On June 7, 2020, chants of anger and fear erupted from the courtyard of the Euro Clothing Company factory (ECC-2) in Karnataka, India. Hundreds of garment workers who had previously manufactured clothing for H&M crowded into the ECC-2 in protest. The evening before, these workers had been laid off without warning, leaving over 1,200 men and women jobless. Over one month later, the garment workers are still protesting in an attempt to regain their jobs.

The extensive consequences of COVID-19 include a decline in clothing consumption and a surplus of products that fast fashion brands like H&M cannot sell. Because of this, garment workers are being laid off without pay. Gokaldas Exports, the owner of the ECC-2, released a statement saying: “The lay-off is due to reduction and cancellation of orders from its customers based out of key markets consequent to the Covid-19 pandemic.” This explicit message clearly details the reason for the layoffs, and places the responsibility on overseas brands such as H&M.  

The issues of overproduction and layoffs are not unique and have recently emerged throughout countries that are manufacturing hubs for fast fashion brands. On June 24, an American Eagle Outfitters supplier in Bangladesh called Shanta Garments shut down and laid off 2,200 workers. In Myanmar, hundreds of workers producing clothing for Zara and Primark were laid off after forming a union in protest against the poor working conditions that had been worsened during the pandemic. In Cambodia, the Garment Manufacturers Association released a statement saying that the number of layoffs is likely to increase as “numerous brands and retailers in Europe and North America have canceled or delayed orders,” and on July 2, over 150,000 garment workers were laid off. 

According to Fashion Revolution, only 2% of garment workers around the world receive a livable wage. Because of fluctuations in the supply chain and product consumption, the pandemic has heightened pre existing issues such as unfair wages and long working hours. For example, garment workers earn below the minimum wage that employees in retail countries earn. According to NewsClick, H&M garment workers in Karnataka were paid 8,866 rupees per month which is equivalent to 118 USD. Because the workers are counting on the salary provided by the factories to survive, the abrupt change during the pandemic has been a huge motivator for the workers to protest. Notably, some companies have given their workers compensation until they can return to work, but the amount is often not enough to cover the extended period of time that the garment workers will not be earning a salary. Workers who had been laid off by Violet Apparel Cambodia were promised $30 per month, while in Myanmar, garment workers at a factory called Hunter Myanmar were given $320 to cover living expenses for an unidentified length of time. 

One reason that brands have laid off garment workers is simply because halting production is the easiest way to simultaneously cut costs and prevent manufacturing unnecessary items. But because clothing items are typically produced long before they are sold in stores, halting production without protecting the supply chain has negative repercussions. For example, garment workers in Bangladesh were not paid for the Spring collection they manufactured in May; the same collection that cannot be resold next spring, because by then trends and styles will have changed. 

On the opposite end of fast fashion manufacturing is the brand’s image and PR, and at the onset of COVID-19, many brands advertised their efforts to relieve the effects of COVID-19 on vulnerable communities. In April, H&M released a statement listing the organizations it donated to including the Children’s Defense Fund, the Los Angeles LGBT Center, and the World Health Organization. These donations benefitted the brand’s image, but also highlighted the areas in which the brand is lacking. The fact that H&M donated $500,000 to WHO is questionable when compared with the fact that its garment workers are not receiving their monthly salaries of just over $100. These workers make up a vulnerable community that is more directly tied to H&M than any of the other organizations it chose to donate to and yet they are not receiving a fraction of the relief funds that US-based organizations are getting. Further, H&M did not release any information on how COVID is affecting garment workers until a video of the Karnataka protests surfaced on Twitter. On June 24, 2020, the H&M Twitter account replied to the Karnataka video: 

“The drop in customer demand due to COVID-19 will inevitably impact suppliers, however we are placing orders with this supplier and we fully stand by our responsible purchasing practices. We are in dialogue with the supplier and the trade unions to resolve the conflict peacefully.”

As the workers are still without pay, and H&M has not made it clear how it plans to remedy this, the problem remains. This shows the way that brand activism for the eyes of the consumer is very different from internal accountability. H&M donated to WHO because its consumers applaud that type of action, so what if the consumer base was to demand fair pay and treatment for garment workers? Moving forward, in order for change to occur, more individual consumers must take responsibility rather than depending on the brands or industry. The fact that H&M was pressured into giving a response to the Karnataka video after it was shared on social media shows the power individuals have and that change is in the hands of consumers. Whether this change means boycotting fast fashion brands and consuming ethically, lobbying against brands to demand worker payment, or supporting worker unions, it is the consumers’ responsibility to demand change and hold corporations accountable.