The University has come under fire for refusing to divulge how ‘University of Oxford’ branded clothing is made, leading to concerns about the ethical credentials of souvenir tourist clothes and stash.
OUSU’s Environment and Ethics Committee are campaigning to get Oxford Limited, a business subsidiary of the University responsible for the global licensing of the Oxford brand, to be open about the manufacture of University of Oxford clothing. The University claims that they are unable to publicise the manufacturing arrangements of their suppliers, as it is “commercially sensitive information”.
Sean Robinson, co-ordinator of the E&E Anti-Sweatshop Campaign, said, “We should not put the Oxford University brand to a product which may have been made in appalling conditions for those workers involved.
“The brand should stand for more than making money whilst ignoring ethical obligations. We want to ensure that no one who wears the Oxford Crest on their breast need also bear the weight of exploitation on their mind.”
A similar campaign five years ago by the Ethics Committee resulted in Oxford Ltd introducing a Code of Labour Practice which specifies that licensees must ensure acceptable working conditions in their factories. However, without an independent body to check that this code is being implemented, ethics campaigners fear that it will have no effect.
Robinson said that the code “only has meaning if there is incentive on the part of either Oxford Ltd or the licensees to see it enforced.
“Consumers concerned over labour conditions voice their concerns with their wallets. If Oxford Ltd contractually obliged its licensees to ensure open, independent, verification of the working conditions in their factories and warehouses, then ethically minded consumers could rest assured that they would not be buying clothes stained with the blood, sweat and tears of exploited workers.”
Oxford Ltd is said to have responded favourably to the campaign’s pressure for the inclusion of disclosure clauses in the contracts the company signs with its licensees, which would enable information about manufacturing arrangements to be released and accredited by an independent third party.
A spokesperson for the University said, “Oxford Limited continually checks and is reassured by all of its licensees and suppliers that [ethical] policy is adhered to.
“At a recent meeting with OUSU, Oxford Limited was happy to accept a suggestion that OUSU propose a revised form of wording for future agreements.”
Campaigners also want Oxford to affiliate itself with the Worker Rights Consortium, an independent U.S. organisation which monitors companies in order to protect the rights of workers involved in garment production. Membership costs £12,000, which would constitute 1 per cent of its gross licensing revenues.
Criticising Oxford’s non-membership of the Consortium, Robinson said, “If Oxford Ltd want, as they claim, to ensure good conditions for their workers, why are they keeping those conditions secret? Harvard have done it, Princeton have done it: 188 colleges and universities have signed up to the Workers Rights Consortium: why won’t Oxford?”
OUSU’s campaign is focusing primarily on the Oxfordbranded clothing popular with tourists, but E&E reps are also concerned about how sports teams’ and college stash is made.
Currently, the permission for use of branding on sportswear and college merchandise is given by the University proctors for official teams and clubs, or individual colleges in the case of college logos. With this permission, teams or colleges can go to any supplier, meaning there is no standard across the board for ethical production.
Tom Meacher, captain of Oxford Polo Blues, told Cherwell he thought it was important that any company manufacturing university branded clothes should be as transparent as possible. “It’s not ethical to be selling clothing made in places like sweatshops and just not fair on the students who are buying this stash unknowingly.”
