Just for info, the latest Ethical consumer mag reviews 'outdoor gear'.
Top of the list
Paramo Vaude Lowe Alpine rucksacks Rab Alpkit Mammut (best buys)
Dropping down to the bottom 5
Forclaz Quechua Simond Gelert Karrimor (brands to avoid).
They emphasise that the most ethical kit is the stuff we already own, and dedicate 2 pages for tips as to how to look after and repair what we already have.
Interesting article, thanks for pointing that out. I found a preview here, starting page 10:
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/sites/default/files/flipbook/Issue195Previe...
And yes, I definitely agree with the reduce and reuse philosophy.
Thanks for this. Unless I’m reading it wrong the table highlights section does not match the table itself
Without understanding how they make their assessments, I'm getting a sense of 'ethical bullshit bingo' here, i.e. judging companies by their public statements on these issues. Or I may have to boycott Alpkit because of their 'Habitat and Resources' and 'Human Rights' ratings...
The introduction talks about avoiding companies using PFCs, such as Gore-tex, but I see plenty of Gore-tex users placed highly.
Ranking brands overall on such a wide variety of criteria does seem to dilute its usefulness. I shop for things one item at a time. Paramo score well, but some of that is because they don't have any merino wool socks, leather boots or hunting gear in they range. But does that make their fleece a 'better' buy than one from Columbia?
Yes, it's not perfect. Patagonia come out particularly well on fleeces as they have developed clothing that is resistant to shedding microplastics on washing. They also offer a repair service etc
Curious to know what the criteria is for 'political activity', as it shows Patagonia and other US brands being marked down. This seems to indicate that any political activity is unethical, which doesn't make sense.
I don't know what these brands political activity is, but would be surprised to find if they're lobbying for more oil and gas, less enviro protection and worker rights etc. I'm sure for some it's the opposite.
Patagonia have long funded conservation projects and during the Trump years a lot of their funding went to lawyers taking on the Trump administration's environmentally destructive policies.
It's one in a series of reasons why almost every bit of clothing I've bought over the past 3 decades has been theirs.
Was Sherpa mentioned at all?
Lobbying for the environment is one thing, direct action against a political party (as in the hang-tag campaign) is another as US corporations are prohibited from contributing directly to campaigns for federal elections. They must donate through a PAC to keep spending and influence under control and transparent.
I'll research it a bit when I get back to computer.
> Patagonia have long funded conservation projects and during the Trump years a lot of their funding went to lawyers taking on the Trump administration's environmentally destructive policies.
They also ran a really good campaign recently of [paraphrased] "Don't buy this jacket" - i.e. keep what you have if you're trying to be green/ethical
ethical consumers do not exist. Buy nothing and maintain what you have with care and you *might* get close to being an Ethical Human.
> ethical consumers do not exist. Buy nothing and maintain what you have with care and you *might* get close to being an Ethical Human.
I guess it all boils down to what is meant by 'ethical' and who wrote the definition and what blinkers they were wearing. In the real world there's a massive grey area between 'perfectly good' and 'perfectly bad' (however you define them). At one level, not buying more clothing (for example) may seem 'ethical'. Till you ask someone working in the clothing industry. Your 'Ethical Human' may well be the cause of someone else starving. Simplification ad absurdum is rarely helpful.
Yes, reading the whole mag just let's you build up a bigger picture of the issues from which you make your choices.
I was all with you in the ‘real world’, until ‘At one level...’ After that i’m left wondering if you’ve really thought about what you wrote?
Your post reminded me of the quote (aphorism?): Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
> I guess it all boils down to what is meant by 'ethical' and who wrote the definition and what blinkers they were wearing. In the real world there's a massive grey area between 'perfectly good' and 'perfectly bad' (however you define them). At one level, not buying more clothing (for example) may seem 'ethical'. Till you ask someone working in the clothing industry. Your 'Ethical Human' may well be the cause of someone else starving. Simplification ad absurdum is rarely helpful.
Perhaps these poor seamstresses would rather be farming the fields but for the cotton plantations feeding the wests obsession with fashion and instatwatiness
Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but the point was that all too often being 'ethical' causes misery to other innocents. Whether despite that it is still justifiable, is another more complex matter. Emphasis on 'complex'.
> I guess it all boils down to what is meant by 'ethical' and who wrote the definition and what blinkers they were wearing. In the real world there's a massive grey area between 'perfectly good' and 'perfectly bad' (however you define them). At one level, not buying more clothing (for example) may seem 'ethical'. Till you ask someone working in the clothing industry. Your 'Ethical Human' may well be the cause of someone else starving. Simplification ad absurdum is rarely helpful.
If my choice to not buy anything is causing starvation then logically and morally I appear to be obligated to buy clothes. But why? If capitalism is so perfect that's it has driven all the inefficiencies out, as it purports to be for, then maybe you are correct. My choice to not buy means someone at the other end looses their role. But starvation? Maybe., But there you go that is the evil in the system. When capitalism drives all of the cost inefficiency out the worker is left on subsistence wages. That is efficient for only the owner and the consumer. And yes that is exactly what happens. It's not me that drives the worker out into the cold. It's the cold evil of capitalism. It works only for rich. And every tech fabric shirt you buy ethical or otherwise contributea to every subsistence wages workers misery.
To say I'm to blame is ridiculous.
> Perhaps it wasn't the best example, but the point was that all too often being 'ethical' causes misery to other innocents.
We had to do a 'corporate ethics' module. One scenario was our fictitious factory in a dubious regime, where we were asked to provide bribes/booze/prostitutes. (Obviously fictitious, because we wouldn't dream of such a location for a factory, would we...?)
Apparently, the 'correct' answer (one that wasn't offered in the multiple choice answer) was to close the factory, putting a lot of people out of work.
Because 'ethics'.
What's that got to do with it? Anti corruption is nothing to do with ethical consumerism. It's about complying with the law. If your scope of ethical reasoning is confined to complying with the law then you are setting your bar very low.
I was clearly addressing Marek's observation about the difficulties when choosing 'ethical behaviour'. In particular, the misery caused to employees by closing a factory in a poor country. It was a comment on the simplistic, absolutist approach taken by the rather laughable corporate training module. A company ought to have an ethical responsibility to its employees.
In UK law, a company - or to be precise its directors - has a responsibility to look after the interests of all its stakeholders, and that definition includes employees. As ever, the real world is complex and all too often the interests of the various groups of stakeholders can be in conflict. Sometimes there isn't a right thing to do, just the least bad. For a 'moral' director (I specifically didn't say 'ethical'), those are hard decisions.
> In UK law, a company - or to be precise its directors - has a responsibility to look after the interests of all its stakeholders, and that definition includes employees. As ever, the real world is complex and all too often the interests of the various groups of stakeholders can be in conflict. Sometimes there isn't a right thing to do, just the least bad. For a 'moral' director (I specifically didn't say 'ethical'), those are hard decisions.
So I guess then that you acknowledge that if I choose not to buy from UK companies then nobody is going to starve. And for the rest of it it's pretty obvious that companies supplying westerners outsource to developing countries simple because it's cheaper to do so. The workers can be bought for pennies. That's not something an ethical person would want to be part of is it?
Equally legal compliance can force you to do something which harms people (like foreign office staff enforcing policies that lead to overloaded boats capsizing in the channel).
If forced to close a factory due to corruption that is going to make staff unemployed the ethical answer is to either support them with moving to another site, or to give them a redundancy payout to enable them to find a new job. If it's localised corruption that affects specific staff members rather than being the environment surrounding the factory fire them and provide the other staff with training to identify corruption.
For me, a big consideration which doesn't seem to have been mentioned in this thread is where the clothing is made. I am afraid I am as guilty as the next person of having a wardrobe full of stuff made in China but I have really tried to avoid buying anything made there anymore. It is ironic that on the e-zine that hiking_dad provided us with the link to, there is an article about ethical gear but also an article about slave labour by Ughir Muslims. I am NOT suggesting that outdoor gear manufacturers are using these facilities and I am sure they are all very keen to avoid accidentally using them in their supply chains but if we buy gear from China, we are supporting a very unsavoury regime. If anybody wants me to bang on about this and produce a list of why, then I am happy to do so but I hope there is no need.
In the light of current events, we may need to look at our high streets, and see who owns them...
Have you been able to compile a list of outdoor gear that isn't made in China?!
> Have you been able to compile a list of outdoor gear that isn't made in China?!
Well, of the things I have bought recently in that hive of unethical practice, Decathlon, one was from China, one from Bosnia, and one from Turkey.
Hi Jim,
No.
It is a very hard job indeed and is just a matter of looking for whatever kit you are after and seeing where it is made. Unless you are really principled, it is hard to completely avoid but I suppose that one thing that this thread does demonstrate is that buying kit is a balance of many things, including country of origin.
Buffalo
Altberg
Boreal, scrarpa, laSportiva, Tenaya
DMM
Not sure about where the raw materials are sourced from though, quite probably pertex and other components are made in china.
Cotton T-shirts pecking order
£40 for Patagonia organic ethically sourced
£25 to £30 for standard sourced with cool/kudos branding/logo (Prana, Moon etc)
£5 to £10 (Go Outdoors) for standard sourced but uncool/naff branding/logo
I’m practical terms they all do the same job
The most recent DMM items I've bought (rucksack and clothing) all China, also La Sportiva boots.
Scarpa rockshoes were Italy, but as you say materials probably all come from Far East.
> The most recent DMM items I've bought (rucksack and clothing) all China, also La Sportiva boots.
DMM metalware is UK made (I believe the alloy is sourced from Norway), but yes textiles are made abroad.
I thought LaSportiva still made all their high end products in Europe, but that may have changed
>
> Cotton T-shirts pecking order
> £40 for Patagonia organic ethically sourced
> £25 to £30 for standard sourced with cool/kudos branding/logo (Prana, Moon etc)
> £5 to £10 (Go Outdoors) for standard sourced but uncool/naff branding/logo
> I’m practical terms they all do the same job
Cheaper and more ethical is, of course the charity shop second hand option.
Paramo
I'd say top priority should always be to buy second hand if possible. Before I buy anything new, I trawl fb marketplace, ebay, sales pages on here etc. Only if I can't find something suitable second hand do I then consider buying new and try to work out the most ethical option for this. I even buy the things like slippers and pyjamas second hand! (I tend to draw the line at knickers though, I do buy them new!)
> Have you been able to compile a list of outdoor gear that isn't made in China?!
China is getting expensive. There are cheaper options.
It’s marketing virtue signalling, along with hundreds of other firms in a plethora of ways. If no one bought jackets they’d go bust and I’m sure they wouldn’t like that. The actual technical clothing is a very small part of Pataguccis multi million dollar turnover and they can afford such comments to mainly liberal and green climbers. The UK contribution to global climate problems are minuscule, but no one’s going to confront China et al. Call me cynical!
.