I recently chose to research Forever 21, on of my favorite clothing chains of all time. I just wanted to make sure I knew what they were about before I continued endorsing/wearing their products. Korean-American Don Chang established Forever 21, Inc. in Los Angeles in 1984 and has now spread it worldwide with 400 stores from Canada, to Singapore, to Jordan, to Malaysia, and to the United Arab Emirates. I’ve been researching the ethical best and worst practices of this multi-national fashion chain to find out exactly what is behind their gaudy fashions and bargain prices.
I was interested in how a Korean immigrant like Don Chang was able to found such a successful billion-dollar company and expand it to an international scale. It’s rise to success is laced with buying out smaller, rival companies: Forever 21 bought Reference Co. in 2003 and Gadzooks in 2004 to name two (“Forever 21 acquires…” and Koyen). Buying out the little guy is the same thing as executing an economic coup d’état and not entirely out of Chang’s character. By the public, Chang and his wife have been described as “a constant topic of gossip and speculation in L.A.’s Korean community (Koyen).”
An individual adds that nearly “everyone [in the L.A. community] has a story about being screwed by them.”
These character testimonies seem to support what I like to call Forever 21’s “ethical worst practices (Koyen).”
Being a devoted consumer of Forever 21 in the beginning phase of my research, I thought it wise to look into these practices by shopping there myself. Upon returning home from my trip, I tossed my bag on my bed and noticed “John 3:16” printed on the bottom. John 3:16 is one of the most quoted lines in the Bible: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” I thought that the inscription is controversial on Forever 21’s part in its alienation of non-Christians since the bible verse does not speak to everyone. CorpWatch’s Brooke Shelby Biggs, for example, construed the message to mean that “whoever doesn’t believe in Jesus is going straight to hell (Biggs).”
Ironically, aside from their seemingly devoutly-religious nature, Forever 21 found itself in trouble before in 2001 in Los Angeles when 19 garment workers called for an official boycott charging the company with violating labor laws (Behind the Label). The workers alleged that they were owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in wage and overtime pay and worked ten to twelve hour shifts in dangerous factories infested with vermin (Forever 21 Campaign Archives). They had no access to drinkable water, no benefits whatsoever, were bullied by their bosses into avoiding taking breaks and finishing work at home to fill quotas (Forever 21 Campaign Archives).
The workers who notified the California authorities of the sweatshop conditions were fired for speaking out, and Forever 21 initially refused to accept responsibility for the situation attesting that these workers were employees of the corporation’s subcontractors (“P.O.V…”). The employees, having united and gained the support of the Garment Workers Center, finally managed to negotiate a labor settlement with Forever 21 three years after the allegations were first exposed (“P.O.V…”).
Then, I thought, if this is happening in the United States, what could be happening overseas? Forever 21 had claimed before the 2001 labor calamity in L.A. that they were abiding by state and federal labor laws (Byun). Sweatshops are present around the world. Even if Forever 21 abided by the laws in other countries, garment factories in these countries, like Jordan, are run on a corrupt ship (“Three Thousand…”). Workers are unpaid, work long hours in filthy environments, get no benefits, are beaten and are even raped (“Three Thousand…”). If such corruption occurred in L.A., in the same city as Forever 21’s headquarters, in the so-called land of the free, we are led to believe that what happens overseas must also be subject to question and inhumane.
Aside from treating people humanely, Forever 21 was under fire from PETA in 2004 for selling authentic animal furs (“Forever 21 Drops…”). When news of a possible boycott reached the ears of Corporation Vice President Lawrence Meyer, he wrote PETA stating that animal furs will be pulled from the shelves never to be sold again (“Forever 21 Drops…”). Since, Forever 21 has resorted to using faux fur.
The very concept of using faux fur in place of “authentic” animal fur calls to mind the way Forever 21 markets false versions of popular designer trends as in the cases of Diane von Furstenberg, Anna Sui, and Gwen Stefani (Lo, “Anna Sui Corp…” and Serpe). For example, in March of 2007, famed clothing designer von Furstenberg sued Forever 21 for copying her $325 dress design and selling a near-exact replica for a fraction of that, $32 (Lo). Although von Furstenberg had, at the time, been on a legal tirade suing other retailers for unlawfully duplicating her designs, she insisted that Forever 21 pull the dress from the shelves at once (Lo). These claims on the part of the designers have even stretched beyond the realm of clothing. Also in 2007, Rootstein, a mannequin manufacturer, brought a lawsuit against Forever 21 indicting them of creating pirated, and lower-quality, reproductions of their “signature” mannequins (“Forever 21 to pay $75,000…”). Forever 21 ended up paying the mannequin company $75,000 in intellectual property damages (“Forever 21 to pay $75,000…”).
Despite your current impressions, Forever 21 really is not all that bad. In recent years, the company has smartly clung on to the “go green” fad and sells reusable bags and tee shirts scrawled with “go green” messages. Most of its products are manufactured in the United States; in light of their serious blunder in L.A. in 2001, the company asserts that it is more conscious of maintaining good labor standards. By manufacturing the bulk of its goods in the United States, the company cuts down on imports and exports considerably, which has the unintended consequence of helping the environment.
Forever 21’s official website (www.forever21.com) does not boast of any ethical best practices which would oppose my research. In fact, their only statement regarding ethics boasts of their dedicated bonds between employees. After having telephoned Forever 21’s corporate office on several occasions to speak with someone about these issues, I have been hung up on every time. My emails have gone ignored. So, while Forever 21 employees may get along well with one another, as we have learned, they do not seem to get along with everybody else quite as well. From now on, while I will miss their inexpensive rip-offs of the designers I love, I will know in my heart that I should ignore them the way they ignored my attempts at communicating with them as it is truly the most ethically sound choice I can make.
