos.
Every kilo requires
20l of water.
So far I’ve got
30kg of clothing.
But I don't wear
many of these things.
They’re too small for me but I think
maybe one day I’ll fit into them again.
Because things add up over the years,
it’s mum who has the most clothes.
The family wardrobe weighs
in at nearly 200 kg.
We’ll round it up as some clothes are
in storage and others are in the wash.
Sophia calculates a total of
520 tubs of water and dye.
And that’s just
one family.
What happens to
that waste water?
We pay a visit
to Bangladesh,
the world’s second biggest
textile producer after China.
Bangladesh is said to have significantly
modernized its production methods,
but only after disaster
struck:
In April 2013, the Rana Plaza factory
collapsed, killing over 1100 people.
Allegations surfaced that many
factories cut corners on safety
to satisfy international
demand for cheap clothes.
Western companies who have their goods
made here felt compelled to take action.
Many joined the ACT initiative,
committing only to work with factories that
meet standards on wages,
safety? and the environment.
The Bangladesh garment association lists
factories that meet the required standards.
We visited one of them
near the capital Dhaka.
The Mithela factory produces clothes
for brands such as C&A, H&M and Zara.
All according to strict
environmental standards.
The company tells us they
made a major investment:
From our side we need to give effort
to the next generation for the future.
Rangin Komoscha shows us his
modern water purification system.
Instead of pumping the wastewater from the dyeing
process into the river, it’s first purified.
But has it paid off
for the factory?
This is very
unfortunate.
Yes we are not getting
any single penny add.
This should be definitely from the buyer’s
point of view,
they should add because
this is a green factory.
We invested
a lot.
What do the company’s customers
have to stay about it?
C&A confirmed what we
were told at Mithela:
“All investments must be
calculated by the factories
and reflected in the prices
charged for the products.”
H&M refused to tell us what
percentage of the costs it bears
to ensure production standards
here are environmentally friendly.
Zara didn’t
reply at all.
The Western brands make demands, but the
factories in Bangladesh that bear the cost.
And is this system
even working?
We decide to take a closer a
look at the rivers in Dhaka.
By the Dhaleshwari River, we meet Shamin and
his team, some of the last fishermen here.
They tell us that the fish have long
since disappeared from other rivers.
And that even here, there’s very little
left since the textile factories arrived.
They say more than 4000 fishermen
have been put out of work.
Ten years ago, the water was
good, we had thousands of fish.
But since the factories
arrived it’s got bad.
No fish, no money and not enough to eat -
many people here have virtually nothing.
And it’s not only the fishing
industry that’s taking a hit.
We’re on our way to see an environmental
activist who explains more.
Abdul Matin tells us that the
repercussions of the pollution are huge.
Our people’s life depends on water,
starting from the health, to the harvest,
to the lands
and the soil.
The overall
picture is:
the whole country, all the rivers, all the
canals are having polluting materials there
and making grossly health
hazards to the people.
The fishermen want to show
us the cause of the problem:
Wastewater pipes from
the textile factories.
We see them everywhere,
emptying straight into the river.
The water looks dirty and gives
off a strong chemical odor.
We take samples at random locations,
both on the Dhaleshwari and another river.
We want to get the water tested for heavy
metals and have the oxygen content checked.
We’re not optimistic, these bubbles coming
up to the surface are foul-smelling gases.
2 weeks later, in Germany, an appointment
with the World Wide Fund for Nature.
The test results
confirm our suspicions:
the textile industry in Bangladesh
is poisoning the rivers.
The one river is completely
dead and the other almost dead.
In one case, the values are 100x higher
than what a river in Europe would have.
And that basically means that
there’s no oxygen left in it at all.
So no aquatic life can
survive in the water.
And of course people shouldn’t
drink the water either.
Despite the improvements, the underlying
problems have clearly not gone away.
In other parts of Asia, the textile industry
also pumps wastewater into rivers, every day.
One day the rivers might be
red, another - blue or purple.
In many areas the groundwater is
not suitable for drinking purposes.
And yet it's used for cattle farming,
growing fruit, vegetables and other crops.
Some of which can end up
in European supermarkets.
Inspectors from the European
Rapid Alert System for Food
have found produce from Asia
containing toxins that are also
found in the
textile industry,
such as cadmium,
chromium and lead.
I didn’t
know that.
That’s terrible,
it’s all terrible.
I guess if we’re lucky we
get produce grown in Germany.
But it’s difficult with ginger,
where would you get that?
It mainly grows
in Asia.
But experts are warning
of a bigger problem:
lack of clean water could destroy entire societies
making parts of the world uninhabitable.
There will be wars fought
over water and mass migration,
with people fleeing water
pollution and water shortages.
Many don’t realize,
this is a major problem coming our way.
The “Munich Fabric Start” is an international
trade fair for the textile industry.
It attracts buyers from all
brands, large and small.
Much of what is on display here will later
be sold by Esprit, S. Oliver or Diesel
and by discounters
like Lidl.
Here too, we encounter
a lot of green slogans.
We need to protect
the world.
But you have to survive,
you have to make profit to sustain?
Not for us, it’s for our
children, for the next generation.
Otherwise they’ve got
no water to drink,
all the soil being affected and being
poisoned, that’s what we don’t want.
But does this
match reality?
Not at all,
says Jochen Strähle.
He spent years working
in fashion management.
Now he’s a university
professor.
He says it’s still money that drives the
industry, only now it has a green sheen.
Companies have realized that
this is a market with a future,
and if green products, or ones that appear to be
green, can increase sales, they’ll go for it.
Sustainability has
become a business model.
And it has very little to do
with the idea of consuming less
and being more responsible
with our resources.
An unsettling
thought.
Because the use of dyes is
key for the world of fashion.
The textile industry produces
20% of the world’s waste water.
That makes it the second biggest
consumer and polluter of water.
But why is so little changing
in Bangladesh for example?
After all, numerous factories
say they've cleaned up their act.
We talked to one economist who’s
studied the country’s textile industry.
These kinds of factories are
very limited in number so far.
The majority of the factories
are still using raw materials
from textiles which are not complying
with environmental standards.
Even companies that install water treatment
systems don’t always use them
as they’re expensive to run.
One of the fear of
these factories is that
if one factory follow and other factory
doesn’t follow, those which doesn’t follow
will be
profitable,
better profitable than
those which follow.
So there's dilemma among factories that others
will benefit because of deviance of the law.
So when Western clothing brands talk about
environmental standards and water treatment,
it doesn’t necessarily
mean much.
We’re keen to visit a factory that
isn’t using a water treatment system.
It doesn’t take long
to track one down.
We book an
appointment.
We’re curious to know what clothing
brands the factory works with.
This is the owner
of the business.
We tell him we’re
designers from Germany.
He shows us
his factory.
And his water treatment
system, which is switched off.
And yet, there are plenty of
fabrics being dyed and rinsed.
The director doesn’t
see it as a problem.
He wants to discuss details of our business
deal — a deal that isn’t actually allowed.
Manufacturers that want
to export to the West
are supposed to be listed with the
Bangladesh exporters’ association,
which in turn ensures labor and
environmental standards are upheld.
But the factory owner
knows a workaround:
We simply have to sign the contract with
a different company, which, unlike his,
is a member of the association.
It will then pass
the order on to him.
We do that all the
time, he says.
Later we learn that the authorities
have officially shut down this dyehouse
for violating
environmental standards.
Clearly to no effect,
since the factory continues to pollute.
Back in Germany, we still have no proof
that the officially shuttered factory
could actually pull off
the proposed workaround.
But then we get a message
from the dyehouse.
It looks like
we’re in business?
It includes the name of the other factory
that we’re to sign the contract with.
That one’s called: Shah
Makhdum Garments Ltd.
That’s the good company, the one that
allegedly has a certificate for Europe.
And sure enough, the company is
listed with the textile association
and fulfils all the requirements for labor
standards and environmental regulations.
On its website we find a list of the
international customers that it works with.
These include Takko
and Ernsting’s Family.
The factory
looks exemplary.
So will it go for
our dirty deal?
We ask for a quotation for 5000 pairs of pants
and
mention the dyehouse we visited in Bangladesh.
Shah Makhdum replies saying they've
worked with Aldi and Lidl too.
And yes,
the deal is no problem.
Shah Makhdum will
sew the pants.
But the factory we visited
will dye the fabric.
Without a functioning water treatment system
and officially shut down by the authorities.
At this point,
we break off the deal.
The problem has
become clear.
Western clothing brands may say that
they only work with certified companies.
But those companies may in turn pass on
some of the work to other firms
that do not observe environmental
standards.
We confront the brands that
work with Shah Makhdum.
Aldi and Lidl tell us they’re not
currently working with the company.
Ernstings
Family writes:
Takko confirms that its supplier does
indeed cooperate with illegal dyehouses,
but allegedly not when it
comes to garments for Takko:
The companies deny all involvement
in unsound business practices.
But as our experiment showed: the
system can easily be exploited.
In light of the struggling
fishermen, the polluted rivers,
and the assessment we received from
experts, it’s clear that happens a lot.
It doesn't help that the big Western brands
pressure the factories to keep their prices low:
Not every company can resist the pressure
and so shadowy accounting practices,
lying and deceit become widespread,
just so that producers can keep going
and still retain
their certification.
Back to the
Sieder family.
So they now know that dyeing clothes
involves toxic chemicals.
But is it really necessary
to dye so much stuff?
It depends on how much
clothing you need.
We set up a symbolic closet
made up of ten boxes.
Each box represents
10% of the wardrobe.
So what percentage of their wardrobe
do most Germans wear regularly?
What do the
Sieders think?
The family soon
comes to a decision.
People don’t actually
need that much.
They reckon three
boxes, about 30%.
In reality,
it's just 20%.
That means 80% of clothes
in the closet are not worn.
We all tend to wear
things we like.
If I buy something, what are the chances
I'll wear it, given how much I already have?
Now we ask the Sieders
to clear out their closets.
We begin in
Sophia’s room.
Wow, Sophia,
you have a lot of clothes.
But a lot of it I
don’t wear anymore.
Yeah I think you need to
wear out a few things first.
You’re constantly buying new clothes, you
couldn’t wear all the things you have here.
That’s why I’ve
sorted them out.
We tell each one to check
through their closets asking:
Do I wear that piece of
clothing often or not so much?
That’s all
that you wear?
Not all,
but it’s what I wear often.
And what about
these things?
Now and
then.
But this is what
I wear most.
Benny has a few things
that he wears all the time.
After 3-4 days I say, OK that
pullover’s dirty and needs washing.
He doesn’t vary his clothes
much so he doesn’t need much.
So we ask everyone to pack up the
things that they don’t really need.
And we take Sophia‘s box with us, for
our fashion professor to have a look at.
What does
he think?
She clearly likes shopping?
These are meant to be ripped.
Young people of course tend to
go for extremely cheap clothes.
The German market is very
much divided on cost.
But we mustn’t forget that on average,
every German spends ?900 a year on clothes.
That’s spread of course across different
regions and levels of income that we have.
We’re 2
in Europe.
Only the British
consume more than we do.
So we’re not exactly role models when
you look at the global comparison,
or even when you compare us to
the other big industrial nations.
We’re actually the victims
of our own prosperity,
that we have nothing better
to do than go shopping.
So if we’re the victims,
who are the perpetrators?
Could they be here in
the shopping malls?
The clothing chains with their constant
cycle of new styles and cut-price bargains?
Clothing industry sales have
doubled since the year 2000.
One of the
reasons:
The entire process from initial design,
to sewing, dyeing and rinsing in Asia
to a sale here in Germany can now
take as little as 12 to 14 days.
That allows fashion giants like Zara to bring
out a whopping 24 new collections a year
— the latest trends,
every two weeks.
This also increases the pressure
on manufacturers in Asia.
We’re on our way to another factory in
Bangladesh with a longstanding tradition.
The owner has been in the textile business for
30 years, weaving, dying, sewing and knitting.
Mohammed Hatem says there are now lots
of regulations and he fulfils them all.
But it’s getting increasingly difficult,
as his Western buyers drive a hard bargain.
To maintain all of these safety issues we
need extra money, every month, every day.
But from the buyer’s side,
every season they decrease their price.
And the last 5-6 years, they
decreased their price at least 25-30%.
He shows us orders
from one customer.
It’s a major company that
operates in Germany too.
But to avoid repercussions,
we’ve agreed not to show the name.
He gets 27% less money now than he
did 3 years ago — for the same order.
In internet they give
me their target price,
we should meet that target price
otherwise we will not get that order.
So sometimes definitely we
cannot match their target price.
But sometimes we are giving loss,
we take this target price order.
In those cases he makes a loss
but can at least pay his workers
— the workers that the Western companies
are allegedly so concerned about?
So we ask the companies
what they pay in Bangladesh.
H&M says:
Otto
writes:
C&A says:
But the company argues that it now orders
more than previously
and has invested in training in
Bangladesh.
We got no reply at all from
Aldi, Lidl, Primark, Zara or Kik.
Perhaps for
good reason.
We consult European statistics and figures put
out by the Bangladesh textile association.
Both confirm a clear downward
trend in wholesale prices.
For every 100kg of clothing, companies
now pay $57 less than in 2014
— that’s according
to Eurostat.
Prices are being pushed down
in Bangladesh
and as a result, clothes now cost less
here in Germany than they did 10 years ago.
So how much we
can buy for ?50?
We’ll take the things
back afterwards.
We go shopping at four big clothing chains
— each time our ?50 takes us a long way.
Primark comes in top: Three sweaters,
one skirt and three pairs of pants!
The others also bring in
4-7 garments — for ?50.
No wonder our
closets are full.
A final question
to the Sieders:
What percentage of new clothes do they think
ends up in the garbage within one year?
Benny and Vincent think it's about
four or five boxes' worth -- 40 or 50%.
The parents guess that in Germany, about 30%
of new clothing is discarded within a year.
In reality,
it's actually 60%.
When you look at H&M or elsewhere
and see how many clothes they have,
you wonder who’s going
to wear all that?
You have to ask why the textile
industry doesn’t just produce less.
And why they can’t estimate more
accurately how much will actually be sold.
The 60% includes overproduction and
faulty goods that never go on sale.
Textile recycling firms
are drowning in clothes.
This one alone receives 70 tons of
stuff, every day, from across Germany.
Much of it is only suitable for cleaning
rags or ends up in the incinerator
as the quality
is too poor.
It’s obvious that people just aren’t thinking
anymore about where their clothes come from.
How is it being
produced?
Are the working conditions
fair and sustainable?
Experts say that even if new
production ceased entirely,
we would still have enough to clothe the
entire global population for 10 to 15 years.
Thorsten Zichel has worked here for nearly
20 years and knows what’s worth recycling.
Here we have highly fashionable
items, this jacket is new.
These children’s clothes, the Tchibo brand,
designer clothes like these Hugo Boss pants
or a sport leggings from
another well-known brand.
You find yourself thinking: it’s
great that we benefit from this stuff,
but if people are buying things and then throwing
them away without ever having worn them,
maybe they’re
just too well off.
Almost
new?
We can
change.
It doesn’t mean we have to stop
loving fashion or nice clothes.
It just means that when we treat ourselves
to something new, we need to appreciate it.
The solution is to value what we have — to
buy less and, as a result, to waste less.
To safeguard the future of our planet and the
people living in countries like Bangladesh.
