Tech To Use In Times Of Turbulence, And Google’s Latest Legal Setback

Bangladesh’s turbulence: the way forward for brands, retailers, and tech

This week, following days of being closed (amidst weeks of political upheaval), factories in Bangladesh have resumed operations. An interim government has now been appointed after Bangladesh’s long-standing Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina resigned and departed the country.

This matters on the ground, of course, but it matters for fashion because Bangladesh is now the world’s second-largest garment exporting country – following China – and the country’s garment sector plays a vital role in the supply chains of major global fashion brands such as H&M, Zara-owner Inditex, and Walmart. On Monday, the country’s 3,500 garment factories, responsible for nearly 85% of Bangladesh’s exports, were shut down due to fears of arson and vandalism. And this is on top of weeks of instability that have severely impacted the country’s garment industry, with communication blackouts preventing the receipt and processing of orders for extended periods – and curfews bringing production to a standstill.

The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (the country’s main trade body) told Al Jazeera that the industry was losing $150 million a day during the curfew. The timing is particularly tricky with the Christmas order season coming up soon. But Mostafiz Uddin, CEO of Bangladesh Apparel Exchange, has urged the global fashion industry to maintain its support for the country as a new political leadership is established, and as stability hopeful returns to domestic life. 

Brands and retailers have, by and large, remained patient: sportswear giant Puma announced no changes in its sourcing from Bangladesh, and H&M assured its Bangladeshi suppliers that it will not seek discounts for delays caused by the factory shutdowns due to protests.

This stands in stark contrast to how some brands handled similar disruption during COVID, of course. Brands and retailers across the globe understandably want stability and predictability when it comes to their suppliers, and capitalism loathes risk, but brands also recognise the need to be sympathetic to situations like these, and how they can affect the lives of garment workers – as well as how short-termism can wind up undermining longterm stability and access to skillsets that are in short supply. 

Bangladesh’s garment sector is, also, a pillar of the country’s economy, contributing over 80% of its export revenue and employing millions of people, especially women. Any decision to pause or cease sourcing from the country has an adverse impact on the welfare of its people. And while the mathematics might be different for other regions, the essential principle is the same: with geopolitical and climate-centric disruption forecast to rise, fashion must balance its supply chain pressures against the livelihoods of its workers.

In practice, this may involve compensating workers for lost workdays and allowing factories to extend deadlines to prevent undue pressure on workers to work excessively long hours.

And, looking forward, there are a few key technology-focused measures that can be implemented in the coming months to effectively address and mitigate the repercussions of the disruptions. These are: to improve communication between Bangladeshi suppliers and their international fashion partners, to strengthen supply chain management in terms of visibility and flexibility, and to start the transition to high-technology-based production and exports from labour-intensive practices.

For communication, platforms and tools that offer real-time messaging systems, collaborative project management and product lifecycle management software, and video conferencing can facilitate better coordination, reduce misunderstandings, and improve transparency. This way, suppliers and their brand partners can stay better informed and aligned when dealing with physical or logistical challenges. As for the supply chain, real-time is crucial again: this time in terms of tracking. Predictive analytics and automated inventory management can also help to manage disruptions and lags in supporting the quicker identification of issues, rapid adjustment to minimise them, and even to anticipate risk. 

The last suggestion is arguably the most needed, but is also the most difficult. Moving towards high-tech production and away from labour-intensive work involves investment into automation systems, robotics, and smart manufacturing technologies. All have the potential to provide better safety for workers, as well as improve product consistency… even if their long-term impact may be a reduction in the number of people the garment value chain employs. A difficult balancing act.

Google’s latest legal battle could set a precedent for other monopolies – but we’ll have to wait

In other headlines this week, Google is facing a significant legal setback as a federal judge ruled against it in a milestone antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) In United States v. Google – a 286-pager that includes footnotes, redactions, and a visual example of search results for “golf shorts” – the court found that Google had illegally monopolised the online search and advertising markets, with particular relevance in product discovery and shopping. 

To put it briefly, to quote Judge Amit Mehta: “The market reality is that Google is the only real choice” as the default search engine and the way it achieved this was done unfairly. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching effects depending on the final outcome – much like the DOJ’s antitrust decision for Microsoft in the 1990s – potentially forcing Google to create some separation between their advertising arm, their mobile technology, and other parts of their business. This may ultimately reshape Google’s business practices and alter how users of all kinds engage with the leading search engine. 

Talking specifics: Mehta’s ruling determined that Google violated antitrust laws through exclusive contracts with Apple and Samsung; with Google paying billions of dollars to ensure its search engine remained the default on their devices. This, according to Mehta, enabled Google to establish a monopoly on search, thus hindering fair competition.

And as Google chews on the outcome of the case, it is also gearing up for a second lawsuit from the DOJ, this time focused on its digital advertising practices. Google is accused of monopolising online advertising, and the DOJ is arguing that its dominance compels businesses to rely on its technology and, again, hinders competition. The lawsuit challenges a crucial part of Google’s revenue model, as its advertising sector commands over 25% of the US digital ad market and contributes billions to its annual earnings. The case is scheduled to go to trial in September. 

Just before then, we may well see the DOJ deciding on remedies for Google’s illegal conduct. Both parties must submit a proposed schedule for remedy proceedings by the 4th of September and then appear at a status conference on the 6th of September.

Jay Peters for The Verge details a number of potential outcomes. The most extreme measure might involve dismantling Google to diminish its dominance in search and online advertising. A less drastic approach could be an injunction, requiring Google to stop the practices the court deemed unlawful. This could still mean some significant changes from Google, including altering or ending its lucrative agreements with Apple and Mozilla, which currently ensure Google remains the default search engine on devices like the iPhone.

Another possible solution could involve mandating Google to share data or even certain aspects of its search algorithms with competitors. This could directly address the judge’s concerns, but courts are generally reluctant to impose data-sharing requirements between competing companies.

No matter what happens – it’s unlikely that Google will implement any remedy in a hurry. We know that it already has plans to appeal the decision, and appellate courts often review both liability and remedy decisions together. Google could even escalate the matter to the Supreme Court and seek an injunction to delay any changes until the case is resolved. 

Similar to other major tech companies (with ongoing litigation against Apple, Amazon, and Meta) and in the fashion industry, change is on the horizon, but it will be a long while before these changes materialise. And there is a good chance that the search market – and the experience of product discovery and comparison – will be upended by AI before we reach that point.

The best from The Interline: 

Kicking off this week, Retraced AI’s CPO & Co-founder on how AI is revolutionising supply chain transparency and accountability in the fashion industry.

Next up, Hyland’s Global Director of Digital Asset Management Practice on how AI is enhancing creativity and driving strategic ROI.