By vetting I mean that Everlane has had documented issues since before she took the sponsorship. They’ve been called out for greenwashing for years, so if she was really genuine about sustainability and not just jumping on another affliate program bandwagon, she probably would’ve said no. Granted, the Everlane affliate program is suuuper desirable because they pay way better than a lot of well known brands, but it comes back to profits over values.Yeah, not much explanation of the follow through. If that’s the right way to put it?
It feels like she’s just going to wait until there’s a consensus that the companies are ‘okay’ again (ie when she will be safe from criticism...)
I’d rather a definitive explanation - I.e. What will have needed to change? The companies saying they will do better in a PR statement? actual evidence of improved conditions in the workplace for BIPOC?
I’m not sure, by the way, how she can go about doing this vetting either. Just that I’d be impressed if she had outlined more of her new approach.
And I think you’re right, she’s letting all the negative hype die down but has no intention of giving them up entirely. The excuse of never knowing for sure if the internal situation is any better is kind of bullshit. People in the industry talk. It’s easy to find articles, and the catalyst to all this was last year when a group of customer service employees tried to unionize, so the issues have been ongoing. Why didn’t she speak up then?