Let's not forget RMG workers in the race to net zero

With the world currently facing an economic shock, there is an air of trepidation as we head into the winter. Ready-made garment (RMG) makers are desperate for a good run-up to the festive season, a traditionally busy time of the year for manufacturers in Bangladesh. But the signs are not good so far.

Last month, Bangladesh's export earnings fell to a 13-month low of USD 3.9 billion. The post-pandemic return to growth appears to have been short-lived. Experts are blaming the Russia-Ukraine war and the double-digit inflation rate in Europe. This is a huge issue given that the European Union is the largest trade bloc for our RMG products.

Read more

Bangladesh needs to rely less on EU, US markets

The situation in the US market is similar. The US, together with the EU, saw a 5.66 percent fall in Bangladesh's woven exports and nine percent decline in knitwear shipments in September compared to the previous year.

My biggest worry in this situation is for our RMG workers, who are among the most vulnerable parts in the global fashion supply chain. They depend on steady working hours and, indeed, many of them factor in overtime to earn a reasonable income. Overtime is very limited given the current lack of orders, and some smaller factories have even ceased production altogether.

While we in Bangladesh are obviously concerned about this issue and its implications for domestic jobs and industry, there is some sentiment globally that reduced economic activity will be the only way in which the industrialised world can meet climate commitments.

Readers may have become aware of the calls for "slow growth" or, more pertinently in the fashion industry, "slow fashion." In addition, at the start of the pandemic, some people talked about the Great Reset. The World Economic Forum (WEF) spoke of how the pandemic could represent a "rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world."

I have been following the debate around what this reset may look like. The prevailing consensus seems to be that the focus will be on sustainability with a determination to meet "net zero" targets at all costs, coupled with the rise of the circular economy. While the principle of circular economy and net zero is keeping materials and products in use and giving products a longer lifetime, the RMG industry of the third world flourished through fast fashion. So, while we move towards the "net zero," we have to be very cautious about the negative economic impacts.

The term "net zero" means achieving a balance between the carbon emitted into the atmosphere and the carbon removed from it. Some people believe we can meet net zero targets by switching to renewable energies. But there is another debate that net zero will not be achieved if economic activity levels continue to rise. According to this line of reasoning, absolute reductions in outputs will be necessary in consumer goods industries, including fashion.

This makes me nervous, and in many ways conflicted. On the one hand, I support the sustainability agenda. On the other, I recognise that the much-criticised fast fashion industry provides employment and security to millions of garment workers in Bangladesh. So, "degrowth" cannot happen in economic terms, meaning goods production can be reduced, but not by distorting our economic growth.

These issues gained further prominence recently when US-based consultant Textile Exchange warned the fashion industry that it was time to rethink "untethered growth." Textile Exchange produced a report showing the continued growth of global textile fibre production and how this is not compatible with meeting the targets laid down by the Paris Agreement on climate change.

It feels clearly like something has to give. There are talks of "decoupling" resource consumption from economic output, but there is very little evidence that this is happening in our industry yet – especially in LDCs. As we have seen in recent weeks, we are still quite reliant on the traditional fuels, and when the supply stops, we all have problems. That's just the way things are and will remain until there is a huge industrial upgrade to renewable energy in Bangladesh.

The alternative, then, could be that we have to accept that reducing output – or "not growing" – could be the only way we help the world meet the climate targets. Are we ready for that? More pertinently, do we have a plan for the RMG workers who may lose their livelihoods? These global issues will hit us all at some point, but the most vulnerable will suffer the most.

I am already hearing stories of people losing jobs in our industry and factories having to lay people off. Is this a temporary blip or the start of a long-term restructuring of our economy in a world that wishes to meet net zero targets? People might say I am being an alarmist, but I am only taking what I hear in the fashion industry at face value, with every major fashion retailer now setting strict emission reduction targets. With targets becoming more and more difficult to achieve, and deadlines closing in, could reduction in production volumes be the way fashion retailers choose to meet emission targets? Whichever way we go, it is imperative to save people from the impact of degrowth.

Mostafiz Uddin is the managing director of Denim Expert Limited. He is also the founder and CEO of Bangladesh Denim Expo and Bangladesh Apparel Exchange (BAE).