If something were to eradicate the human race within the next century, one possibility that has been developing right in front of ours eyes would certainly be the threat of climate change due to human causes. As this dangerous revelation came to light came also a myriad of social movements, pushing for more ecological practices in an attempt to quite literally save the world. In the fashion industry, this movement has largely culminated into what is now called ‘sustainable fashion’, contrasting against the consumerist tendencies plaguing fashion, reducing clothing to disposable and short-lived objects of vanity, an attitude perpetuated and encouraged by fast-fashion retailers such as H&M, thanks to the low prices afforded by more-than-questionable practices.
While fast-fashion’s harmful practices and consequences are widely documented, I find that Elisa Arrigo’s 2015 paper titled ‘Corporate Sustainability in Fashion and Luxury Companies’ perfectly captures the extent of the damage caused by fast-fashion;
“…together with the growth of the fashion demand caused by the reduction of clothing price and the wide availability of fashion offerings, an increasing massive use started of natural resources, such as water, energy, cotton, textiles and also chemicals, synthetic materials, pesticides, etc (began in the fast-fashion industry). For example, just think that cotton production accounts for 10% of all synthetic pesticides and for 20-25% of insecticides applied worldwide each year and, as it is well-known, many pesticides are persistent in the environment (Achabou & Dekhili, 2013). Furthermore, global logistics’ processes from suppliers’ factories to the country of origin of fashion companies generate heavy negative effects on the environment. In particular, the choice of transportation modes (truck, rail, water, pipeline, and air), beside to affect the final price of products and their time to market, has dissimilar environmental impacts in terms of CO2 emissions. In addition, outsourcing and delocalization strategies realized by fashion companies faced the adoption of unfair labour practices in foreign manufacturing markets such as child labour, low wages, overwhelming working hours, and other health issues. Similarly, a limited transparency existed on where and how clothes were made (Perdersen & Andersen, 2015) and relocation strategies set also difficulties in the control of working conditions in offshore sites by creating social sustainability challenges. Finally, the fast fashion business model emphasized a new approach to the consumption of fashion garments that were bought to be worn for a limited period of one or two seasons and then end up as waste by creating a big damage for the environment (Kozlowski et al., 2015).”
Nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide to escape debt, often by drinking the very pesticides which they farm with.
Although fast-fashion may be the poster-child for harmful practices in fashion, they do not seem to go away as you go up the fashion ladder, evidenced by the burning and deliberate destruction of unsold goods by companies such as Louis Vuitton and Burberry. This is in order to protect the exclusive allure and high prices of their goods by controlling the supply, increasing the perceived value of these goods, even if their quality may be closer to fast-fashion than truly artisanal works. To Burberry’s credit, they have stopped burning unsold goods since last year.
At a consumer level, the proposition of ‘slow-fashion’ or a reduction/rejection of fast-fashion consumption has gained traction over the years. The recent rise of online second-hand markets such as Rent the Runway, Vinted, and Vestiaire Collective, as well as the increasing popularity of thrifting and upcycling through DIY, are all examples of improving consumer attitudes towards fashion. H&M’s recent struggles (Fig.1) may be partly attributed to this attitude shift, but there is no proof of correlation. If anything, H&M’s struggles may unfortunately be due to meteoric rise of ultra-fast-fashion online retailers such as FashionNova and Boohoo. This would make more sense, as 77% of consumers classified as “rejectors” or “low involvement” with regards to the sustainable fashion movement in the Global Fashion Agenda’s 2019 Pulse investigation.
Courtesy of the Business of Fashion
The true problem with the current sustainable fashion movement lies in the fact that sustainability does not justify excessive consumption, which the fashion industry currently suffers from to a horrendous and appalling degree. The mere concept of sustainable fast-fashion is an oxymoron and must be acknowledged before companies are applauded for acts comparable to lip-service, both in purpose and impact. Simon Usborne of The Guardian covered this perfectly, pointing out the problematic existence of Boohoo’s new recycled clothing range being found on a homepage which includes “a T-shirt for £5.40, some distance below a “50% off absolutely everything” banner, a link to the summer and swimwear range with the slogan “catch flights not feelings” and right next to a link to non-recycled plastic swimsuits on sale for £5.” Here’s an Internet Archive link of Boohoo’s site on this date, if you’re curious.
In any case, it is clear that consumers are not ready to lead the way for fashion’s future, a sentiment echoed by the aforementioned 2019 Pulse investigation, stating that “it is up to fashion leaders to take bolder moves today to transition to a sustainable industry.” Consumers also stated that they care about not harming the environment in the Pulse investigation, with claims such as “75% of consumers surveyed view sustainability as extremely or very important” and “more than 50% of consumers plan to switch brands in the future if another brand acts more environmentally and socially friendly than their preferred one” but numbers from the Business of Fashion’s 2019 Report tell a different story:
- The average person today buys 60% more items of clothing than they did 15 years ago, but keeps that clothing for only half as long as they used to.
- A survey done in Britain also found that one in three young women consider clothes “old” after wearing them once or twice.
- One in seven consider it a fashion faux-pas to be photographed in the same outfit twice.
While BoF use these numbers to show how the second-hand market could grow alongside the craving for newness, rendering consumer tendencies more sustainable, it’s clear that a worrying increase in consumption has taken place over the years.
Via the Global Fashion Agenda
Another problem in the sustainability movement is that it frequently forgets about an equally important facet of the industry; worker rights. Even if H&M became fully ecologically sustainable by tomorrow, the manufacturing workers in underdeveloped countries would still be under terrible conditions and pay. These poor working conditions and standards in the countries providing mass manufacturing actually contribute to ecologically harmful practices, such as the dumping of waste and chemicals into rivers and landfills. Because of their short leash and the lack of financial stability, many workers are left vulnerable and have no choice but to take the poor pay and not speak up against their employer’s unethical practices. This exploitation is enabled by the fast-fashion industry’s profit motives, which are thus enabled by consumer tendencies.
No process where the used resources cannot be reverted back into their original state can be truly sustainable. As stated earlier, the notion of sustainable fashion is in fact an oxymoron, as the goal of sustainable fashion should primarily be to reduce the amount we produce, not to make our grossly excessive consumer habits bearable. The heart of the problem lies in the sociology of fashion and our preconceived value perceptions! When we see an artisanal brand’s jacket selling for 800$, we are shocked because of the exorbitant difference in price in comparison to what we could pay at fast-fashion or even mid-range retailers (though I am not saying that 800$ is what we all ought to be paying for a jacket). But again, our perception of the monetary value of a jacket has been influenced by the invisible human cost and the double-edged excesses produced by capitalism, hidden beneath layers and layers of horizontal supply chains where blame cannot be pinpointed solely on the retailer. As of right now, nothing is stopping corporations and conglomerates from reaping profits off the Earth’s demise and human suffering.
Even in our progressive times, there is clearly a lot of work to be done. For the sake of our planet, I hope that a philosophy like Geoffrey B. Small’s soon catches on with the masses.
Gallery of a 'Half' 