“Fashion and Sustainability are […] separate and antagonistic concepts”.

Discuss, making reference to consumer behaviour and/or media representations of the fashion industry.

(January 2022)

---

Introduction

The industrial revolution spurred the birth of the fashion industry with the patent for the sewing machine. Since the beginning of the 1900s, the standardisation of clothing, thanks to World War Two fabric restrictions and need for functional clothing, became synonymous with mass-production. Mass-producing of garments would later become the basis of clothing manufacturing (Idacavage, 2018) for most consumers in the latter half of the 20th century and today.

The fashion industry boomed when convenience finally collaborated with style.

Fast fashion, also known as disposable fashion, is an accelerated version of these 20th century ideas. This industry has erupted since the beginning of the new millennium. Thanks to another boom in mass media, the rise of the internet also came with the rise of celebrity and influencer cultures. Fast fashion helps keep consumers up to date with trends by being able to quickly churn out garments. It allegedly takes 15 days for a garment to be created from a designer’s brain to being sold in a store. The fast fashion model outsources work in countries with minimal labour laws, thus cost cutting, these are mainly sweatshops, hence the unethical associations of fast fashion.

The current model of the fast fashion industry is ‘unsustainable’, both environmentally and economically, according to Patagonia’s Ryan Gellert (Economist, 2018).

Waste and Pollution

Fast Fashion, Overconsumption and Overproduction

The European/American fashion trend cycle has gotten increasingly smaller since the rise of the internet, celebrity, and influencer culture. The demand for fashionable items has succeeded the demand for garments of longevity. Consumers desire fashionable items every season (swapping their wardrobe twice-four times a year) and need cheaper pieces to afford this. This is a cultural issue reflected largely on social medias, as well as filmic and television representations.

The fast fashion model drums up demand by stimulating customers with a ‘buy or miss out’ mentality. Consumers, aided by social media influencers, have a need, a desire, or an anxiety to own the latest fashions. The stigmas of ‘outfit-repeating’ in online spaces such as Instagram and TikTok encourage a ‘wear once’ mentality. Shopping for ‘fashion’ rather than personal style results in unresponsible purchasing of one-off items that stay in fashion for its season, before exiting the fashion-sphere. This leads to disposing of items prematurely, normally whilst the garment is still in good condition; according to Forbes, ‘90% of clothing is thrown away before it needs to be’ (Marquis & Soomer, 2021).

The fast fashion shame is regularly targeted at poorer income individuals, as they are the perceived target demographic for businesses such as Primark and online retailers such as the Boohoo company. However, over-consumption is a privileged issue. Those who can afford to constantly buy new items and dispose of garments are socially ‘better off’. Having access to online shopping, access to excess money to purchase products and not needing to rely on fewer pieces, are all examples of economic privilege that should be addressed in the fast fashion debates.

Excess manufacturing is the reason for unsold and, therefore, wasted goods. It is environmentally unfriendly and simply, it is greedy. Over-production hoards and wastes resources, it refers to companies ‘making more than they sell’ (Lopez, 2021). It is a convenient and financially ‘efficient’ manufacturing method, as bulk-ordering from vendors/wholesale companies allows the purchasing of large amounts of product at reduced rates ('PoundWholsale', 2022), as wholesale is sold per unit (of product), rather than per individual item.

Companies therefore have surplus material after completing collections and often such material is destroyed. Luxury fashion companies destroy products that have not sold (Lopez, 2021) , mainly due to not wanting the items to sell at cheaper prices. The destruction of surplus, by fire or by shredding and disposing as junk, is an unnecessary waste of time, energy, and resources.

The production of materials ruins land as they are cultivated, but it is a garments ‘end of life’ that causes ongoing disruption to the land. ‘57%’ of discarded clothing ends up in landfills and is incinerated (Le, 2020). The burning of such garments release ‘toxic substances or poisonous gases’ into the environment, polluting the air and soiling the environment with harmful substances. The further implications of such pollution would be destruction of the life living within or around the landfills, both human and non-human. Toxic substances in the soil can cut off or block oxygen moving through the environment, so insects would firstly die and rot releasing greenhouse gases and secondly, die and possibly die out.

Environmental Affect

Cotton, GHG and Synthetics

The fashion industry has a significant impact on pollution, accounting for ‘4% of global GHG emissions’ (McKinsey & Company, 2020). The carbon footprint for the apparel industry has increased since the rise of (fast) fashion production from the mid-2000’s. The fashion industry’s impact on the environment and animals begins with primary harvesting of raw materials and has secondary issues of creating toxins from productions and waste, this production of clothing also known as the ‘garment cycle’.

The garment cycle is the complete process in which an item is produced. It begins with the raw materials; producing, preparing, and processing, this accounts for 70% of the industry’s emissions. The other 30% consists of garment use; transportation, packaging, retail operations, usage, and the end of use; disposal or recycling of garment (McKinsey & Company, 2020).

The production and extraction of raw materials is energy intensive, cotton for example is referred to as ‘the dirtiest crop’ as it requires ‘16% of the worlds insecticides’ and ‘2.5% of the earths land area’ to be cultivated (Yong, 2022). Cotton not only requires insecticides to grow, but it is also incredibly water intensive. The ratio of water to cotton for processing is roughly 10,000L:1kg (Le, 2020). The latter effects of cotton cultivation results in unusable/damaged land, due to use of pesticides in cotton fields and wasted and unsalvageable material at the end of a cotton garment’s life, as only ‘30% of original cotton’ can be re-used (Yong, 2022).

The most popular materials used for garment production are cotton and polyester/synthetics; viscose, leather, silk, and wool each have their environmental concerns as well. Synthetics, like polyester, have grown in popularity for products since the 1900’s, ‘Spandex’, for example, is richly associated with the 1980s. Throughout the 1950s-1960s, during the space race and space age obsessions, plastic was quickly incorporated into everyday life, with Spanish fashion designer Paco Rabanne famously being obsessed with using plastic materials for dresses in his haute couture collections, in the 1960s (Online, 2022).

However, the use of such plastic fibres has had detrimental effect on the environment and seas. Synthetic materials are made from fossil fuels/non-renewable coal and oil, they create ‘more carbon emissions than cotton production’ (Le, 2020) and possibly the most emissions in the textile industry. Most synthetics are also non-biodegradable as they are created from petroleum.

Synthetic fibres account for ‘20% of industrial water pollution’ (Kamel, 2021). Microplastics are so small it is impossible to retrieve them from contaminated waters or cleanse waters of the fibres. Aquatic populations may decrease due to toxic chemicals or gases cutting off oxygen supplies once plastics begin to degrade. The gases they release may destroy aquatic habitats and cause harmful gases to release from the sea into our environment. Microplastics have already begun to impact drinking water, they appear in the fish that we consume, and there is evidence of unborn babies already interacting with microplastics in the placenta.

Slow Fashion

Upcycling, Alternatives, and Incentives

‘Slow fashion’ has been coined as a ‘direct response to the temporal acceleration’ (Boulton, 2020) of twenty-first century fashion. Fast fashion relies on ‘driving down quality, exploiting the environment and their workers’ (Marquis & Soomer, 2021). Examples of slow fashion are sourcing sustainable materials, clothes swapping, renting, buying used and upcycling.

The garment cycle needs to be taken into consideration when creating clothing (Marquis & Soomer, 2021). Quality items can be reworked and upcycled, lower quality items associated with fast fashion are structurally weak, easily broken or ruined and therefore harder to upcycle for longer keep. Fashion is rife in classism, cheaper clothes are made available for poorer people, yet they won’t be of higher quality, material wise or production wise, therefore an emphasis on alternates to buying fast fashion would help towards a sustainable and fairer fashion industry.

A (typically) cheaper and sustainable option for consumers is to buy pre-owned garments, typically charity shops or vintage stores help encourage recycling of clothing and keeping the price down for consumers. Buying second hand is also encouraged by apps such as Depop and Vinted. Buying second hand prolongs a garments lifecycle, thus cutting down on waste and getting the most out of clothing items. Fast fashion items are already in charity shops, which shows the shocking shortness of its lifecycle, however being recycled in a charity shop is favourably better than decaying in a landfill.

Other alternatives include renting clothes, which will also help garments get sufficient usage before eventually being discarded, it also fits into the trend of minimalism that aims to fight against capitalist materialism. Like renting, clothes swapping helps alleviate hoarding clothes and would help fashion consumers to try out trends within their communities, without everyone having to purchase new items every trend-cycle.

‘Ethical sourcing’ is an optimistic option for the fashion industry, ‘organic’ materials such as cotton and wool are fast becoming options for garments, but this still encourages harvesting raw materials. As we have discussed, synthetic options are no better than natural materials. However, some bio-degradable synthetics are becoming more commercially available, such as alternating viscose for cellulosic fibres, which is the weaving of wood fibres (Le, 2020). Bio-degradable options are a wonderful suggestion to a more environmentally conscious approach to fashion; however, the surplus of readily available materials could be used to create new products, rather than be discarded and further raw materials needing to be harvested.

Upcycling is one of the most sustainable options for the fashion industry. This can be as small as altering existing clothes to suit new trends, to the selling/purchasing of used garments, to using waste materials to create new items.

For example, fashion house ‘Viktor and Rolf’ have had an eco-conscious mission statement since 2016, experimenting with designs using surplus materials from previous collections. Their Spring/Summer 2020 Haute Couture collection ‘Patchworks’ uses archival fabric swatches and handcrafted shared labour. The collections aim is to ‘do more, with less’ (Viktor&Rolf, 2020). It has an emphasis on pre-industrial design and craftsmanship, is also acts as an example of the sustainable possibilities within the fashion industry.

Similarly, brands like FatFace use recycled plastic bottles to make waterproof winter coats, and Superdrug and Lush used recycled packaging for their beauty products.

Some high street stores, such as Boots, FatFace, H&M and Lush, have created recycling initiatives for makeup and clothing, with discount incentives. Schuh offer a £5 incentive for bringing in used shoes, for the material be recycled and used for future products. This encourages consumer consciousness to recycle and be mindful in their shopping, however it ultimately still encourages consumerism.

‘Good on You’ is an app that allows consumers to see how sustainable brands are, rating them on environmentalism, carbon footprint and animal welfare (Online, 2019) (Online, 2021) (Boots, 2022) (Superdrug, 2020). This is another option for consumers to have some insight and control into the consciousness of the clothing marketplace.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, in the current climate costs are more important than consciousness, to the fashion industry anyway. The rise of conscious consumers and influencers is a positive, however the responsibility of a sustainable and environmentally conscious fashion industry shouldn’t fall to the consumers. The brands and businesses need to take a slower paced, more thoughtful approach to fashion and pollution.

The fashion industry, with its resources, can implement creative methods to avoid overproduction and waste, such as creating products when in demand, not when predicting or inciting demand and excitedly creating surplus, ‘just in case’. It can also explore sustainable options, like bio-gradable materials and upcycling waste, to create an on-going cycle of usage for both organic and synthetic materials.

For consumers, however, a lesser focus on attaining the lifestyles of rich and famous (most who rent or are loaned clothes anyway), and a focus on sustainable consumption will help alleviate overconsumption, toxic materialism and social stigmas surrounding having less.

Acting locally by emphasising a movement for clothes swapping or purchasing used garments, will have a greater impact on both the consumer and industry carbon footprints.

Post-industrial-revolution and post-war fashion has been antagonistic and separate to sustainability. Fashion now doesn’t have to be though; it just must leave the current mass production business model that most consumer goods copy.

Bibliography

· Boots, O., 2022. Boots. [Online] Available at: https://www.boots.com/shopping/boots-recycling-scheme [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Boulton, A., 2020. Exhibition Tour—About Time: Fashion and Duration with Andrew Bolton | Met Fashion. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7B-xr346JU [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Economist, T., 2018. YouTube. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLfNUD0-8ts&t=306s [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Idacavage, E., 2018. FASHIONISTA. [Online] Available at: https://fashionista.com/2016/06/what-is-fast-fashion [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Kamel, E. A., 2021. owlcation. [Online] Available at: https://owlcation.com/stem/Synthetic-Fibers-The-Manufacturing-Process-and-Risks-to-Human-and-Environment [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Le, N., 2020. Princeton Student Climate Initiative. [Online] Available at: https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/7/20/the-impact-of-fast-fashion-on-the-environment [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Lopez, M., 2021. FASHINNOVATION. [Online] Available at: https://fashinnovation.nyc/fashion-overproduction/ [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Marquis, C. & Soomer, K., 2021. Forbes. [Online] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christophermarquis/2021/05/14/what-does-slow-fashion-actually-mean/ [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· McKinsey & Company, G., 2020. FASHION ON CLIMATE: HOW THE FASHION INDUSTRY CAN URGENTLY ACT IMATE TO REDUCE ITS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, N/A: McKinsey & Company; Global Fashion Agenda.

· Online, F., 2019. FatFace. [Online] Available at: https://www.fatface.com/blog-articles/ico-clothing-recycling.html [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Online, g. o. y., 2022. good on you. [Online] Available at: https://goodonyou.eco/ [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Online, L., 2021. LUSH. [Online] Available at: https://www.lush.com/uk/en/a/bring-it-back-our-new-look-recycling-scheme-2021 [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Online, S., 2022. Schuh. [Online] Available at: https://www.schuh.co.uk/our-community-pillars/sustainability/ [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Online, T. M., 2022. The Met. [Online] Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/762106 [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· 'PoundWholsale', 2022. PoundWholesale. [Online] Available at: https://www.poundwholesale.co.uk/information-support/an-introduction-to-wholesale/why-is-wholesale-cheaper [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Superdrug, O., 2020. Superdrug. [Online] Available at: https://www.superdrug.com/dgfs/packaging [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Viktor&Rolf, 2020. Viktor and Rolf. [Online] Available at: https://www.viktor-rolf.com/collection/haute-couture-patchworks-spring-summer-2020 [Accessed 10 January 2022].

· Yong, A., 2022. unsustainable. [Online] Available at: https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/the-ethics-of-using-cotton/ [Accessed 10 January 2022].