Closing Out 2022
Getting Real in 2023 and Beyond
Financial structures built on exploitation perpetuate exploitation. Fashion is such a structure: an industry built on exploitation.
It’s been a while since my last newsletter: I’ve spent the last couple months on some introspection, re-evaluating my relationship to the apparel industry and reflecting on all the fashion noise of the past year. As we close out 2022, the following are some of the things I’ve been thinking about, and what I hope happens going forward.
I started this newsletter several months ago out of frustration, because I kept encountering so much flawed — and flat out false — information with respect to so-called “sustainable” fashion. The bad information was coming from everywhere: brands, industry groups, educators, and yes, even some advocates & advocacy groups. And it still is. But why?
The driving force is GREED. The apparel industry has been driving and continues to drive the “sustainability” narrative because they have multi-billion dollar growth agendas to protect. Brands work very hard to sell you their versions of sustainability. They establish self-regulatory NGOs — led by the largest brands and conglomerates — to “guide and support” brands (themselves). In a largely unregulated industry, this faux credibility gives license to co-opt terminology and blur definitions (distorting recycling as circular, for example), as well as make absurd claims such as recycled polyester is “sustainable”, while doing nothing to reduce their overproduction, waste, nor overall consumption of resources. Yes, I am referring specifically to Textile Exchange, Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), and SAC’s Higg MSI. But there are others too.
Absent any external regulation or oversight, these insider industry organizations market themselves as trustworthy “experts,” helping brands (themselves) build a certain “sustainability legitimacy”, with which they seduce individuals and organizations, both in and out of fashion.
Humans are terribly gullible. And lazy. In a notoriously and deliberately opaque industry, fashion brands take advantage of our apathy and ignorance and prey on our biases. When we do not understand processes, how related industries operate and interface, how to interpret data and context, we are left without foundations to think critically about the information being presented to us. This is why, for example, assumptions such as the “cotton is a thirsty crop” myth persist. Despite no verifiable, traceable supporting data, this myth has persisted for years! It’s also why brands are able to literally sell us on simple “solutions” such as organic cotton being “sustainable”, or recycled polyester as the solution to reducing our plastics problem.
Similarly, when we fail to recognize and acknowledge histories and cultures — especially of those not familiar to us — we form opinions based on our limited knowledge. Imperialism, colonialism, racism, and misogyny built the fashion industry and continue to shape it today. These are intentionally violent systems of exploitation, oppression and control designed to enrich a self-anointed (mostly white, mostly male) few. You may be familiar with the British destruction of the indigenous Indian textile sector in the 17th and 18th centuries. Over the next 200 years, subsequent British imperialist and colonial policies guaranteed riches well in to the 20th century for Britain, while leaving Indians in poverty. More recently, as Jason Hickel explains in this piece, the global North deliberately collapsed economies and anti-colonial governments in the global South in the 1970’s-1980’s, in order to “restore the imperial arrangement”, i.e. exploit cheap labor and other inputs to enrich themselves. This means that the poverty we see in these regions was deliberately induced, so as to create financial opportunity for western and northern corporate elites. Yet people both in and out of the fashion industry believe the big brands producing in these regions are providing opportunities, while simultaneously insisting that the brands are not responsible for the inhumane conditions and poverty wages.
I am particularly disturbed by the materials “innovations” of bio-synthetics which are being subsidized by venture capitalists who are looking to profit from an uninformed vegan agenda. The opinion that all animal derived products including textiles are inhumane and cruel, and so we must replace them with synthetics is grossly misinformed. Such fervent bias dismisses history, culture, and critical roles that healthy, well-managed agricultural and livestock systems play in climate, community, economy, and protecting our biosphere. (If you don’t want to wear animal derived textiles, then don’t. What I don’t understand is why you feel entitled to an imitation of an animal derived product that you so despise?)
From Fibershed:
commercial-scale expansion of biotech textiles could undermine farmers worldwide, create a dangerous new source of biotech waste, put additional pressure on ecosystems, and divert support away from truly sustainable natural fiber economies.
Furthermore, and more worrying, is that venture capitalists aren’t investing in these technologies because they have any ethics or values; rather they see an opportunity to have significant control of a market, which in turn promises a hefty return on investment. Or more simply put: GREED.
Every product produced has numerous environmental and social impacts, from the inception of its design through to its production, distribution, subsequent use, and ultimate disposal. Yet corporations’ so-called sustainability schemes are overly and narrowly focused on carbon emissions (occasionally also water usage) from materials, with little to no consideration for other impacts and externalities along their value chains, especially the impacts on the people, communities, and regions they exploit for profit.
Corporations will NEVER do what is ethical, equitable or much less sustainable for the planet or for the people. This is not hyperbole, this is fact. Everyone needs to stop pretending that brands care about anything else than their bottom lines, because they don’t.
“Sustainability” is nothing more than a marketing strategy and a money making opportunity for brands. There is no sustainable fashion. Sustainability is not compatible with growth, and certainly not compatible with the exponential growth that these corporations and their governing boards demand year over year. These corporations aren’t trying to be sustainable in any way, shape or form. They produce products that appeal to ideas and principles of “sustainability” because they see this customer as a marketing demographic. It’s not authentic: it’s marketing. There is no actual ideology much less action from these brands to support “sustainability”: they are co-opting principles and commodifying them. This is an illusion of change and progress.
I’ve also been thinking about the philanthropy space. As I already noted, some NGOs like the aforementioned SAC, are not third party independent at all, but are in fact powerful industry organizations designed to protect corporate interests.
As far as the activist and advocacy NGOs that are trying to level the playing field, I do see value in some of their work. They have been instrumental in raising awareness about worker exploitation, as demonstrated by the success of the #PayUp campaign, and helping to get worker led initiatives such as California’s SB62 across the finish line. However, I’m not convinced that philanthropy is going to ignite the paradigm shift the fashion industry needs. Because no matter how much independence they claim, no organization is immune to industry influence or mission drift. And because, at its core, philanthropy operates from a position of privilege.
We do need binding legislation that holds brands accountable for their harms, but I’m wary. Because what the heck do these legislators know about the apparel industry?! Because lobby groups like Patagonia’s Holdfast Collective wield a lot of political power (and who really believes that a company that makes its profits from fossil fuel textiles is serious about climate?) And because corporate elites’ and technocrats’ need for growth always ends up hi-jacking progressive movements — because how else are they going to accumulate wealth?
Oh, and the FTC Green Guides should be enforced, not merely guides: i.e. FTC Anti-Greenwashing Regulations.
But I’m hopeful too. Europe seems to be ahead of the US on this type of legislation (as they usually are). While the EU and UK regulations aren’t perfect, they do provide some groundwork for the US.
US legislation like the proposed FABRIC Act aren’t a surefire antidote for the industry’s ills, but it’s a good start.
I’m a proponent of degrowth and a post-growth future. Degrowth is not austerity. It’s not the opposite of growth, nor is it about reducing GDP. It’s about reducing energy and material throughput. It’s a planned slowing down of consumption in the the global North which would reduce environmental pressures and provide an opportunity for economic justice by way of de-colonization for the global South. Critics either don’t understand this or are afraid of how it will affect their uber-capitalistic wealth accumulation. Here’s the World Economic Forum demonstrating their utter ignorance of what degrowth means, and here’s what degrowth actually means.
The fashion industry is an ugly, dirty, cruel business. But it doesn’t have to be.
While the largest brands and conglomerates are still trying to drive the narrative, I’m also seeing some of their credibility begin to erode. There’s also a limit to their exponential growth when resources are finite. Global supply chains face serious jeopardy due to the climate crisis (to which they continue to contribute, unabated). This, along with the current geopolitical climate, gives me hope towards deglobalization. Large brands with their very complex and convoluted supply chains do not have the on-shore infrastructure to support their massive operations: they will have to shrink. They may continue to engage in offshore sourcing, however I also see this as an opportunity for those suppliers to decolonize from these corporations. I also see on-shoring as an opportunity for small, local domestic producers to thrive, thereby strengthening their local communities. None of this will happen overnight, and surely it will not be pretty. But imagine the resulting creativity, community, and diversity!
I will likely never work in the traditional fashion industry again — and I’m ok with that. I’m not afraid to call-out and be critical of this industry that, although close to my heart, also causes so much needless suffering and pain. If we cannot be honest and truthful about how we got here, then we will never have honest solutions to make things better.
Thanks for reading. Wishing you joy and stability in the New Year.