Reader To Reader: Shoe special
Three Reader To Reader questions for the price of one this week, all on the ever-hot topic of shoes
If there's one bit of running kit that really matters, it's those bits of moulded polyeurethane on your feet. So this week we've picked out three niggling shoe queries from the Gear forum. Lend us your thoughts...
Q1: The washing machine conundrum
"I do a lot of running on dirt trails, so my shoes get very muddy. I tend to wash them every three months or so in the machine with minimal detergent on a gentle cold cycle, plus an 800rpm spin. So far they seem OK, but is there any risk of damage?"
Your best answers
-
Be very careful, the EVA cushioning is very sensitive to heat and will harden and/or shrink. I used to get it all the time in the shoe shop I worked in, and it was never a manufaturing fault. – Andrew_B
-
The most I ever do is use an old scrubbing brush and the outside tap to clean excessive mud (or worse) from the soles. I once washed a pair of NB RX Terrains in the machine (cool wash) and the soles promptly fell off. Now I sometimes stick my XC shoes in a bucket of cold water, no detergent, then scrub off the excessive mud. – Man in Black
-
Scrub 'em with soapy water and a nailbrush in the bath, stuff with dry newspaper and put them somewhere warm to allow to dry naturally. If you run on trails, you'll have to accept they're gonna get dirty! – Siance
-
I don't see how a cold wash could do any harm, but I wouldn't bother with the detergent – that could affect the glues in some way. I just let the machine agitation do its best. – fat buddha
-
I washed my cross-country spikes in our machine. When my wife found out she threatened to kill me. So, not safe in my opinion. – Grendel
-
Spoke to a guy where I bought my shoes, and he said don't wash shoes in the machine because it damages the cushioning and leads to injury. – Neil Todd
-
Wash them off under the outside tap (if you have one) or in the shower. Use cold water only and no detergent. Apart from anything else, the dirt may clog up the machine. – Dman
-
I like mine to look like they are caked in mud! I can at least pretend to look like a runner. – I Will Do It
-
Unsafe if you fail to take your shoes off first, whatever the wash. – The Hoose Goer
Q2: Are there any ethically-made running shoes?
"I'm after a decent pair of running shoes to train and run up to half-marathon distance, but I'm concerned about sweatshop working conditions. Does anyone know a good manufacturer who has an ethical code of practice that they actually adhere to?"
Your best answers
-
New Balance assemble most of their shoes in the UK, and some are vegan if that's an issue. Nike seem to have improved since 'No Logo' was published. – Duck Girl
-
Check out a mag called Ethical Consumer, which does regular product reviews and did one on shoes a while back. Basically, most manufacturers are sh*te; it's more a question of who is least worst. I seem to remember Saucony were OK, and NB. Nike? Forget it. – Huge
-
In a Westernised society such as ours we would agree that making people work at a very young age for a poor wage is uncalled for, but it's more accepted in other parts of the world where the economoy is not so good, and people are used to working this way. Don't get me wrong, I hate the thought too – it's exploitation, and everyone deserves a fair wage for their work. When larger companies act in this way, saving money is the obvious motive. To be blunt though, it won't stop me buying Nike, Adidas or other running manufacturers' shoes and clothing. They make good products that I can find good use in. But I do care about where it comes from, and think the issue is a touchy one. – Stuart G
-
Ethical Consumer magazine has a report on trainers, though I'm not sure that the ones that score well are running shoes. I came to a similar conclusion about ‘least unethical’ and tend to veer towards Ronhill and Brookes for clothing and New Balance for shoes. I have checked on Ronhill's website and as far as I can see they don’t say anything about their ethical policy, but I think they manufacture in Eastern Europe and they are not a multi-national so I like to support them. At least some manufacturers are acknowledging some ethical issues: NB and Brooks. I do own Nike stuff, it feels and fits really nice, but am making efforts to spend less with them. Have just checked their website and couldn’t find any ethical/code of conduct info. – Kitty D
-
Nike in particular tends to be targeted by NGOs looking to score points off the biggest name out there. There are a lot of smaller manufacturers have got away with some equally questionable practices, but targeting them doesn't make such good headlines. Nike still have a long way to go, but they have made strides in the last couple of years. In 2005 they published a complete list of all the factories that they source from. Ultimately, it's great that people want to take these things into consideration when buying. That's what forces companies to change. – gsm
Q3: Shoes for boys, shoes for girls?
"Is there any real difference between the men's and women's editions of running shoes?"
Your best answers
-
Yes there are differences. I used to think that because I had big feet that I had to move into the gents' range, but I was fitted out at Up & Running in East Sheen last year and they gave me a "large" ladies' size 9. Here's a quote from their website: "The shoe manufacturers have found that most women tend to have narrower feet than men, with a slightly different shape. So ladies' shoes are made on a different 'last' to men's – the same size shoe is a subtly diferent shape. But we're all different – some chaps may find that a ladies' model suits them well; some ladies with broader feet may find a men's shoe more comfortable. – Orang Utan
-
I think women's shoes are narrower in the heel. I've got two pairs of Brooks, one men's and one women's. No massive difference, but I can feel the heel difference. – SwimsLikeAWalrus
-
I'm female but I've always had men's runners, because I have wide feet and women's runners always felt too tight. I also always go to a specialist running shop. They told me that they judge by fit and your specific needs, regardless of whether its a men's or women's shoe. – b-oing
Any questions?
Got a new poser or problem that you want RW members to answer? Spotted a great question on the forum? Email us!
Click here to find out more about Reader to Reader.
Discuss this article
In a westernised society such as ours we would agree that making people work at a very young age, and doing so for a poor wage would be uncalled for - but it's more accepted in other parts of the world where the economoy is not so good, and people are used to working this way. It's probably not thought of as so bad to these people doing the job, as it is to us. But of course, I could be wrong..
However, don't get me wrong on this. I hate the thought too - it's exploitation, and everyone deserves a fair wage for their work. When larger companies act in this way, then it's obvious that saving money is the obvious motive (when considering how much such companies make, it does not need to be).
To be blunt though, it wont stop me buying Nike, Adidas or other running manufacturer's shoes and clothing simply for the fact that they make good products that I can find good use in. But do I care to think about where it comes from, and think the issue is a touchy one? Yes, and we know it's not right.
Posted: 23/01/2007 at 18:25
Whilst it is certainly true that in the past, Nike et al have had real problems with child labour and, and have indulged in some pretty questionable labour practices, it is also fair to say that a lot of the criticism of them has not moved on either. Many of the facts touted about some of the working conditions are out of date, as Keiran found, and there is also the issue that Nike in particular tends to be targeted by NGO's looking to score points off the biggest name out there. As Keiran and M62 Steve both point out, there are a lot of smaller manufacturers have got away with some equally questionable practices because they haven't been targeted because it doesn't make such good headlines.
Whilst Nike (looking at them in particular, as they seem to be the main source of irritation for most people) still have a long way to go, they really have made great strides in the last couple of years. In fact, in 2005 they took the very bold step of publishing a complete list of all the factories that they source from, so that anyone who wants to go and check them out is able to. This really is quite a big step, and one that no other company had done.
Large companies have also suffered because a lot of the manufacturing they do is actually outsourced to other companies, often local ones, who do not have codes of conduct regarding labour practices etc. Which raises the question of how far down a supply chain an individual company's responsibility goes. Whilst in the past this has been used as a convenient shield (think Coca-Cola) for bad practices, the complexities of modern supply chains make being 100% sure of good practice in all operations almost impossible. If you don't believe me, there were suggestions that some of the Make Poverty History wristbands had been made in factories with very questionable labour practices....oh the irony!
Anyway, companies are now working much more cleverly with local people to improve standards in factories etc. For example, a group of international companies, together with one of the Prince of Wales Charities and the Vietnamese government have been working together for the last 6 years in Vietnam to improve health and safety conditions in factories there - check out http://www.vcci.com.vn/sub/vbli/default.htm
So yes, there is probably still a long way to go, but the picture is often not as black and white as some campaigners try to present it.
You can check out information on this sort of thing in the Good Shopping Guide, which includes lots of information on a wide variety of products. A good company is Howies, www.howies.co.uk - a small ethical but technical company based in Wales. Otherwise, why not drop a line to the big company that you like to buy kit from, telling them that you want them to be more ethical? Most websites have a feedback forum. And most big companies now produce annual corporate responsibility reports that will give you information about their policies and practices (although obviously these are mostly good-news stories, but some will tackle difficult issues).
Phew - sorry for the lecture. Its a really interesting, complex topic, and one that I've looked at through my work - hence the rant. But its great that people want to take these things into consideration when buying - that's what forces companies to change.
Posted: 26/01/2007 at 17:26
In relation to the general principal of using Globalised production the issues are mixed and not as black and white as some would suggest:
1. Labour is a fact of life for MOST children, most families are poor, earning per head, even in the fast developing countries of South East Asia adult incomes can be as little as $1000 per year. In the UK during the 1800s, when we industrialised, factory work was generally accepted as the solution to problem of the rural poor.
2. Education over the age of 11 is not free. Some businesses provide or contribute to the education for younger workers after they have finished ther daily work, but most parents have to contribute to the cost of education of their children. So if work is taken away, these people lose there livelihoods.
3. People in developing countries move to the cities, partly because the USA and the EU have farm subsidies that mean they over-produce and DUMP the surplus on the world market, lowering prices and as a consequence, the incomes of peopel in countries who cannot affort to subsidise there own farming communities!!
4. These countries improve their standards over time: consider Taiwan; Singapore and South Korea where industrialisation happened more recently.
OK so some companies are beter than others but is it about principles? If a business trades on the principle that it bahaves badly less often, no has to be the answer. I will continue to buy Asics shoes as they fit and perform best for me. They support my sport and that this part of the UK is important.
Posted: 03/02/2007 at 08:32
Dear M62,
Good to see you have gone for a recognised global manufacturer as the reality is that it is more likely to have been manufactured ethically than a less recognised manufacturer. A lot has changed over the last 20 years and the large global manufacturers have listened to the issues that have gone on in these countries and have more often than not resolved these issues. You tend to find it is the smaller brands that are tending to slip under the radar and try to get away with things in order to compete with the larger global brands. Recognised global manufacturers are being watched so closely these days they have to make sure they are doing everything as ethically as possible, it is the brands that are delivering products at 'unbelieveable' prices that are probably cutting margins wafer thin somewhere in the production process in order to offer the prices they do.
I have in the last 15 years spent time working in product development for major running shoe manufacturers and have visited many of the factories that have been the source of many of the complaints on this forum. Admittedly I personally would not want to do the job a lot of the guys are doing in these factories but the reality of the situation is that it is a different world to the one we live in. A job in one of the footwear factories in Southern China is quite often a sought after position as it brings with it job security as well as food and lodging. Yes the wages are very low in comparison to what you and I would accept, but once at the factory the money they earn is quite often purely their own as they do not have to worry about food and lodging. In fact a lot of the time a good percentage of the money is sent back to their fammilies who are struggling to make a living off the land.
Price is also always an issue whenever the discussion turns to sportswear manufacturing, you know for sure as soon as any brand launches a new product (especially a football shirt) the Daliy Mail runs a story on how nasty the sports brands are, and how much these products actually cost to make. In some cases they are right, the actual material cost is low but they seem to always forget to mention the wages, overheads, packaging costs, cost of manufacturing (machinery etc), development costs, shipping costs, import duties, Insurance payments etc, all which are part of getting sports products to market. Then of course the retail margin is added on by the retailer which is totally dictated by the retailer as it is illegal for a manufacturer to set a retail price.
It would be wonderful if we could all buy sports product that is sourced locally, however if you can find a manufacturing source that can deliver you the products to retail at the prices you are prepared to pay I would be very suprised, and certainly they would not be in business very long as it just is not economically possible. There is also the fact that if those footwear manufacturers were not spreading their manufacturing sources to the poorer areas of the world you are taking away an industry that is vital to the survival of many workers in these countries.
Apologies for the mild rant but having worked in the industry it tends to annoy me a little that more often than not the people complaining about working conditions in footwear factories have never been to any of these factories and are the same people complaining about how much a pair of shoes cost (not on this particular thread I note). I can say for a fact than running shoe manufacturers margins are not great and are a lot less than a lot of other industries, the reality is if you want your shoes totally made in this country by people working a 38 hour week then be prepared to pay a lot more than you are at the moment!!
Posted: 19/02/2007 at 17:20
|
|
