BoF Logo

The Business of Fashion

Agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice for the global fashion community.

How Retail’s Bad Practices Weaken the West

Geopolitical events have disrupted retail, but retail has also contributed to geopolitical disruption, writes Doug Stephens.
While it’s easy to feel that geopolitical events have disrupted retail, the truth is that retail has been a chief contributor to current geopolitical disruption, writes Doug Stephens.
While it’s easy to feel that geopolitical events have disrupted retail, the truth is that retail has been a chief contributor to current geopolitical disruption, writes Doug Stephens. (Shutterstock)

The early days of the pandemic provided the retail industry with a brutal lesson in the dark side of free trade. As Asia reeled from Covid-19, retailers in the West wrestled with a tangled knot of supply chain disruptions and empty warehouses. In a matter of weeks, 40 years of offshoring production by Western companies came screaming back to bite them and the consumers who depend on them.

How big is the issue? In February of 2020, former Macy’s chief executive Terry Lundgren told CNBC, “Something like 90 percent of all footwear under $100 at retail is coming out of China, and we all need to diversify that strategy.” And this, of course, is only the tip of the iceberg. 75 percent of new sellers in Amazon’s top four markets — the US, the UK, Germany and Japan — are based in China, according to a 2021 report by e-commerce intelligence firm Marketplace Pulse.

And then of course, there’s Walmart. According to estimates from organisations like the Alliance for American Manufacturing, 70 to 80 percent of Walmart’s current non-food assortment is sourced from China. In a world increasingly prone to disruption, such dependencies on single-source supply are becoming increasingly risky. But frankly, supply chain disruptions are the least of our worries.

As Russia’s attack on Ukraine has shown, such enormous trade imbalances create problems far greater than mere supply chain woes. They foster dangerous geopolitical insecurity. Case in point: as intelligence mounts that Russia is looking to China to aid its war effort, NATO allies, looking for any possible leverage, find themselves painted into a difficult corner. Could intense sanctions, tariffs and embargoes on Chinese goods by the West wipe out 30 years of China’s economic growth in a heartbeat? Sure, they could. But consider the consequences for Western businesses. Imagine the empty shelves, decimated revenues and the resulting store closures and layoffs. Or the economic impact on consumers, who would bear the brunt of massive inflationary pressure, as domestic sourcing becomes the only option in many categories.

In essence, our addiction to cheap goods has put us in a position where any retaliatory economic action puts our own economies at as much risk as those of foreign adversaries. Never a good position to negotiate from.

This same reliance on foreign markets for supply also leaves Western democracies beholden to countries that disregard the human rights of their citizens. Such intense trade dependencies force a devil’s bargain, with Western brands often either turning a blind eye, in the interest of ever-greater revenue and profit or, where courage prevails, facing boycotts by the very countries they rely on for production and sales.

The irony, however, is that as we in the West abide such abuses abroad, whether it’s factory fires in Bangladesh, forced labour camps in China or subsistence wages in Pakistan, we unwittingly slide further toward acceptance of similar abuses at home. Indeed, the chipping away of human dignity and deprivation of basic human rights is not merely the stuff of far-flung dictatorships. In the West, we too have seen a pernicious shift, in the form of an increasingly vacuous socioeconomic chasm between the super-rich and the rest of us.

As if to underscore this, while many in the West cheered the sanctioning of Russian oligarchs and the confiscation of their enormous villas and yachts, plans were being made for an historic bridge in Rotterdam to be disassembled to allow for the passage of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ shiny new 417-foot vessel. Meanwhile, Amazon, whose profits continue to soar, aggressively works to eradicate union activity in its warehouses, despite petitions from workers who complain of inhumane working conditions. One can’t help but wonder if, by falling asleep at the wheel of capitalism, we too haven’t fostered an oligarchy of our own.

Similarly, while Walmart continues to grow returns to shareholders, its single-handed contribution to trade imbalance has cost hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs — jobs that tended to pay substantially more than other forms of non-skilled work. Thus, moving significant swaths of American society out of what used to be the middle class and into the depths of the working class. To their credit, Walmart has vowed to work to correct this. Yet, even with its hand forced by more recent tariffs on Chinese goods, attempts by Walmart to repatriate supply have had few real results. Instead, pressure to diversify supply has simply resulted in Walmart dispersing its dependency among other low-cost foreign producers. For example, in 2020 the company announced that it would triple exports of goods from India to $10 billion each year by 2027.

These two phenomena — the offshoring of production and the erosion of human rights are not mutually exclusive. In fact, one is the consequence of the other. As Western consumers become increasingly economically unstable, demand for low priced goods rises, thus pressuring even more production to move offshore, resulting in even greater domestic economic vulnerability. And so, as citizens lose economic power, we open the door even further to human rights abuses both domestically and abroad.

It is also true that, as the relative economic condition of the average westerner declines, we expose our democracies to increased levels of political radicalisation by populist politicians willing to scapegoat anyone — including their own governments — in the interest of whipping supporters into a frenzy. Giving credence to the idea that the most dangerous person in any fight is the one who feels they have nothing left to lose.

And finally, despite increasingly frequent and fraught climate events and dire warnings of worse to come, retail remains one of the planet’s biggest polluters, heavily dependent on fossil fuels for everything from the materials used to make the things we buy to the movement of goods through the supply chain. The British Retail Consortium estimates that the British retail sector’s annual greenhouse gas emissions are 80 percent higher than the combined emissions of all road traffic in the country.

What current events demonstrate, however, is that retail’s dependence on fossil fuels is not only dangerous from environmentally but geopolitically, putting democracies in a position where they must rely on other countries — some led by dictators — for energy. For evidence look no further than the soaring prices at the petrol pump because of sanctions against Russia, which have Western political leaders scrambling to form new energy alliances and agreements with countries notorious for human rights abuses.

While pandemics, civil unrest and wars have little in the way of silver linings, they can provide teachable moments and profound impetus for us to urgently rethink our actions and values. This is one such teachable moment for retail.

The point here is that while it’s easy to feel that geopolitical events have been disrupting retail, the truth is that retail has been a chief contributor to the current geopolitical disruption. And that makes us all unsafe — not 50 years from now or even 50 weeks from now but today.

While all of this might seem a repudiation of retail, I prefer to think of it another way. The global retail industry can, by changing its behaviours, contribute greatly to improving our national security, international stability and long-term viability as a species. This will not come without some costs — born by consumers, businesses and shareholders — but we must begin to consider such costs an existential preservation tax: the price we pay for ensuring our own global wellbeing.

Imagine what a rebuilt retail industry might look like. Imagine if all major retailers signed a global bill of rights guaranteeing workers, regardless of where they reside in their supply chains, living wages and humane working conditions. Consider the positive impact if all retailers committed collectively to greater local product sourcing and support for local suppliers. If all retailers signed onto a public global charter to aggressively reduce, and where possible eliminate, their use of petrochemicals and petroleum-based materials.

Not only would these efforts contribute to a healthier society and planet for tomorrow, but they would also serve to rebalance the geopolitical scorecard. And in doing so, make us all safer today.

Doug Stephens is the founder of Retail Prophet and the author of three books on the future of retail, including the recently released ‘Resurrecting Retail: The Future of Business in a Post-Pandemic World.’

© 2023 The Business of Fashion. All rights reserved. For more information read our Terms & Conditions

More from Retail
Analysis and advice from the front lines of the retail transformation.

view more

Subscribe to the BoF Daily Digest

The essential daily round-up of fashion news, analysis, and breaking news alerts.

The Business of Fashion

Agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice for the global fashion community.
Introducing The BoF Brand Magic Index
© 2023 The Business of Fashion. All rights reserved. For more information read our Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Cookie Policy and Accessibility Statement.
Introducing The BoF Brand Magic Index