Is Clothing "Drug-Related" Finished?

Clothing "drug-related", consumers will naturally blame.

Clothing "drug-related", consumers will naturally accuse the clothing brand itself.

But to trace where the toxic clothing came from, the "poison source" points to the foundry manufacturers who produce clothes for these well-known brands.

The public condemn the brand and the brand to shirk the foundry.

Who will be responsible for this storm?

In today's market, toxic food and toxic furniture are not rare. But when the "toxic clothing" is coming, can consumers still be calm? In addition to the lack of social responsibility of enterprises, the contradiction between OEM manufacturers and brand enterprises has also added a "poison coat" to manufacturing.

Enterprises may have high or low in the industrial chain, but they guarantee the quality of products and jointly create for consumers.

Recently, a report released by Greenpeace has brought several well-known clothing brands to the "drug related" storm.

The report, entitled "poison and cloak", is a survey of toxic and harmful substances in global brand clothing. Its contents show that from April to May this year, Greenpeace purchased 78 samples of 15 clothing brands in 18 countries such as China and Argentina, of which 52 samples were found to contain toxic and harmful substances.

These include Adidas, Nike, CK, Puma, Lining and other 14 world-renowned sportswear enterprises.

"Poison clothing door" came out, which immediately triggered a great uproar in the market.

As soon as the report was released, the brands responded quickly: Nike and Puma said they would eliminate all the toxic and harmful substances in the supply chain by 2020.

Li Ning Co is committed to eventually eliminate chemicals that affect the environment in the supply chain in 2019.

However, behind the "sincere attitude" of the major companies, there is no concrete solution and no specific "drug treatment" measures.

NPE and foundry factories

It is understood that the well-known brands involved in the "drug related" whirlpool.

In fact, in view of the NPE's harm to the human body and the environment, the EU promulgated the regulations on the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals in 2005 to prohibit the use of NPE in the textile production industry. China's Ministry of environmental protection and the General Administration of customs also joined NPE in the catalogue of toxic chemicals restricted by China's import and export in the beginning of this year, and for the first time classified NPE as a list of substances prohibited from entering and exporting.

However, although China has banned NPE in foreign trade, there are no documents restricting the implementation of NPE in the domestic market.

This allowed some speculators to make a loophole.

After the incident, the big brands naturally attracted a lot of abuse, and the factories that manufactured garments for these brands could hardly escape the scolding.

And this so-called foundry factory usually refers to the enterprise that does not design and only produces and processes.

Jin Yan, a professor of economics at Nankai University, further explained, "OEM demand manufacturers, in order to further reduce costs and create greater profits, pfer manufacturing to low-cost countries and regions.

This also brings huge business opportunities for the late start of the economy.

At present, there are many foundry manufacturers in the southeastern coast of China. That's why, even if you are in fashion streets in Europe and the United States, you can see MadeInChina products everywhere.

However, the overconcentration of manufacturing industry also has bad effects.

In the NPE pollution report, 78 samples were produced in developing countries, up to 28 from China, and all of the products of Lining brand came from China.

The reason why so many brand collectives fall to a large extent lies in the concentration of clothing manufacturers.

Disjointed supply chain

Although it is clear that NPE originates from OEM, the reality is that production costs are often too much pressure on the foundries.

The survey shows that at present, there are already non-toxic additives for NPE in China. However, the production cost of these products is 5% to 10% higher than that of the manufacturers. Therefore, the low profit OEM manufacturers do not choose to use NPE alternatives to avoid losing money.

Although this can not be the reason for its "poison coat", it reflects objectively the predicament of the manufacturer to a certain extent.

Experts believe that the products produced by OEM enterprises are indeed associated with their own cost savings.

Jin Yan pointed out that the profit point of OEM enterprises is very low, and many times, in order to expand profits, they have to "excessively save".

"In the province where we should not save, we should also save the province, which is a magic weapon for the foundry enterprises to gain economic benefits." it is not surprising that raw materials are shoddy and even violating illegal operations.

Jin Yan said, "in addition, the foundry demand side is also difficult to get rid of the relationship.

Because they tend to push the price of the foundry industry very low, almost at the cost price to the foundry enterprise, and the side also aggravates the risk of product problems.

Experts say that the accusation of brand names is often more severe, not only because they are the main responsibility of the product, but also because, fundamentally speaking, the demand side of the foundry is in the production of goods.

Professor Jin Yan told reporters that on the global chain of OEM, OEM companies and brand enterprises are often in an unequal position, which is almost the underlying rule of international industrial chain division of labor.

This has made it even impossible to compete with apple, DELL and other brand makers, even when Samsung and Foxconn are now "Big Macs".

"Moreover, the foundry factories belong to labor-intensive enterprises, and the profit margins are small. In order to maximize profits, we must start with lowering the remuneration of the labor force."

Jin Yan continues to explain, "now not only the labor cost increases day by day, but the whole social price rise has brought the overall rise of the manufacturing cost, and the life of the foundry enterprise is very difficult."

Therefore, in the "poison clothing gate" incident, brand and OEM enterprises are the two most responsible persons, but most experts do not tend to play fifty big boards.

"The problem of the foundry demand side is indeed more, not only in forcing the foundry enterprises to accept the foundry business at a low price, but also in the fact that their supervision is not in place or even has no supervision at all, so this is the main reason for the incident."

Jin Yan said, "however, the OEM enterprises should also set strict standards for the raw materials used in their products, and inspect them at the time of purchase, and eliminate the unqualified products. This is the responsibility it must bear."

Set up the bottom line of conscience and establish dialogue mechanism

Experts suggest that the two sides should first establish a positive dialogue mechanism to solve the problem of supply chain disintegration between OEM enterprises and brands.

This helps brands understand the situation of OEM enterprises, and rationally adjust their cooperation modes, so that OEM can gain more profit margins.

Besides, brand enterprises should also strengthen the supervision of the OEM, while maintaining their own interests, and ensuring the quality of the products.

In addition to establishing dialogue mechanisms between brands and manufacturers,

Professor Jin Yan pointed out that the establishment of a dialogue mechanism, the disclosure of suppliers or supply chain, in a sense, can be very intuitive monitoring and timely investigation of related enterprises, to prevent such incidents from the source.

Insiders also suggested that the survival pressure of OEM enterprises is too large, so we should keep a certain bottom line for survival.

In this regard, Professor Jin Yan said: "the bottom line can not be measured by the production profits of enterprises, otherwise, there will inevitably be something similar to" poison clothing doors ".

In addition to the role of relevant regulatory policies, OEM enterprises should set the bottom line with conscience standards.

Under the premise of ensuring profitability, the OEM enterprises should strive to improve the quality of products. They should not be inferior, fake or genuine, but can not be poisoned. They can make profits by endangering the health and safety of employees and consumers.

It is rooted in a sentence that the bottom line of the law can not be worn and the bottom line of conscience should be kept. "