The two main components when discussing geographies of consumption are the geographical and consumption aspects. Geographies of consumption is defined as “the ways in which relationships between people, things and places are constituted around the sale and purchase of goods and services” (CITE). Primarily, the geographical component is more concerned with globalisation and how human geography versus physical geography influences it. This focuses on how differences between traditions and cultures have been forgotten due to globalisation and the processes of Americanisation, Coca-Colonisation, McDonladisation and Disneyisation, such that a ‘monoculture’ has surfaced (CITE). Meanwhile, consumption mostly relies on the demographics, socio-political and economic structures of countries that have integrated with other countries leading to economic globalisation as a result of international trade and liberalisation.
2.1 Globalisation and Consumption: Clothes and Footwear
However, when examining the clothes and footwear industry in this report, the leading factor that caused globalisation of this industry are the transnational retailers of clothes and footwear. As (AUTHOR) (CITE) argues, the globalisation of the clothes and footwear industry emerged due to movement of production facilities from the West to the East. Consequently, initiating the movement of manufacturing jobs from America to East and South-East Asia. Hence, steering the majority of production processes in this industry to adopt a ‘fast-fashion’ strategy.
The creation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA) further reinforces and validates (AUTHOR) (CITE) claims on the globalisation of the garments industry. The MFA imposed import quotas on clothes and footwear from developing countries to predominantly protect the domestic production of their traditional garments (CITE). However, with its introduction in 1974, the effects of globalisation soon after led to the removal of the MFA in 2005. Effectively, with the elimination of quotas this contributed to vast advancements in garment exports from Asian countries, specifically China. Nevertheless, major shifts in the Chinese economy due to concerns over their political stability has directed major retailers of clothes and footwear to construct production facilities in politically stable economies where labour wages are more cost efficient (CITE). Subsequently, production jobs were outsourced to countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore. However, as time progressed and these countries prospered economically, production was then transferred to even lower wage economies such as the Indonesia.
The pursuit to minimise costs and develop trade links is what (AUTHOR) (CITE) refers to as the system of ‘triangular manufacturing’ which has since been created due to the globalisation of the garments industry. This system demonstrates third party manufactures that are located in periphery countries as mentioned above, where they obtain manufacturing job contracts from American and European retailers who then produce and ship the clothes or footwear back to the West. When considering (AUTHOR) (CITE) and (AUTHORS) (CITE) statements of job relocations from the core to periphery countries (CITE), which as a result led to the creation of ‘triangular manufacturing’. The de-industrialisation, trade liberalisation and advancements in technology which make it possible to communicate at different ends of the Earth due to globalisation, further corroborates their claims. Nevertheless, the system of ‘triangular manufacturing’ also upholds the creation of ‘fast-fashion’ as mentioned earlier and its disadvantages. The idea to produce on a smaller scale by specialising labour and producing goods in less than a day to keep up with demand and new designs. Has incentivised Western retailers to pursue competitive dominance in these periphery countries over manufacturing jobs (CITE). Consequently, this pursuit to establish a manufacturing dominance has meant that retailers compromise on paying higher wages and sacrifice the working standards of the workers in factories. Essentially, this is what is otherwise known as the ‘race to the bottom’.
The data that was obtained and collated reveals a clear divide between the West and East in the production of clothes and footwear. As Table 1 depicts, the manufacturing of clothes and footwear is most frequently completed in China and South-East Asia. China is noticeably observed to have the highest frequency in the industry with 64 of the collected items being produced in China. Bangladesh has the second highest frequency at 32. Additionally, countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, India and Indonesia also predominantly establish a relatively high frequency on average of 15 items in the production of the clothes and footwear gathered. The statement as put forth by (AUTHOR) (CITE) is further supported when analysing Table 1 and Figure 1 which observes a miniscule frequency of Western countries producing clothes and footwear. While Western countries such as Turkey, Italy and Spain may witness some production of clothes and footwear, these countries are widely considered to be semi-periphery countries. As a result, (AUTHOR) (CITE) makes a valid point due to a lack in the frequency of North-American core countries seen and highlighted in Figure 1. Altogether, illustrating a clear divide between the global West and global East.
Likewise, Figure 4 portrays the lack in manufacturing jobs in North-America within the clothes and footwear industry. Also, the movement of manufacturing jobs from North-America towards the East and South-East of Asia. Figure 4 reveals that 83% of production of the collated clothes and footwear occurs in Asia; establishing a clear dominance over Europe which only produced 14% of the clothes and footwear. South-American country Honduras, contributes towards the 1% of South American production. Once again, majority of production in China vastly contributes towards the total of 83%. Nonetheless, despite China being viewed negatively as a result in the rise of political instability. Hence, a shift in production from China to South-East Asia as mentioned earlier in the report, the data obtained suggests otherwise. The production of clothes and footwear continues to mostly remain in China with some evident relocations to the South-East of Asia. However, this is due to the higher skilled and higher turnover in production processes from China which continues to be favourable for many western retailers (CITE).
Figure 2 displays the range of prices accumulated. The most expensive item was priced at £130.00 and the cheapest was £1.80. The box plot reveals that the prices for the majority of the products compared was between £15.00 and £41.00, with an average of price of all products at £33.41. When analysing Figure 2 alongside Figure 3, the clothes and footwear observed mostly was from Sports Direct, Next, Topshop/Topman, New Look and Primark. Companies which all engage with the ‘fast-fashion’ strategy. Thus, the relatively low prices obtained in the data and that is represented in Figure 2 are due to the low costs of production these companies experience as a result of cheap and exploited labour in East Asia (CITE).
4.1 Follow the Thing
The product we decided to investigate for the follow the thing exercise and believed to have the most compelling geography, was the most expensive product in our data – The Predator x Adidas Football Shoes. Upon further research of the shoe’s production process, it was found that it is located in Indonesia. The effects of political issues in China may suggest why Adidas’ production of shoes have relocated from China and into Indonesia in the last 25 years (CITE). Additionally, Adidas’ production of shoes happens on a contract basis that relies on a network of contractors who delegate these jobs to Indonesian workers, revealing that Adidas has not built any factories in Indonesia. Rather, rely on (AUTHOR) (CITE) proposed system of ‘triangular manufacturing’.
Adidas has a competitive foundation constructed in the manufacturing processes within Indonesia. Having invested and manufactured in Indonesia for the last 25 years, Adidas has built what (AUTHOR) (CITE) claims is a ‘high order’ of international competitiveness by constantly upgrading industrial standards in Indonesia, where workers are paid US$2.40 daily for manufacturing the Predator X shoes (CITE). With manufacturing processes located in West Java, Indonesia. Production has since moved closer to Jakarta and occurs in the house of Indonesian labourers. This process labelled as ‘home-based shoe workshop’, raises the issue with Adidas’ corporate social responsibility. Who, since its investigation into the use of child labour in Jakarta have been involved with the International Labour Organisation’s International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) that has been enforced in Indonesia (CITE).