At Poly, conversations about fashion often happen casually, whether someone is complimenting an outfit or discussing where they shop. Within those conversations, I have started to notice a pattern. Students sometimes compare clothes by the country listed on the tag, and many of the assumptions tend to fall on countries in Asia and parts of Latin America, which are often labeled as sources of “low quality” clothing. These comments usually rely on stereotypes rather than any understanding of how clothing is actually made.
Sophomore Megan Lin shared, “Environmentalists and human rights advocate tend to think China or India-produced clothing involves unethical workplace treatment, mass pollution, and child labor. Since those are the countries where clothing is mass-dyed or produced, it also loses a sense of value when compared to items rarely produced in widely modernized countries like Japan or the US.”
This issue matters within our school because these assumptions spread quickly. When one person suggests that a shirt made in a particular country must be cheaply made, others often repeat it without examining where that belief comes from. As a result, an idea that may be inaccurate becomes normalized. That is why Poly students should refrain from making generalizations about clothing created in other countries. Instead, they should reflect on the ethics of the specific company, not the country, that makes the clothing.
Many people are not familiar with how global fashion works, so it is easy to fall back on simplified narratives. When a product is inexpensive, people assume the quality must be low. They then attach that assumption to the country on the label, rather than to the business decisions behind the product. If a garment arrives with weak stitching or thin fabric, the blame tends to fall on the country where it was manufactured instead of on the brand that selected the materials, set the production timeline, and controlled the costs. This cause-and-effect is important: corporate overseers of brands, not people working in the factories, determine the quality that appears on the racks.
Indonesia illustrates this problem well. The country is home to hundreds of thousands of fashion businesses and many talented designers who produce clothing of remarkable craftsmanship. However, Indonesian brands are often overlooked by international consumers. This is not due to a lack of skill. Instead, it stems from the assumption that if clothing is produced in an Asian or Latin American country and sold at a lower price, it must be poorly made. That assumption simplifies an entire industry and entire countries to a single stereotype.
The “made in” tag reflects only the physical location where an item is produced. It does not tell us anything about the standards the brand has chosen for its clothing. Companies decide the quality of fabrics, the precision of stitching, the pace of production and the wages workers receive. Factories follow those instructions. When a piece of clothing falls apart after a few washes, linking that failure to the country of origin distracts from the real cause, which is that the brand cut corners during production.
Upper School Math and Economics teacher Manuel Davila shares additional insights on the false perceptions these tags produce: “Most of the high name brands are getting their products similar to other companies in Asia or Latin America. To circumvent the whole idea of ‘Made in China’, they make their branding and that’s where they put ‘Made in Italy,’ not for the overall product. And we fall for that statement. On the other hand when they say the clothing is made from where it truly is, it’s seen as a lower quality product. There is also that perception of the dollar amount. You see the one that is $5 more it’s somehow better than the cheaper one, like with the Labubus and Starbucks bear cups. You could go on Amazon or Alibaba, but all they do is stamp their brand and mark it up. And then they create the idea of exclusivity with only a limited amount.”
Conversely, countries that tend to house luxury brands are often given little scrutiny when it comes to the quality of their products or their labor practices. The controversy surrounding Loro Piana, an Italian luxury brand, demonstrates why this matters. Loro Piana sells coats that cost more than fifteen thousand dollars, yet the company significantly reduced payment to the Lucana community in Peru, the community that raises the vicuñas whose wool forms the basis of Loro Piana’s most expensive products. Many consumers assumed that a high-priced brand must operate responsibly, but Loro Piana demonstrates that prices do not necessarily reflect ethical behavior. Corporations often use limited job opportunities and weak labor protections in certain countries to justify paying lower wages to the workers who make their products. Remake, a nonprofit that advocates for fair labor practices, has shown that brands could raise wages in countries like Bangladesh with only a very small change in cost, one that companies could absorb without even increasing prices for customers. This reinforces the point that the obstacle to higher quality products and fair wages is not feasibility but willingness. Consumers play a major role because brands respond when buyers demand transparency and ethical production.
Recent boycotts of companies such as Shein and Zara show that young people are increasingly unwilling to support brands that rely on exploitative labor practices. As Thomas Winberry, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, has observed, modest wage increases do not destroy jobs and often strengthen employment over time. These shifts in consumer values are encouraging, but they must be grounded in accurate information, not assumptions based on geography.
Poly students can contribute to this shift. Instead of seeing a label such as “made in Indonesia” or “made in Bangladesh” and creating instant judgments, we should be asking more meaningful questions. Those questions include how the brand treats its workers, how transparent its supply chain is, and whether it is using weak labor laws abroad to reduce costs. When we evaluate ethics instead of geography, we support the skilled workers who produce our clothing and challenge the stigma that foreign-made clothing is inherently inferior.
This change in perspective also opens doors for independent designers in countries often dismissed by stereotypes. As Cornellius Suhartono builds his fashion brand, Kine, he has the opportunity to highlight Indonesian artistry and to counter misconceptions by showing the quality and creativity that exist within the country’s fashion industry. Increased visibility comes from people choosing to seek out accurate information and support ethical producers, recognizing that skilled work doesn’t depend on where it originates. At Poly, students can play a role by engaging with brands like Kine more thoughtfully, whether by learning, sharing their work or choosing to support companies that prioritize both ethics and craftsmanship.
Ultimately, Poly students should refrain from making generalizations about clothing made in other countries and instead reflect on the ethics of the companies behind the clothes they purchase. If we commit to this shift, we become more responsible consumers, strengthening our understanding of global fashion and supporting systems that value people rather than perpetuating stereotypes.