When Natalie Portman created her own shoe line in collaboration with Te Casan in 2008, she said she did it so she and her fellow vegans wouldn’t have to shop at Target for shoes.

Marie Claire fashion director and Project Runway judge Nina Garcia (right) guides a "frugalista" through Target's shoe department. (Courtesy of Sal2009.com)

“Basically, I did it out of a lack of choice,” she told the U.K. Sunday Times at the launch. “Stella McCartney does great shoes, but they’re expensive and very fashiony. I wanted a mary-jane shoe without leather. I’ve been getting stuff from Target, which is de facto vegan because it’s so cheap. But I did need some shoes that weren’t made of canvas or plastic.”

But while vegans are shopping cheap because the price point guarantees it to be faux leather, many more people shop faux leather, fur, and other luxury knock-offs because they’re cheap.

Unfortunately, there are serious environmental consequences for all that polyurethane and PVC bought through fast-fashion outlets and discount stores.

The way cheap materials are manufactured today rely heavily on acrylic polymers, the production of which generates and releases metric tons of pollutants into the air and water every year. The chemical makeup of these polymers come from coal, petroleum, and limestone, and the waste pollutes the air and water.

After the plastics are molded into thread for weaving or sheets for cutting, they are dyed and texturized in chemical-laden vats. The leftover solution is often dumped in landfills around the world, contaminating the soil with toxins.

That’s to say nothing of the social impact that making clothes for cheap has on the local labor force.

In July, a riot broke out in Cambodia over a broken labor contract that caused 4,000 garment workers to strike. The workers — predominantly women trying to support their families by making clothes for the Gap, Benetton, Puma, and Adidas — were beaten by police for trying to secure better wages.

It’s an all-too-common refrain heard throughout the sweatshops of Asia. The worst cases originate in the shady factories that illicitly produce counterfeit goods, where there are even fewer regulations to safeguard environmental and labor protections. The owners of such factories realize that if they’re already breaking one law, what’s one or two more?

As we’ve discussed in this very issue, there are affordable options for ethically made fashion. But it’s sadly not the norm.

The worst part? As costs continue to be cut and apparel companies chase the biggest return on their dollar, the drawbacks of cheap fashion will only grow. That is, until ethical shoppers decide enough is enough and cheap just isn’t worth the cost.

In a provocative piece for The Guardian, ethical living columnist Lucy Siegle writes about how consumer demand — even something as small as button placement — can have a very real impact on working conditions in factories far, far away:

A CMT (cut-make-trim) factory in India, Bangladesh or Cambodia must be hyper-responsive to cope with design changes from offices in Europe. A last-minute fax insisting that a button needs to be moved sends a poorly funded, badly managed factory into a panic. Third-world firms will never tell western retail superpowers that an order is too difficult, so workers simply must finish it. …

It’s tempting to cast retailers as Dickensian ogres but fast fashion is driven by consumer appetites. We love fashion but we also dump two million tonnes of textile waste (mostly clothing) in landfill each year, which suggests we don’t value it. We get the type of fashion retail we deserve and ask for. We need a new plan.

So the next time you eye the trendy pleather boots that mimic the ones a starlet just wore in this month’s W, consider that they may have cost a garment worker in a developing country her lunch break — or more.

In international news today, striking factory workers in Phnom Penh were beaten and tasered by police this week while protesting their low wages, reports the British media.

The Cambodian workers — mostly women — were earned less than £1 per day (or $1.56 in USD) producing clothes in a factory owned by a Malaysian firm that contracts with apparel brands like Gap, Benetton, Adidas, and Puma. Nine workers were injured in the riot.

The Daily Mail writes:

All four clothing and sporting companies linked to the factory have come under severe criticism from investigators for the harsh conditions endured and low wages given to their Third World employees.

Reports by charities such as Oxfam have found that the apparel industry, whether for designer labels or for garments that carry the names of big sporting companies such as Adidas, Nike and Puma, uses and abuses sweatshops.

Oxfam points out that workers in developing countries are paid minimal wages and are often forced to endure long hours in harsh and often dangerous conditions producing some of the world’s most expensive and coveted brands.

It’s particularly unsettling news given that Benetton is so well-known for its marketing campaigns invoking human rights, like the 1998 ad reprinted above.

Want to speak out on behalf of these workers? Sign up to receive the Clean Clothes Campaign newsletter for activism in your area.

China has long been the stronghold for American clothing companies on the prowl for cheap manufacturing, but decades of exporting labor to Guangdong has had an inevitable side effect: Chinese workers have gotten so skilled, they can command more money.

So apparel companies — particularly sneaker brands like New Balance, Saucony, and Keds — are now looking elsewhere to keep costs down and profits high. And Indonesia is looking pretty attractive for growth potential, reports The Boston Globe:

China once lured American companies to build plants in its economic zones near its large coastal cities with low costs and a seemingly endless number of workers, but it is becoming a more challenging place to do business for some industries. Chinese are getting more skilled, and are finding business opportunities inland, so fewer people are moving to the zones.

And the labor shortage is driving up costs: In the export hub of Guangdong province, several cities last month increased their minimum wages by up to 20 percent. Workers there now earn up to $160 a month, compared with laborers in Indonesia who make roughly $100 to $120 a month.

Other brands mentioned in the article include Mizuno, Saucony, Nike, Reebok, and Adidas. To compare, New Balance operates a factory in Massachusetts where workers earn up to $12 an hour with full benefits. That’s quite a difference, even taking cost of living into account.

This is pretty fascinating for anyone interested in the fashion industry’s overseas outsourcing. Leaders from the Sri Lanka Export Development Board and Sri Lanka Apparel served some food for thought at the recent Women’s Wear Daily Sourcing and Supply Chain Forum in New York.

The Daily Mirror covered the presentation:

Kumar Mirchandani, who champions the marketing initiatives at Sri Lanka Apparel, presented ‘The Garments Without Guilt Experience and the Ethical Dilemma,’ highlighting the conflict of price over value for consumers and profits over ethics for the retailers and the manufacturers.

He pointed out that “over the last decade as Asia emerged as the leading outsourcing destination for the global fashion industry, Sri Lanka stood alone as the only country that embraced ethical business and manufacturing practices as a way of life.  Yet, doing business ethically and in an environmentally-conscious way carries a cost which the consumers and retailers are yet to fully understand and accept.”

These production issues, particularly as they affect Asia, are so important yet get precious little media attention. And with India and Sri Lanka becoming key players in the apparel manufacturing industry, the cost-versus-ethics debate is far from over.

We have gained a ton of respect for young model Coco Rocha for writing this insightful, articulate essay on just how ridiculous it is that at size 4, she’s been accused of being too fat for the runway in respected publications like The New York Times and the New York Daily News.

Let’s let Ms. Rocha have the floor:

I’m a 21 year old model, 6 inches taller and 10 sizes smaller than the average American woman. Yet in another parallel universe I’m considered “fat”… This was the subject of major discussion this week and the story that was spun was: “Coco Rocha is too fat for the runway”.

Is that the case? No. I am still used and in demand as a model. In fact I find myself busier than ever. In the past few years I have not gained an extreme amount of weight, only an inch here and there as any young woman coming out of her teenage years would.

But this issue of model’s weight is, and always has been, of concern to me. There are certain moral decisions which seem like no brainers to us. For example, not employing children in sweatshops, and not increasing the addictiveness of cigarettes. When designers, stylists or agents push children to take measures that lead to anorexia or other health problems in order to remain in the business, they are asking the public to ignore their moral conscience in favor of the art.

Surely, we all see how morally wrong it is for an adult to convince an already thin 15 year old that she is actually too fat. It is unforgivable that an adult should demand that the girl unnaturally lose the weight vital to keep her body functioning properly. How can any person justify an aesthetic that reduces a woman or child to an emaciated skeleton? Is it art? Surely fashion’s aesthetic should enhance and beautify the human form, not destroy it.

We are in awe of Ms. Rocha’s poise and grace in responding to such heartless and baseless criticism, and we hope others listen to what she’s saying.

In the spirit of our February commenting contest, we want to draw attention to one of the many thoughtful messages we have received from E.S. readers over the past year and a half. (Yes, this week marks our 1.5 year anniversary!)

This one comes from Roe at YesHoneyChyle.com in response to our post about Aeropostale’s denim drive for Haiti:

Do you think Aeropostale is really doing something ethical or that they might be “charity-washing” themselves to gain more buyers and creating marketing ties in a country they didn’t have before (Haiti)? And if Aeropostale uses cheap sweat-shop labor to make their products and ships that product to a country without jeans, is it still considered benevolence?

It’s a great question.

In 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch, Aeropostale’s parent corporation, admitted it used sweatshop labor in its manufacturing and settled in a landmark $22-million class action lawsuit on behalf of factory workers in Saipan. Since then, allegations of unethical labor policies have quieted down, but it’s worth noting that Abercrombie’s history (and, by extension, Aeropostale’s) isn’t so squeaky clean.

We can certainly see the contradiction in a company sending relief supplies to one impoverished country while employing cheap labor in another. How about you? Do you think Aeropostale is sincere in its campaign to help Haitians?

Last week, Los Angeles-based American Apparel laid off 1,500 factory workers who were unable to prove that they were in the country legally.

A federal investigation uncovered roughly 1,800 employees who were illegal immigrants or had other problems with their employment record, and while the company officially says it is “very disappointed and disheartened” at having to make this decision, it was in American Apparel’s best interest to dismiss them — at least until the immigrants can apply for legal working status.

The situation is heartbreaking all around and it calls to mind the Emmy-winning 2007 documentary Made in L.A., which follows the plight of the Los Angeles Garment Workers Center.

Airing on PBS (in collaboration with Latino Public Broadcasting), the documentary focuses on three garment workers employed at Forever 21, and what they had to endure so that shoppers around the world can buy low-priced clothing.

Lupe Hernandez has 15 years of experience working in Los Angeles garment factories, having left Mexico City at age 17 for a better life in America. Maura Colorado had to make the heart-wrenching decision to leave her three children behind with family in El Salvador so she could come to Los Angeles to support them, but without legal status, she has been unable to return home to visit them. María Pineda emigrated with her husband from Mexico when she was 18, and after 23 years of domestic abuse and earning next to nothing at a hard job, she questions her self-worth. 

These women and countless others just like them decided to take a stand for self-empowerment in 2001 through the Los Angeles Garment Worker Center. The advocacy group is run primarily by children of Asian immigrants, but despite language and culture barriers, they worked together to fight for their rights.

The story pits David against Goliath as the Garment Worker Center takes on Forever 21, the fast fashion brand that ran the factories where the three women work. Despite being an American company, Forever 21 uses a sweatshop business model. Workers at the Los Angeles garment factories work 10- to 14-hour days without breaks for meals or the use of the restroom, in poorly ventilated facilities for far less than what their American-born counterparts are paid. Typical wages are far below the state minimum, and frequently go unpaid or missing overtime.

To fight these and other abuses, the workers led a boycott against Forever 21 and issued a public challenge to shed some light on the apparel company’s reliance on low-wage labor right here on American soil.

The film chronicles the long campaign to bring a huge company to justice. Watch as the garment workers sue for unpaid wages and overtime owed by the company’s contractors and organize rallies outside stores and even the home of Forever 21′s CEO, Do Won Chang. 

Made in L.A. sends a powerful message about economic injustices that aren’t merely a problem in poor and developing countries.

To view the documentary, you can order it from Newsreel.org or check local listings for a repeat airing on PBS.

Bangladesh is home to 4,200 garment factories, but those companies are now taking steps to shed the “sweatshop” label, the AFP reports.

Consultants like Rodney Reed, a British businessman who has been living in Bangladesh for three years, are helping the factories become socially responsible and treat garment workers well:

With signs that the runaway growth in the garment trade is beginning to slow because of the global financial crisis, Reed said Bangladesh could set itself apart from other garment-producing countries by becoming a fair-trade hub.

“In the same way we see organic coffee and organic vegetables in the UK, people pay more money for products if they are environmentally sustainable,” Reed said, adding that fair trade could become vital to the country’s survival as a leading garment producing nation.

“At the moment Bangladesh’s only advantage is its cheap labour, but that may not always be the case. Someplace else will come along offering cheaper labour, most likely sub-Saharan African countries, and shops will send their orders there instead,” he said.

Read more about the pros and cons of overseas sweatshop labor here.

Activism to stop sweatshop labor, on the surface, seems like it would be uncontroversial. Who in their right mind would argue in favor of allowing exploited people to work grueling 18-hour days for insultingly low pay?

As it turns out, factory jobs are a hot commodity in some parts of the world. And more and more sweatshop workers are speaking out to say “please don’t take away my job.”

Nicolas D. Kristof, the columnist for The New York Times, wrote a controversial op-ed in January regarding poor families in Cambodia who, in order to survive, degrade themselves to picking through garbage dumps for valuables. Allowing sweatshops to operate, Mr. Kristof writes, would at least get these families out of the trash heap and into relatively cushy factory conditions.

Granted, cushy is all relative. What serves for a covetable job and decent pay in Vietnam would be unacceptable for most Westerners — the predominant reason that manufacturing jobs have moved overseas.

But Mr. Kristof would find an ally in Leslie T. Chang, author of Factory Girls: From Village to City in a Changing China.

For her book, Ms. Chang spent three years interviewing female factory workers who, in many cases, left home at age 16 or 17 to try to make a better life in one of China’s big cities.

“A young woman’s prospects completely change after she moves to the city,” she writes. “She can earn and save cash for the first time, and with some initiative and luck, she can move up into a better job. Almost all of the midlevel executives, clerks, and salespeople I met started out as assembly-line workers. The view from the outside is that these women are victims, but they have big plans, schemes, and goals. They see themselves as actors in their own dramas.”

It’s a side heard less commonly than those who work to end sweatshop abuses. Their voices are the dominant ones.

Kalpona Akter is a 33-year-old former garment worker, now turned activist. In a profile on NewsBlaze.com, she describes how she began working in a Bangladeshi factory at the age of 12, soon logging 17-hour work days in unsafe conditions for only $8 per month — a sad sum even in her native land.

She now works on behalf of the 85 percent of Bangladesh’s 2.2 million garment workers who are women between 18 and 25 years of age — meaning they tend to be uneducated and easily exploited. They go without health care, vacation, and maternity leave. Ms. Akter says Bangladeshi sweatshop employees are among the lowest-paid workers in the entire world.

It’s hard to argue that anyone would ask to be treated poorly or denied even the most basic benefits. And indeed, if a compromise between the two sides is possible, it seems that working toward ending abuses is a worthy goal.

But if it’s what the people want, who are we to say they shouldn’t have the opportunity to make a better life for themselves?