So after reading the patagonia case, i am more aware what a "truly" responsible company means. As for stella mccartney i was reading about some articles about how most people do not know that she does not use real leather and fur in her products. Therefore counterfeit imitations of her products are made with real leather. Regardless, of how "sustainable" her brand is, she chose to link her brand with her high profile partnership with adidas.
According to a March article in the observer, workers at Bangladeshi factories for Adidas are "beaten, verbally abused, underpaid, and overworked" which made me rethink about how she should handle her supply chain channels and partnerships with brand. No matter how "sustainable, and responsible" a brand claims to be, being linked with a company like that would ruin the image of her brand being sustainable. There are many quotes which make me question her claim as being sustainable as well. However, Stella McCartney is to be applauded for her personal commitment to animal rights issues and being a vegetarian brand
No comments:
Post a Comment