Can you guess which one of these items will set you back $4.95?

This may prove to be a difficult move for such retailers to make, as the sour economy has already left them struggling with inconsistent sales trends in addition to high unemployment and financial insecurity among consumers.

“Apparel prices are going to go up. It’s as simple as that,” Perry Ellis Chief Executive George Feldenkreis told the Post. “The American consumer will have to accept it.”

Actually, it turns out American consumers can just turn elsewhere for their fast fashion fix. The Cut reports that while prices at many large retail chains are going up, H&Mâ€s prices are going down. In fact, a black and white striped dress with a mesh top and sweetheart neckline from H&M is now retailing for $4.95 – an amount Vogue points out is less than the cost of a Starbucks frappuccino, a McDonaldâ€s McNuggets Value Meal or CoverGirl face powder at Duane Reade.

Big retailers who are struggling with rising production costs should listen up because H&M PR Director Jennifer Uglialoro explained how they are managing to maintain such low price tags.

“We have over 2,000 stores in 37 countries,” she said. “This provides high volume and there is no middleman. We have our own team of over 100 in-house designers and we do all our own production.” She also said H&M is focused now more than ever on reigning in costs due to the struggling economy. {Vogue}

According to H&Mâ€s code of conduct, the retailer does use vendors, but their suppliers own the factories where H&M clothing is produced.

H&M is to be applauded not only for their ability to keep prices down, but a video on their Web site under “Corporate Responsibility” provides supply chain transparency, so consumers wonâ€t be left wondering how ethical the creation of that $4.95 dress was. Thatâ€s something worth applauding in a time when news of poor factory working conditions abounds.

Apparently workers are often faced with tasks that are nearly impossible to complete as quickly as western retailers want while maintaining humane conditions, but they simply cannot afford to turn down jobs. The result is few breaks for food or to use the bathroom and bodily wear and tear. {The Cut}

What is most troubling, according to the story, is that a retailerâ€s claim to employ ethical factory standards basically means nothing.

The Ethical Trading Initiative, a voluntary industry body that many UK retailers belong to has been criticized for being too weak. Spokeswoman Julia Hawkins concedes that “ethical trade doesn’t mean that there’s a cast-iron guarantee that the person who made that T-shirt has been treated right. It’s about company behavior. It tells you they are working to improve.” {the Guardian}

The Guardian story suggests consumers, who, as a whole, really dig fast fashion, are as much at fault for these unfortunate circumstances as the retailers.

The Cut points out, however, that a boycott of all fast fashion retailers wonâ€t help  factory workers in developing countries earn money, receive health benefits and achieve fair working conditions.

Consumer demand can certainly be a cause of Western retailers overworking their factory laborers, but is a mall shopper really responsible for the behavior of a company that purports to abide by ethical standards? Demand is one thing, but executives who lack business morals have far more impact on operational decisions than consumers. These days everyone is told to shop the economy back into shape, and the Guardianâ€s reasoning that a high demand for certain goods is damaging to poor workers is contradictory. Few consumers would support oppressive working conditions, but changes in labor laws and company standards, with international independent groups that can provide oversight to ensure fair working conditions would go further in making positive changes than playing pin the blame on the consumer.

H&M or Wal-Mart’s unsold inventory? Check the trash. In a very eco-unfriendly move, the New York Times reports that both retailers make a habit of simply throwing out unworn clothes that don’t move. Rather than donating the garments to the homeless or charities – New York Cares, around the corner from H&M’s 34th Street store would willingly accept the clothes, the clothes are ripped or slashed and thrown away.

While H&M and Wal-Mart are the subject of the Times’ look at clothing at the end of its life cycle, it raises the question of how mass retailers handle unsold inventory. Officially, most companies have donation programs or policies in place; but with larger tax savings for losses than donations, it raises the question of how closely fast fashion adheres to those guidelines.

Read more {New York Times}