“iPhone 4CF“ A spoof website, press release and direct action by The Yes Men & students from the Parsons New School for Design via the Yes Lab. Website pages embedded in slideshow above. Original iPhone CF website – www.apple-cf.com – shut down. Now partly available here.
Culture-jammers the Yes Men create a spoof ‘Apple’ website to launch a new iPhone whose ingredients are ‘conflict free’. They announce that you can upgrade your iPhone 4 to the conflict-free version free of charge. Working with students from the Parsons School in New York, they dress up as Apple Store employees and hand out leaflets that encourage shoppers to go inside and upgrade their iPhone to a conflict-free one, at no charge. This is such a brilliant idea, especially with all the recent news stories about a civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where these regular iPhones’ rare earth ‘conflict minerals’ could be sourced. For many, Apple is taking the lead in this highly competitive and fast moving sector. As it always loves to shout about. It’s acting to remove conflict minerals in its supply chains, and inviting its shoppers to come on board as ethical consumers. When the shoppers take their leaflets into the store and are refused their free upgrade… When they realise that a ‘conflict free iPhone’ does not exist… When the Apple Store staff, many of whom were pleasantly surprised that Apple was doing this, realise that some of the people who look like their colleagues may be activists causing trouble… When the police are called in… When the story gets into the press (the whole idea) and Apple is forced to quickly publish a press release denying that a conflict-free iPhone exists… When the Yes Men quickly release a fake Apple press release that explains what the company is (not) doing to remove conflict minerals from its supply chains… When Apple forces the web host for The Yes Men’s fake iPhone 4CF website to take it down within hours… … the knowledge that Apple’s iPhones contain ‘conflict minerals’ has become an international news story. It helps that the Yes Men are highly experienced corporate impersonators (they call this ‘identity correction’). It helps that the carefully planned and often hilarious unravelling of the lies they tell are a magnet for business journalists who often don’t have many fun stories to report. And it helps that this is a positive critique: it’s perfectly possible that Apple could produce a conflict-free iPhone if it put its mind to it. This isn’t a negative, anti-capitalist critique of Apple – although the company seems to respond as if it is – it’s a good idea. They’ve shown what it looks like. How Apple could market it. That shoppers would trade their only iPhones for a conflict-free upgrade. Critics call the activists’ understanding of supply chain sourcing and the war in the DRC simplistic, but this prank kickstarts a debate which – years later – saw the production of conflict free smartphones. We plan to add a page to followthethings.com about the most famous of these – the Fairphone – in due course.
Page reference: Jack Parkin (2018) iPhone 4CF. followthethings.com/iphone-4cf.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“A Gadget To Die For“ Front page headline and feature story in by Martin Hickman in the Independent Newspaper, plus a timeline of corporate and activist activity into which this story fits. Front page featured above. The full text of the article is available below, and on the newspaper website here.
On May 27th 2010, the UK’s Independent newspaper published one of its most memorable front pages. This was the day that Apple’s new iPad device was being launched in the UK. The hype for this product had been extreme. At its launch, Apple CEO Steve Jobs had said it could help consumers to do things ‘in a much more intimate, intuitive and fun way than ever before’. Classic commodity fetishism! Apple Stores had so many orders that they had to meet. The factory where they were being made in China – owned by the Foxconn corporation – had to keep up with demand. Those customers couldn’t be kept waiting. But the hours and working conditions that the people making these iPads in Foxconn’s factory had to endure were too much for some. Reports started to emerge of extreme levels of stress driving some workers to make their way to the roof of the factory to jump to their deaths. One of these workers was Ma Xiangqian, whose family carried a photo portrait of their son to a protest outside the factory that was broadcast on international news. Juxtaposing a photo of this new device and photo of a worker who committed suicide with the perfect double-meaning title ‘A gadget to die for’ contributed to the sullying of Apple’s marketing plans. More importantly, it was just one example of the sustained attention to the working conditions in the company’s Foxconn factories in China that was building at this time (e.g. see the factory worker suicide prevention level on the Phone Story game here). On followthethings.com, we tend to choose individual examples of trade justice activism and find out where they came from, and what impacts they have had on, for example, the pay and conditions of supply chain workers. But in this case, it’s not just this one story that made a difference. This page outlines a different story. The Independent story is copied in full, and is followed – like a standard followthethings.com page – by everything we could find about how it was discussed and what impact it had (not much). Then, below this, we try to place this news story in context, starting with the launch of the iPad by Apple CEO Steve Jobs, then following iPad news stories as they were published over the following months, then finding when and how the ‘iPad suicide’ story came to public attention (in the Independent and elsewhere), and then tracking this scandal and Apple’s reactions to it. This larger context had an important impact, forcing corporate change and – arguably – improving pay and conditions in Foxconn factories. More than anything, this page tries to show how trade justice activism works when its bubbles up in multiple places and formats, not necessarily in a wholly coordinated way. For this example, it shows the importance of on-the-ground student activists – in this case the Hong Kong based Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) – investigating, protesting, creating and promoting media content that others – like Independent journalists Martin Hickman – can pick up and run with.
“A Decent Factory (alternative title Made in China)“ A documentary film directed by Thomas Balmès for Margot Films, Making Movies Oy, France 2, BBC Storyville & YLE Film clip embedded above. Search online to stream the whole film here.
In the mid 2000s, the Finnish company Nokia was the world’s largest producer of mobile phones. French film-maker Thomas Balmès works moves to Finland and spends 18 months in the country before getting permission to follow its executive Hanna Kosinen and business ethics consultant Louise Jamison as they undertake the company’s first ‘ethical audit’ of a mobile phone factory in China. Hanna and Louise have been tasked by Nokia to see for themselves if and how the company can exercise its ‘corporate social responsibilities’ both to its shareholders and to its factory workers. After a detailed tour of the plant, and some challenging and moving interviews with some of its managers and young female factory floor staff (in their cramped dorm rooms), they have to write a report for Nokia about its CSR in practice. It’s not flattering. The factory isn’t reaching even the low Chinese government expectations about minimum wages and working conditions. In the early days of a technology which later became synonymous with appalling labour conditions (see our page on the 2010 iPad factory suicides here), there was a company, and some company executives, who wanted the people making their branded products to enjoy a decent standard of living. But when they visit – as Balmès’ film shows – they get a shock and start to wonder why their principles don’t seem to be possible in practice. Nokia’s managers are ‘walking a tightrope between profits and law’. They are disarmingly frank in front of the camera, until they find out that this isn’t a films solely for internal Nokia consumption. The film that Balmès produces is darkly funny and tragic, It ends with Hanna leaving the company to pursue a more ethical career, where she can make a difference. This is an important, insightful film. It brings corporate managers into view in vivid and candid ways. It’s not only the factory workers who are ‘humanised’. In this film, its corporate managers and their consultants whom audiences are invited to empathise with. The people employed, internally, to hold a company accountable. These executives are not just being interviewed for a ‘talking head’ perspectives and/or briefly followed around a production site (see our page on the BBC Mangetout documentary for comparison here). These executives are not being deliberately embarrassed or demonised. Audience members can see what they are tasked to do. The ethical principles they would like to see in practice. Where they go. Who they talk to. How this affects them emotionally. How their personal and company principles work out in practice. What this makes them think about their job, the company they work for, and its stated corporate values. And whether they can stomach the disappointment when reality bites, and the change that’s needed doesn’t seem possible?
Page reference: Thirii Myint & Chris Lee (2011) A Decent Factory. followthethings.com/a-decent-factory.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“The Connectivitea Of Britain And Sri Lanka“ A dissertation by Sarah Wrathmell, submitted as part of their BA Geography degree at the University of Birmingham, UK. Sample pages from its findings chapters are embedded in the slideshow above. Click them to read the dissertation.
Undergraduate Geography student Sarah Wrathmell has an ambitious idea for her dissertation research. She wants to travel to Sri Lanka to find the people who grow her morning cup of tea on a plantation in Kandy, Sri Lanka. She plans to ‘follow the thing’ and to undertake some multisited ethnographic fieldwork along the supply chain of ‘Tillings’ (a pseudonym) loose breakfast tea. She ends up writing about six places: the tea garden where the tea is grown, its collection spaces, its production factory (all in Sri Lanka), its blending factory, a specialist tea shop, and a tea garden where she shares a pot of tea with a group of friends (all in the UK). She talks to pickers, packers and drivers; visits factories and talks to people tasting, processing and packaging it to exacting standards; and finally drinks that tea with those drinkers. This is embodied, sensory work that she has to – somehow – get on the page. What she wants to understand is what, and who, are the ingredients in her tea? And how are the lives of the people involved in making and drinking it interrelated? As a reader, your job is to follow her on her travels as she tries to make sense of this. Its assessors say it’s a fantastic piece of work. So, it’s submitted for a national dissertation prize. It wins this unanimously. We have a grainy .pdf copy that you can download and read. It’s important to show that not only are there high profile films, publications, and other forms of trade justice research and activism to pay attention to. Students have been doing this work too, for much smaller audiences, for years. What can this work look like?
Dissertation reference: Sarah Wrathmell (2003) The Connectivitea of Britain & Sri Lanka. BA Geography Dissertation: University of Birmingham, UK (followthethings.com/the-connectivitea-of-Britain-and-sri-lanka.shtml last accessed <insert date here>)
Page reference: Sarah Wrathmell (2024) The Connectivitea of Britain & Sri Lanka. followthethings.com/the-connectivitea-of-Britain-and-sri-lanka.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Sweetness & Power: The Place Of Sugar In Modern History“ A popular academic book written by Sidney Mintz and originally published by Viking. ‘Look inside’ preview embedded above. Search online to purchase a copy here.
After living and working with sugar cane workers in Puerto Rico, anthropologist Sidney Mintz began to wonder about how sugar cane had become such an important crop, and how its cultures of production in the Caribbean and cultures of consumption in the UK and North America had developed together over time. As he studied these relations, he realised that the international sugar trade – as the iconic crop of plantation slavery and as an inexpensive source of energy (sweetening a cup of tea) for the industrial working class in Britain – were intimately connected. Writing a book about a thing – sugar – was innovative in the 1980s, and this book is said to have kickstarted a publishing genre of books-about-commodities. He wanted to publish one that could be enjoyed by academic and popular readers. Its arguments about sugar brought together perspectives from both academic anthropology and history. So the reviews were mixed. The story was bitty. It was either too academic or too simplistic. What’s certain, however, is that it has become a classic in the ‘follow the thing’ genre. Mintz was a, or the, ‘early adopter.’ Today, perhaps, what’s most important is the historical perspective that it provides, rooting contemporary capitalism in colonialism and empire, in harsh proto-industrial plantation labour and in a consumer appetite for sweetness. This page was originally written in 2012. There is so much more that we could now add.
Page reference: Anita Badejo, Josephine Korijn & Asya Rahlin (2012) Sweetness & Power: The Place Of Sugar In Modern History. followthethings.com/sweetness-power-the-place-of-sugar-in-modern-history.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Mark Thomas Comedy Product S5 E4 ‘Pester Power’“ An episode of a satirical TV series starring comedian-activist Mark Thomas broadcast on the UK’s Channel 4. Full episode embedded above.
Mark Thomas is a British activist-comedian who has a long-running stand-up comedy / satire show on TV. He’s filming an episode in a North London secondary school with a geography teacher called Noel Jenkins and his students. It starts off being about government cutbacks which mean that schools are relying on free books from publishers like Jazzy Books which contain advertising. When the Jazzy Books CEO refuses to talk to them on the phone, he asks the students if they would like to talk to one of the advertisers: adidas. Mr Jenkins has been teaching them about sweatshop production Indonesia, so they are primed. Mark Thomas says he has the phone number of David Husselbee, adidas’ ‘Global Director of Social and Environmental Affairs’. He calls him, and his crew film what happens. Husselbee is out of office. So Thomas asks the students to leave him a message. What questions do they want to ask him? They’re all about adidas sweatshops. Everyone at the school goes go to lunch and, when they get back to class, Husselbee – surprisingly – returns the call. He spends an hour on the phone answering the student’s sweatshop questions. It’s all filmed. Thomas asks the students if they’re happy with Husselbee’s answers. Nobody is. Husselbee says it would be different if he was there in person. So Mark Thomas and Mr Jenkins invite him to visit. He does so a few weeks later. Thomas also invites Richard Howitt, an MEP who has been trying and failing to get adidas to turn up to an EU hearing about sweatshop labour. Also present are two women from Indonesia, one who works for a mission supporting factory workers like those who make adidas shoes, and the other her translator. Thomas’ crew films the discussion, which Thomas talks about in the stand-up comedy show that’s made about it. This classroom is the site of an extraordinary get-together of supply chain actors, and an extraordinary discussion unfolds that is rooted in the direct, heartfelt and cheeky style of questioning from the young people present. This is ‘pester power’ (the episode’s title): showing what young people can do to get adults to change their behaviour. It’s common knowledge in trade justice activism that different actors in supply chains have different experiences of, and roles in, keeping the flow of commodities going. And it’s common knowledge that different priorities, ethics and value systems are more or less at home in different roles. But, when you bring these together in a discussion like the one in this classroom, with people they don’t normally talk to each other as equals, they can clash horribly. That’s what’s so revealing about this example and why it has to feature on our site. This example of trade justice activism comes from an time when corporate executives were less guarded, when they might turn up to explain on camera the way that the economy works from their perspective (see also our page on the BBC documentary Mangetouthere), and before they started using corporate PR firms to protect themselves from such scrutiny (when they didn’t come out of this very well). Putting corporate executives under the spotlight this can have an impact. Husselbee says to Howitt at the end of the discussion that adidas will turn up to the next EU hearing. Would that have happened without this ‘pester power’ show? The students are inspired by the power they find they have.
Page reference: Ian Cook et al (2024) Mark Thomas Comedy Product S5 E4 ‘Pester Power’. followthethings.com/mark-thomas-comedy-product-s5-e4-pester-power.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“Sim*Sweatshop“ An online video game by Jonny Norridge (concept and game programming) & Gavin Courtney (back end development) for NOW Nottingham and The Arts Council UK. Gameplay video by WahWahQueenMew embedded above. Available to play free of charge on the Sim*Sweatshop website here (Adobe Flash needed).
Designer Jonny Norridge creates a game to simulate the experience of the shoe factory work that he’s been reading about. You slide shoe panels into place with your mouse. It ‘pings’ when one’s made. Then you make the next one. The clock ticks. Your energy levels fall. Your pay is terrible. It’s not enough to buy the food that you and your family need. You are interrupted by your boss talking about targets. He doesn’t like it when you want to join a union. It’s a simple, repetitive game that you – as a factory worker – can’t win. The idea is to put gamers in the shoes of the people who make the things that they buy. For them, there’s a familiar task sequence and reward structure. But this is real. It’s kind of fun to play, but also sucks. It’s the kind of game that’s given to school students as a quick and vivid way to explain sweatshop production. If they hate it, the lesson has worked. For those who want to know more, its website suggests further reading. There are other examples of trade justice activism in which consumers go to work in the factories and farms where their things are made (see, for example, the TV series Blood, Sweat & Takeaways on our site here). With these, you’re invited to empathise with someone supposedly like you – the contestants are often pitched ‘as typical’ consumers – trying to do that work. In this game, you’re all doing it yourself. So how effectively can a game-based simulation of factory work can be? What can it convey of the poverty and working conditions of show factory workers? It turn out that the answer is ‘a lot’. Sim*Sweatshop catches on. German and Hungarian versions are created, and it becomes part of other mainstream anti-sweatshop campaigns. But are young consumers the ones responsible for these sweatshop conditions? Should company executives, investors and politicians be playing this game too?
Page reference: Declan Coakley, Jack Johnson, Josh Li, Georgie Mitchell, Jack Saxton & Tom Weake (2024) Pipe Trouble. followthethings.com/sim-sweatshop.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
“The Nike Email Exchange (NEE)“ An email exchange between student Jonah Peretti and the Nike Corporation. The full email exchange was posted online on shey.net. Screengrab above. Read the whole exchange here.
Student Jonah Peretti experiments with Nike’s offer to customise its shoes with words you type into its ID website. Most people would add their name or their team’s name but he wants to add the word ‘sweatshop’ to a pair of running shoes. He wants to do this so that he can ‘remember the toil and labor of the children that made my shoes’. Nike say no. Peretti replies, arguing it’s OK. They say no. He replies again, saying he hasn’t breached their ID guidelines. They say no again. They just won’t let him do it. So he forwards the conversation to friends by email. They forward it to friends, who forward it to their friends, who …. It’s posted on a website called shey.net (above) and, within six weeks, millions have read it. Next, he’s invited onto national US TV to debate sweatshops with a Nike executive. This is one of the most iconic examples of viral online trade justice activism that happens 3 years before facebook is founded. It’s also an iconic example of the activist tactic of ‘culture jamming’ – turning a brand’s values and identity against itself. Peretti didn’t consider himself (or what he did) to be ‘activist’, he was just messing around with the opportunity that Nike gave its customer to personalise their shoes. What he did became known as the ‘Nike Email Exchange’ (or NEE) and was a important part of a swarm of public criticisms of Nike’s record on labour rights – including Indonesian Nike factory worker Cicih Sukaesih’s North American speaking tour [see our page here] – that cemented its sweatshop reputation in the late 1990s and 2000s. It’s also an iconic example in trade justice activism research. Peretti gave researchers Dietlind Stolle and Michele Micheletti the email addresses of everyone to whom he sent the email string, and everyone who replied to it. They got in touch to ask them about the impacts that it had had on them as citizens and consumers. The publications that emerged from this helped establish a significant body of scholarship on what’s called ‘political consumerism’. After becoming a public figure through the NEE, Peretti continued to experiment with viral online media before setting up Buzzfeed in 2006.
Page reference: Edward Jennings, Alex Hargreaves, Matt Goddard, Amy Joslin, Millie Whittington & Charles Bell (2024) The Nike Email Exchange (NEE). followthethings.com/the-nike-email-exchange-nee.shtml (last accessed <insert date here>)
It’s amazing what you can find out when you’re sitting at a computer, surfing – doing ‘detective work’, using corporate, NGO and news websites, blogs, photo and video-sharing websites and online encyclopaedias. So much information! Where to start? How to narrow it down? Start with the evidence – yes, keywords, right, on those things. Look closely: ‘Made in …’ or ‘Assembled in …’, company names, brands, lists of ingredients – printed on these things, their labels, their packaging – somewhere. OK, open browser: ‘www.google.com’. Search: ‘Marks & Spencer’ and ‘socks’. There are 49,500 hits including a manufacturer’s website, Delta Galil …; a BBC news story: ‘King of socks leaves the UK’ …; a PR Newswire story: ‘Delta Galil addresses discount request from Marks and Spencer’ …; interesting: ‘Jews for Justice in Palestine’ …. What would they have to say about my socks? An article in Red Pepper …: what’s that saying? That fairtrade cotton in M&S’s new sock range is great for farmers in India, but not for anyone else involved in their production, distribution or sale. Right: agriculture, economic restructuring, international politics, boycotts, shifting production, trade justice. In my M&S socks, with my feet, comforting them, protecting them: what geographies are these? My sock geographies…
Source: Ian Cook, James Evans, Helen Griffiths, Lucy Mayblin, Becky Payne & David Roberts (2007, 81-2: on followthethings.com here).
Resources for researchers
On this page, we share some guidance on how you can become a commodity detective in order to find out who makes your stuff.
CEO Ian began to follow things after a frustrating couple of years attempting to teach students about the ‘Lands and peoples of the non-Western world’ in the late 1980s (see FAQs). If only there was some work that could connect their lives to those of the ‘lands and peoples’ we were studying! In the early 2000s, his students were doing this work for themselves, following some simple desk-based research guidelines. Some of their work – following socks, mirrors, medicine, money and more – is published here on followthethings.com.
CEO Ian has refined these ‘follow it yourself’ guidelines though 25 years teaching the ‘Geographies of material culture’ module at the Universities of Birmingham and Exeter in the UK (from 2000-2025: see Angus et al 2000, Cook et al 2007) and through developing education resources with the Fashion Revolution movement, including its online ‘Who made my clothes?’ course (from 2017-2018: see Cook, Jones & Cox 2017-2018). He and his students have published some of this detective work in academic journals, teacher-facing journals, and on the followthethings.com ‘back office’ blog.
This approach is based on the conviction that when students find out who makes things that matter to them, this learning becomes more meaningful and memorable to them, and can lead to conversations about responsible and ethical consumption. But it’s important to do this work with a sensitivity a) to income inequalities among a group of students in a classroom which can uncomfortably be exposed, b) to the diversity of students’ personal connections the people and places mentioned on ‘made in’ labels because detective work can generate stereotypical – often ‘white saviour’ – narratives involving ‘us’ (consumers) and ‘them’ (producers) (see Siddiqi 2009; Tosin-Talabi 2021), and c) to making students feel solely responsible for any trade injustices they find in their things, when so many other supply chain actors – e.g. corporations to governments to labour unions – are equally, if not more, responsible for them.
[C]alls on solidarity in the global North invite the ‘reader / consumer / activist’ to ‘feel smugly superior’ (Siddiqi 2009, 158) by virtue of their position on the global fashion supply chain, somewhat undoing the solidarity initially invoked. This script offers an appeal to consumers about a way to make shopping matter and falls prey to the neoliberal tendency to address complex structural injustice with individual personal action … [It] essentializes garment workers into passive victims … while highlighting the ‘conscience’ of the consumer (Horton & Street 2021 p.891 talking about Fashion Revolution’s ‘Who made my clothes?’ campaign).
Below we provide a) the two best inspirations we have found for ‘following it yourself’ to act as a spark for this work, b) two ‘follow it yourself’ detective work guides that we developed for our ‘Geographies of material culture’ courses and ‘Who made my clothes?’ courses, and c) two ways that you can use followthethings.com as a source of case studies and qualitative data for essays and dissertations.
a) inspirations
Handprint: a short film encouraging fashion consumers to think about the supply chain workers who help them to get dressed every morning (see our page on this example here)
A pig in a hundred pieces: why artist Christien Meindertsma is fascinated about where things come from and how she finds out (we’ll add a page on her PIG05049 book ASAP).
b) how to ‘follow it yourself’
Who made my stuff?
2025 x Universities of Birmingham & Exeter Written by Ian Cook et al.
Commodity Detective ‘how to?’ advice | No subject specialism
Tim Angus, James Evans, Ian Cook et al (2001) A manifesto for cyborg pedagogy?International research in geographical & environmental education 10(2), p.195-201
Ian Cook, James Evans, Helen Griffiths, Lucy Mayblin, Rebecca Payne & David Roberts (2007a) ‘Made in…?’ appreciating the everyday geographies of connected lives. Teaching geography Summer, p.80-3
Kathleen Horton & Paige Street (2021) This hashtag is just my style: popular feminism & digital fashion activism. Continuum: journal of media & cultural studies 35(6), p.883–896
+2 sources
Dina Siddiqi (2009) Do Bangladeshi Factory Workers Need Saving? Sisterhood In The Post-Sweatshop Era. Feminist review 91(91), p.154–174
Header: man putting on a compression sock sitting on the bed (https://stock.adobe.com/uk/images/man-putting-on-a-compression-sock-sitting-on-the-bed/572668068?prev_url=detail) by into (Adobe Stock)
“Who made my clothes?“ A ‘follow it yourself’ detective work task originally written for learners taking Fashion Revolution’s / University of Exeter’s ‘Who made my clothes?’ free online course starting in 2017 . Introductory video embedded above. Course outline available on the Futurelearn website here (course no longer available). Course instagram feed here and twitter feed here. Search for learners’ blog posts here.
In the summers of 2017 and 2018, we ran a free online course called ‘Who made my clothes?’ with and for the Fashion Revolution movement. 16,000 people from all over the world, many with experience working in the industry, joined us for three weeks to Be Curious (week 1), Find Out (week 2), and Do Something (week 3). We’re hoping the course will run again but, in the meantime, wanted to share some of its content: the parts where we showed how fashion’s supply chains work and the places and lives they connect (via an excellent webdoc series from NPR which is featured on our site here) and then how you can do this research yourselves, with your own clothes, to create your own personal answers to the question ‘Who made my clothes?’ You can try this for yourself, set it for your class to do, whatever you like. It starts with each person choosing an item of clothing that’s special to them, one they wear every day, one they know nothing about. The mystery helps. Follow our advice… and see what you can find, and how you can creatively express and share these findings. This task will in volve a lot of educated guesswork, but you can always get in touch with the brands to see if you’ve got it right! We’ll add some of our learners’ posts along the way so you can see what’s possible.
Page reference: Ian Cook, Verity Jones & Kellie Cox (2025) Who made my clothes? followthethings.com/who-made-my-clothes.shtml (last accessed <add date here>)
