To be or not to be (transparent)? That’s the question

"H&M supports child labour!". That is what the British newspaper The Guardian communicated in response to the revelations of the book written by two Swedish journalists. They described how H&M in Myanmar employed 14-year-old workers and let them work for more than twelve hours a day.

After the collapse in 2013 of the Rana Plaza, a building full of textile factories in Bangladesh, also H&M is more under investigation since they produce in low-wage countries.

We can argue that fashion chain H&M is suspect anyway, because the brand is so big and sells its products very cheap. On the other hand, H&M is one of the few major fashion chains which communicate transparently about all their activities, which makes it easy to visit the factory and fashion retailers, while this is not possible for other major fashion chains because of the lack of information.

One could ask oneself if it is really necessary to be that transparent if you run the risk of being punished for it? The negative publicity about H&M supposedly supporting child labour can cause serious reputation damage. According to Verhoeven (2015), who used the corporate framing mediated-moderation model (CFMM), to describe the relationship between the organization and media frames is mediated by the relationship between PR professionals and journalists. With the collapse of Rana Plaza, H&M received support from several Dutch newspapers. Dutch newspaper Trouw complimented H&M for being so transparent in their communication and ssuggested that they deserve a commendation for it.

On the other hand, H&M is also an easy victim when new discoveries are made as journalists claim the fashion chain is operating in an inappropriate manner. Coombs (2007) created the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) by categorizing several crisis response strategies (denial, diminish, rebuild) to manage a crisis and to protect reputations. H&M did not deny they employed 14-year-old workers in Myanmar, but they immediately tried to diminish the crisis by explaining they are not operating in an inappropriate manner within the context of the local customs and habits. According to conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) in developing countries like Myanmar H&M is not doing something wrong. When 14– to 18-year-olds are working it is therefore not a case of child labour, according to international labour laws. On the other hand, the length of the working day is contrary to both international agreements and the laws of Myanmar. Therefore H&M apologized and took action.

Bhaduriand Ha-Brookshire (2015) suggest that one way to foster positive attitude towards a brand might be by providing transparent information about brands’ social responsibility practices as information transparency was found to positively influence people’s attitude. In the case of H&M, I am inclined to question whether the organization actually benefits from its choice to be as transparent as they are.  It seems like transparency can also lead to negative associations when journalists decide to openly disapprove the activities of H&M in low-wage countries. Especially if there is no referral to local circumstances and habits which can lead to a one-sided approach to the issue. One could even say that possibly, companies that do not disclose any information about where they manufacture and produce their product, have a lower risk of reputation loss, simply by not being transparent at all. It makes me wonder which way is better, being transparent or simply not saying anything?

Author

Daisy de Jong, currently studying the Master track Corporate Communication at the University of Amsterdam.