Fashion and politics do not make the happiest of bedfellows. For all its virtue signalling, a system based on inequality and insecurity – that’s the fashion business – has little room for genuine compassion. However, last week the beneficiaries of sweated labour are being asked to examine their consciences – and their order books – as part of Fashion Revolution Week.
在時(shí)尚和政治領(lǐng)域不會有愉快的共事者。由于它所有的長處特點(diǎn)，時(shí)尚行業(yè)，這個(gè)建立在不公平和不穩(wěn)定基礎(chǔ)上的系統(tǒng)，是沒有太多的同情心的。然而，作為“時(shí)尚革命周”的一部分，血汗勞動的受益者們在上周被要求進(jìn)行良心測試，他們的訂貨單也要接受審查。

This is a global response to the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory complex in Bangladesh that killed 1,134 people and injured 2,500 more, on 24 April 2013. And as well as a “l(fā)abel selfie” campaign on social media, it has already provoked a special Fashion Question Time in the House of Commons, hosted by Labour MP Mary Creagh, at which the industry was urged to come clean about its foreign suppliers and help to clean up the iniquitous conditions under which their workers are hired.
這算是對2013年4月24日發(fā)生在孟加拉國的拉納廣場工廠大樓坍塌事件的全球性回應(yīng)，這場事故造成1134人死亡，至少2500人受傷。社交媒體上的“標(biāo)簽自拍”運(yùn)動也在工黨議員瑪麗?克里奇主持的下議院中引起了一場關(guān)于“時(shí)尚問題時(shí)代”的辯論，這場辯論要求時(shí)尚業(yè)把國外供應(yīng)商全部公布出來，也要幫助改善雇傭工人的不公平條件。

The disaster graphically demonstrated the true cost of quickly changing trends, or “fast fashion”, for high-street brands such as Gap and Benetton: dangerous working conditions, long hours and little pay for the garment workers. And what made it worse is that 2013 was global fashion’s most profitable year to date.
這場災(zāi)難赤裸裸地證明了快速變化的流行趨勢或者“快時(shí)尚”的真實(shí)消耗成本，像是Gap和貝納通這樣的主流時(shí)尚品牌的背后是服裝工人危險(xiǎn)的工作環(huán)境，超長的工作時(shí)間，以及微薄的薪水。更糟糕的是2013年是迄今為止全球時(shí)尚業(yè)最賺錢的一年。

“Most of the public is still not aware that human and environmental abuses are endemic across the fashion and textiles industry and that what they’re wearing could have been made in an exploitative way,” says Carry Somers, the co-founder of Fashion Revolution, who argues that transparency is the first step towards persuading brands to take responsibility for working conditions across the supply chain. Which is why, last week, people are taking those “l(fā)abel selfies”, tagging the brands of what they’re wearing, and asking #whomademyclothes.
“大多數(shù)公眾都沒有意識到濫用人力和環(huán)境資源是時(shí)尚業(yè)和紡織業(yè)的常態(tài)，也沒有意識到他們穿在身上的衣服是通過剝削工人、濫用資源的方式制作而成?！眲P瑞?薩摩斯說道。他是“時(shí)尚革命”的共同創(chuàng)始人，并且提出透明度是讓品牌主動對整個(gè)供應(yīng)鏈工作環(huán)境負(fù)責(zé)的第一步。這就是為什么上周人們要進(jìn)行“標(biāo)簽自拍”，指出他們衣服的品牌，并詢問#誰制作了我的衣裳。

Often the answer will be “poor Bangladeshis”. But similar working conditions prevail across the globe, and the big brands seem blithely unconcerned. The international Behind the Barcode report, published last year by the charity Baptist World Aid Australia, found that 86 percent of brands surveyed made no attempt to ensure a living wage across their supply chains, and half didn’t even know the locations of the factories in which their garments are made. And while H&M and Inditex (Zara) have taken action to pay wages above the legal minimum at the final stage of production, in the “cut-make-trim” factories, this does not extend to the textile workers, who spin or embroider the fabric, or to the cotton farmers at the very beginning of the supply chain.
大多的答案都是“可憐的孟加拉國”。但是全球各地都有著類似糟糕的工作環(huán)境，但是大品牌貌似對此毫不關(guān)心。去年澳大利亞世界援助浸信會慈善機(jī)構(gòu)出版了“條形碼背后”國際性調(diào)查報(bào)告，報(bào)告發(fā)現(xiàn)86%參與調(diào)查的品牌沒有打算確保整個(gè)供應(yīng)鏈的最低生活工資，一半的品牌甚至不知道制作服裝的工廠在哪里。雖然H&M和Zara已經(jīng)開始采取行動，在生產(chǎn)的最后階段支付高于法定最低標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的工資，在裁縫制衣工廠里，這些福利不涉及到紡織或刺繡工人，也不包括在供應(yīng)鏈最前端的種植棉花的農(nóng)民。

The latter certainly deserve better treatment. In the past 15 years, there have been 250,000 cotton-farmer suicides in India (equivalent to one every 30 minutes) because they simply can’t make ends meet. But, says Somers: “Tragedies are preventable. All we need is to make every stakeholder in the fashion supply chain responsible and accountable for their action and impacts. We have incredible power as consumers, if we choose how to use it.”
后者當(dāng)然應(yīng)該受到更好的對待。過去的15年里，印度有25萬名種植棉花的農(nóng)民自殺（相當(dāng)于每30分鐘一個(gè)人自殺）因?yàn)樗麄兏揪蜔o法養(yǎng)家糊口。但是薩摩斯說：“悲劇是可以阻止的。我們所需要做的是讓每一個(gè)時(shí)尚業(yè)供應(yīng)鏈中的利益相關(guān)者對他們的行為和影響負(fù)責(zé)。如果找到使用權(quán)力的方法，我們作為消費(fèi)者也能具有驚人的力量。”

The 63-million reach of last year’s #whomademyclothes hashtags is just a first step.
去年#誰制作了我的衣裳的標(biāo)簽運(yùn)動有6300萬人參與，這只是開始。

Vocabulary

come clean: 全盤招供；坦白交待
iniquitous: 邪惡的；不公正的
stakeholder: 利益相關(guān)者

英文來源：獨(dú)立報(bào)
譯者：Betty_Field
審校&編輯：丹妮