Patagonia is the only brand that I feel it's *almost* safe to say is good without coming up hard against what I like to call 'tribal mating calls.' Responsible stewardship is how I think of Patagonia, which should appeal to bible thumpers and burners alike if you ask me, hehe.

Re, tribal mating calls: I feel people really do not think things through. And they don't do that because it's a challenge to see what you can't. Had a friend who had a boyfriend who said 'women should stay home in the kitchen.' Mind now, I'm extremely conservative, but in a nasty kind of way. I could tell he hadn't thought that through. I said to him: 'So you're comfortable being the sole breadwinner?' And he said, 'I'll have to get back to you on that.' I said, 'You do that.'

For men, I believe Joseph Abboud is committed to manufacturing in the U.S.

It is SUCH a complicated issue, and I am fully aware that even the most careful person can never have a "spotless record" of buying, even by their own standards. There is just too much we don't know, and often don't want to know.

Part of the issue that bothers me is I wish company owners would sometimes just shut up. Surely they realize that by publicly espousing certain beliefs they potentially alienate half their customer base? Of course, believing what they do, they likely don't care. But as an educator, I have to be hyper-aware about not letting my personal beliefs interfere with certain things. There are questions students ask me that I simply refuse to entertain, and I am honest about why. Those things should have no bearing on how I do my job, but just as importantly, they should not be able to influence how my students view me. Likewise with business owners, IMO. There are lots of things that I simply would rather not know about their personal beliefs and causes because I cannot unknow them once heard.

I have to draw the line at certain things, although I respect that everyone's personal line in the sand may be different from my own. I am far from perfect, and I'll be honest that I often do not research the brands I buy from the way I probably should.

Rachel Comey manufacturers in New York City, in the garment district. Maintaining an important part of American manufacturing.
There are many speciality jeans manufacturers that are reviving the textile industry in North Carolina.
I miss the original American Apparel. U.S. Made non sweatshop labor.
Pendleton makes much of the fabrics in the U.S.

Everlane is the only company I've encountered so far that is transparent about where every single piece they sell is made. (Of course, they don't make petites, so I haven't bought from them, but I can covet, can't I?) Most retailers and brands simply say "imported" on their sites (though I think country of origin is usually marked on the clothing itself) which feels phoney and disrespectful to me. Human labour went into my clothing and shoes; the people who make the things that protect my body and give me aesthetic joy should not be invisible. I want to honour that. I also want to honour the fact that some of what I buy and wear - thinking especially of the silk dress and stylish booties in my closet won't likely be accessible to the people who make it. That's one of the reasons I've started buying from vintage shops on Etsy, or brick-and-mortar consignment shops when I can. I don't have the time or resources to do this kind of shopping for most of what I wear and use, so I've started off by prioritizing buying second-hand for stuff like hand-bags and costume jewelry - things I don't have to ensure a proper fit for.

As far as the ethics of company owners: I care a lot more about how they treat their employees, whether they're manufacturing in environmentally responsible ways, and whether their clothing lines respect a diversity of body sizes and shapes than about the social and political beliefs they hold, even though the most vocal among them almost never state beliefs that jive with mine - but then, I'm so on the wrong side of conservatism it's not funny! put another way, I hold no illusions that my boycotting a company because it's owner is anti-reproductive choice and anti-bodily autonomy will either change that person's views or keep them from supporting political causes that limit people's choices. I might choose to only buy that brand on sale, or clearance, to soothe my conscience a bit, but if the clothes fit, or give me joy, I'm buying them - *and* donating money to causes I believe in.

Just mmy complex and complicated response.

Robin, your post got me thinking, because I was agreeing that ultimately it's about how the company behaves as a corporate entity. But then I was wondering about cases where the owner's stated political beliefs do end up impacting their workers or being equated with their product. Anyone remember the Barilla pasta boycott based on what the owner said publicly? Lot's of social media outcry and news coverage, but part of me was thinking at the time (as I joined the boycott and tweeted the company), they are the biggest pasta company in the world so how will it effect the bottom line, and they are in a country where casual homophobia is commonplace.

Well checking up, it did appear that it encouraged the company to make significant changes within their organization because it impacted the public perception of the brand - regardless of whether earnings were lost, and it raised worldwide awareness of gay rights issues in Italy: http://www.slate.com/blogs/out.....icide.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com.....story.html

So I'm thinking, this is maybe one of those cases of 'speak loudly even when you have a small stick' . When a company whose goods I buy is doing something I really don't want to support with my money, I can choose to boycott or not boycott, but really I shouldn't hold back in letting them know. Consumers are stakeholders in a way and companies can change to protect or improve their public perception, which has a monetary value.

Googling here... Pro-choice folks might want to distance themselves from Macy's, Avon, Target and Levi's...

Thanks Rachy for the list. I hang my head in shame. I just bought 2 pairs of Levis.
Gretchen's Closet is a blog that researches brands that are ethical and green. She is a very thoughtful person and looks at lots of angles on these topics.
I try to buy locally and if possible from North American manufacturers. But not always.
I am looking into a Canadian brand for Yoga gear called Tonic. It has been around for awhile. It is made in Canada.
I do like El Naturlista footwear. Made in Spain. Suppose to be environmentally friendly. But dig a bit deeper and there are always problems. I haven't.

It's clear that this is hardly a clear-cut question. Sometimes what seems awful (workers making 75 cents an hour sewing tee shirts) turns out to be preferable to the alternative (the same workers making 25 cents an hour picking garbage) and sometimes what seems noble turns out to have a dark underside.

I don't need to be perfect in my buying, but I do want to express my values by supporting companies that I think are worth supporting.

Lots of people mentioning Patagonia. I will admit I only know them as a purveyor of gear-ish fleecewear, but maybe it's time to have another look.

If I quit buying from all the places that have practices or beliefs I don't support, I'd have nowhere to shop. I do the best I can based on what I know, but my buying options are already limited by my clothing size, shoe size, preferred styles, and budget.

Angie, you asked why I don't shop at Anthropologie: The owner made sizeable donations to a local political candidate who could have done a lot of damage to our state, IMO. I am under no illusion that I can change a person's beliefs with my dollar (and what an awful world it would be if I could). But I just don't feel personally good if I spend money at places where I know they are actively undermining my principles. It feels like making a donation to a cause I don't believe in. I admit my sloppy implementation of this practice: if I read something, I consider the source, do a bit of Google research, and make my decision. I don't spend hours researching a company just to buy a pair of shoes.

I agree with the positive shoutout for Nordstrom. Unfortunately the service in our local store has declined of late, and I wish they were able to pay their staff better. But there are market forces at play and they are still streets ahead of other retailers.

I also agree with the assessment of Patagonia. Back in the 1980s they hired the environmental consultancy I worked at to do a cradle to grave assessment of their products. They wanted to know the environmental and social impact of everything they made at each point in its production and life. Like Eileen Fisher, they also like consumers to send back clothes when they are done with them, I'm guessing so they don't end up in the remaking sweatshops.

Let us not forget Karen Karen - all made in America, and we have visited the factory. Very sustainable and reputable company.

Aliona, thanks for the full response. You have to do what feels right in your head and heart.

As for boycotting companies because of their political beliefs - it doesn't bother me enough to do that. After all, I have clients, and friends even, who have very different political beliefs to me, so in my world that would feel like a double standard.

This is such an interesting thread, and at the risk of seeming like an idiot to some of you, I basically throw my hands up. It's too complicated.

I will tell you a tale without too many details, but to me it is illustrative.

We have a local shop owner who is beloved in our community. He is active politically, very active in the community socially, and has been a driving force in the arts world here. Among the local academe and literate, his store is seen something of a holy place; revered as anti-big box and as reflective of the soul of the local town.

Not long ago, I learned that my friend's son had left his employ after many months and I wondered why. He seemed very happy here, and it's a wonderful place: the ideal environment you might say. Exactly the place that makes this town what it is, and why people come here.

Well, this owner doesn't pay his employees -- employees who are hired for paid positions. For MONTHS, this young man was not paid, and his "pay date" kept being pushed farther and farther into the future. At one point, he was given some goods in trade. He asked an older woman who worked there how she dealt with it, and she said that she loved being there so much and she didn't really need the money anyway.

Here's the thing. We never really know. And if we do know about Company A, we can choose company B over them -- but what don't we know about Company B?

If what we do know it outrageous or horrendous, I agree with boycotting. For example, I no longer buy from the shop owner above. I just can't do it.

But this thread confirms for me that understanding what's really happening with larger companies in the larger economy is a really, really challenging thing.

I, too, have friends (and, lord knows, family) who don't share my views on anything. As with people we know personally, it's perhaps when companies get "in your face" with their political leanings that it becomes a problem.

If one is not a politician, it's hard to go wrong by observing a discreet silence on political matters, both personally and publicly. Shoppers who want to find out what's behind a discreet silence at a public company have lots of chances to learn that in publicly-available documents.

I certainly feel it's none of my business what a CEO believes personally. But when the CEO speaks into a microphone, or to a reporter, or to the Supreme Court, acting on behalf of his/her company, I'm paying attention and I will respond accordingly with my shopping dollars.

BTW, this can work for a company as well as against it. Remember when the CEO of Starbucks respectfully suggested -- at the stockholders' meeting, in response to questions from a shareholder -- that people who strongly objected to their support of gay employees' civil rights might sell their shares and buy stock elsewhere? http://www.bizjournals.com/sea.....autoplay=1

Whatever your personal views on that topic, hard to argue with the fairness of that statement.

If that's the case, April - as Echo puts it: ".......I wish company owners would sometimes just shut up....."

(*chuckle*)

I can't get away from the fact that innocent and decent people's livelihoods are at stake when you boycott companies. When the product is good, I want to support those people because I know what it's like to work retail - (and have YLF).

Angie, it's true that not buying from Co A negatively affects its employees. But buying from Co B positively affects its employees. So it's a wash, I think.

I agree that CEOs ought to just keep their big mouths shut.

JAileen, how does the wash help the company that is being boycotted?

There is a LOT to be said for keeping our mouths shut!

Angie, my point is that if you plan to buy only one item, a sweater let's say, and you can buy it from A or B, then from a global standpoint it makes no difference which you buy it from: some employees will benefit, and some won't. The only way both would benefit is if you were to buy two items. If you factor in the hypothetical CEO's obnoxious views, then the decision is easy. In fact, I worked for a company whose CEO did have strong public views. It was difficult for me, since I was probably the only employee who didn't share those views.

And even when we choose not to remain silent, I believe there is always a case to made for speaking fairly and decently.

Angie, I think JAileen meant that yes, one company's people will likely suffer, but another company's people benefit -- if we take our dollars elsewhere -- so that the overall effect on the mass of employees is neutral. (And it's also conceivable that the employees at the suffering company can exercise pressure for change from within.)

ETA: sorry, cross-post.

My take away is if it is a company I do buy from and would like to continue buying from I shouldn't be silent if I am the consumer. If I boycott without telling them it's kind of a tree falling in the forest right? This is me at trader j's who I love but who stocks some endangered fish. So I keep shopping there but avoid seafood and write them notes and politely tell the manager about it (he thanked me, and said that is the only way it gets changed, if the requests come from customers). Or Amazon with its sometimes unsafe worker conditions - I write emails from my customer account, because I know they have the opportunity to do good things too - they just donated an unused building to be used as a homeless shelter.

ETA: I checked and TJ's has now improved its seafood sustainability, yay

I've had a very busy week and haven't been able to contribute to this post before, but I've been following along...I'm not going to rehash comments already made, but just wanted to say, that part of what makes this so difficult is that one persons fair and ethical can be another no go......

that being said, we are in the midst of a revival of what I will call "small batch" retailing and manufacturing, which means more US/ EU made apparel and footwear. while one can not assume that it is all fair and ethical, at least you can assume that the workers have more rights, and the companies are being held to higher environmental standards. and it should be noted that while often the retails are higher, it is not always the case.

FYI here are a couple of the companies that I know of

https://www.marinelayer.com/

http://www.cuyana.com/

https://www.alternativeapparel.com/

http://www.fredasalvador.com/

http://mgemi.com/start?gclid=C.....aQodQdYKZA

http://www.modernvice.com/

http://www.american-giant.com/womens-tshirts/

http://www.emersonfry.com/

https://www.schottnyc.com/?gcl.....aQodCvoAgQ

http://www.raleighworkshop.com/

I'm sure that there are many, many more......

JAileen and April, all that point of view does is satisfy your own conscience - which of course, is what we are all after here. (That's why we are having this conversation and thinking about these issues, in the first place!). Rightly or wrongly, I guess I need to satisfy my conscience in another way. 

Rabbit, I like the way you think. And to April's point, speaking up encourages change - and that can be a VERY good thing. Perhaps it's just billionaire CEO's who should keep their mouths shut. 

Here's a list of brands that I like or wouldn't feel too bad buying from... I haven't researched all the details, so this is highly subjective. I don't have personal experience with every suggested brand, but in those cases I know them because people around me own something made by them. Also, these are probably most easily availble in Germany or Europe, so not sure it helps much. To me longevity is very important (less need to shop for replacements) and decent treatment of the people who work there (I want to minimize the risk of buying anything made with child labor or under unsafe and unhealthy conditions). Bonus points for being ecological, but that's so difficult to work out that I often just take the "simply shop less" approach.

Clothing
+ Nudie Jeans (https://www.nudiejeans.com/)
+ Lanius (http://www.lanius-koeln.de/en)
+ Hess Natur (http://www.hessnatur.com/de/)
+ Johnstons of Elgin (http://www.johnstonscashmere.com/us/)
+ Brora (http://www.brora.co.uk/)
+ Eribé (http://www.eribe.com/)
+ Oleana (http://www.oleana.no/News.aspx?lang=2&cc=11)
+ Wunderwerk (https://www.wunderwerk.com/en/)
+ Armor-Lux (https://www.armorlux.com/en/)
+ Saint James (http://www.saintjamesboutique.com/)
+ People Tree (http://www.peopletree.co.uk/)
+ Monkee Genes (https://www.monkeegenes.com/)
+ Komodo (https://komodo-fashion-interna.....opify.com/)
+ Armed Angels (https://www.armedangels.de/)
+ Bleed (https://www.bleed-clothing.com/)

Underwear
+ Falke (http://www.falke.com/)
+ Speidel (http://www.speidel-lingerie.de/de/)
+ Zimmerli (http://www.zimmerli.com/us_en/)

Outerwear
+ London Tradition (https://www.londontradition.com/)

Shoes
+ Legero (http://www.legero.at/en)
+ *art (http://www.the-art-company.com/en/)
+ Think! (http://www.thinkshoesusa.com/)
+ Trippen (http://en.trippen.com/startpage)
+ Birkenstock (http://www.birkenstock.com/home-en.htm)
+ Waldviertler (http://w4tler.at/gea-produkte/schuhe)
+ Duckfeet (http://www.duckfeet.com/)
+ EKN (http://www.eknfootwear.com/)

Bags/Accessories
+ Tom Bihn (https://www.tombihn.com/)
+ Volker Lang (http://volker-lang-accessoires.de/)
+ Matt & Nat (http://mattandnat.com/)
+ Nat & Nin (http://www.nat-nin.fr/en/estore)
+ Sonnenleder (http://www.sonnenleder.com/en/)

Although I think accessories are especially easy to buy locally made! Why not buy jewelry and support a local artist? Or leather goods, hand knits... I want to buy myself a great mechanic watch by a German manufactory once I have the money. You know, one that can be repaired if necessary.

Gear
+ Vaude (http://www.vaude.com/)
+ Woolpower (http://woolpower.se/en/)
+ Meindl (http://www.meindl.de/english/index.html)
+ Finisterre (https://www.finisterre.com/)

Oh, I am going to have fun with your list Astrid, coincidentally the owner/designer of Eribe lives only 50 yards from my front door. Small world!

Angie, I wasn't defending my choices. I was explaining how any choice made by anyone benefits one person or company over another, simply by buying from Co. A instead of Co. B. It doesn't matter the reason - better quality, nasty CEO, locally produced, whatever. If you buy from Co. A, then Co. B is hurt because you didn't buy from them.

I thought of something and wanted to say it, about evaluating the ethics of a company. It's kind of why I don't buy real Tom's. And this thought was: Don't judge by American standards, by what you know to be true. Like, if you hear someone makes only a $100 a week, stop and also ask, what does a bag of rice cost? Will higher wages equal more buying power or runaway inflation?

My dad was from a third world country, and one of the worst things to happen to it was Americans coming and throwing their money and ideas around. It's hard for an American to imagine paying $5000 for a house. In fact, it's outright unimaginable, and they offer too much from the get-go. What's happened is simply that natives can't buy a decent house. American style construction was also brought in, raise the standard of living and all that, and the land has been turned into a desert wasteland. And free trade agreements and entrepreneurship programs have meant higher food prices because farmers aren't allowed to grow and sell what grows best in their own country. They grow for the world market as dictated to. I think it's Malawi where people are suffering from malnutrition because everything has been turned over to corn.

I mean, nothing is truer than 'no good deed goes unpunished.'

That is such an interesting perspective Rachy, I feel that we can inform ourselves as much as possible but our decisions will still be based on personal bias. There is no absolute right.

Astrid and kkards -- great lists! thanks!

Rabbit -- TJs is impressively responsive to consumers. I recently signed a petition asking that they carry only certified cage-free eggs (which is a very minimal standard of humaneness, but that's another topic) and TJs has now announced they'll be phasing out cage-farmed eggs over the next few years. They've also been GMO-free for several years now. My biggest problem with them is overpackaging -- why do my green beans need to be wrapped in layers of plastic?

I agree that silent boycotts are not effective; the best approach is to buy minimally and make your voice heard when there's an issue you feel strongly about.

rachylou -- Yep. Great points. The Tom's model has never sat well with me. Really, the western NGO model and all its variants, both non- and for-profit, is very problematic -- I wonder if we don't destroy more than we create.

Agreed, Juled that bias always gets in the way. That's the human condition, limited scope. But it can be worth it to fight the inertia.