‘Buy better, buy less’.
‘Shop second-hand.’
‘Shop sustainably.’
There seems to be a persistent notion that if only the consumer shopped better, made better purchasing decisions, shopped sustainably that somehow corporations would get the message and start producing more ethically and sustainably. This is not only naïve, it’s ultimate greenwashing.
Fashion brands market their clothing as organic, vegan, carbon positive, and push so-called biobased mushroom or pineapple leather as sustainable alternatives. They hype business models such as recycling, resale, rental and repair as suddenly innovative and transformative strategies that will save our planet from the tonnes of textile waste and toxins they create every day. Yet over the last 20+ years none of these innovations or strategies have reduced fashion’s environmental impact on the planet. Nor have have any of these strategies “democratized fashion”, or improved the socioeconomic conditions of the millions of garment workers in the industry.
In fact, these strategies are meant to encourage consumption by appealing to consumer biases and a perception of being sustainable. As explained in previous posts, there is no legally regulated definition of sustainability. Brands are claiming sustainable products and processes with virtually no verifiable data to back their claims. The sustainable certifications brands use come from industry-insider organizations with no external third party or governmental oversight. Organic, for example, isn’t inherently sustainable or ethical. Growing an organic crop while simultaneously mismanaging soil and water isn’t sustainable or ethical, nor is exploiting the labor to grow and harvest it. Biobased materials aren’t guaranteed to be 100% plant based nor biodegradable; in fact nearly all of the biobased leather substitutes on the market contain fossil fuel derived synthetics (polyester or plastics). And as explained in depth in a previous post, recycling is not the panacea the fossil fuel industry and fashion would like you to believe it is.
As far as resale and rental, these two “new” business models are hardly new, and have no impact on reducing virgin resources or significantly extending product lifecycles.
Donation and thrift stores are not new. In fact, for profit resale isn’t new either. What has changed is the reduction in quality of resale items because of the explosion of fast fashion, and a gentrification of the ‘better’ and vintage resale markets. With respect to the flood of fast fashion at donation centers, this often means unsalable items that end up either being incinerated, sent to a landfill, or sold to resale brokers who sell the goods overseas only to ultimately be sent to a landfill or incinerated. Fewer quality items at donation centers mean that people who rely on this source now have fewer quality choices. Plus the gentrification of resale has meant that once “quality finds” are ending up on Etsy or other online resale sites at inflated prices, making once affordable items out of reach.
Rental isn’t new either. However what changed in rental was shifting from only special occasion to every day apparel, marketed as the “sharing economy,” by online upstart Rent the Runway. Being online only means lots of shipping to and from, plus there’s laundering, and inevitable wear and damage that renders inventory unusable: this is not a sustainable business model.
Resale and rental aren’t reducing brands production nor are they reducing consumer consumption. They’re only delaying the inevitable trip to the landfill.
Telling consumers to be more responsible, ethical and to make better decisions while brands and corporations continue to be irresponsible, unethical, and unaccountable is utter hypocrisy. Brands have created this mess over the last 25 or so years, by jumping on the fast fashion model of cheap mostly disposable clothing made popular by labels like Forever21 and H&M. They have outsourced nearly every part of their supply chains, offloading financial, operational and compliance risks on to mostly foreign manufacturers where labor is cheap and oversight nearly non-existent. This strategy combined with growing reliance on cheap fossil fuel synthetics has kept clothing prices artificially low for the last 25 years.
Keeping prices artificially low has fueled consumer overconsumption, not “consumer demand”. The fashion industry created a distorted sense of affordability and value: why purchase 1 quality garment for $40, when I can get 5 for $50? Poor quality fuels purchases due to planned obsolescence and ‘new’ product at retail every week fuels FOMO. Consumers have no idea what the true cost is to people and planet.
Brands are not transparent because they don’t have to be. They market messages that they know will appeal to consumers’ values and desires, regardless of truth. As long as the lies aren’t injurious to the consumer, brands get away with it. ( Maybe not for long? H&M lawsuit…)
I’m not suggesting that consumers should throw up their hands in defeat and forget about being responsible. Every individual has their own motivation for how and why they shop the way they do, and that’s fine. What I am saying is that the fashion industry has a responsibility to do better, instead of gaslighting consumers into believing that modifying their shopping habits will alleviate the myriad of industry initiated impacts. This is a nearly $3T industry. Big brands make billions in profits each year. They have the financial means to invest in their supply chains in order to produce better, produce less, and produce ethically and with integrity.
What they don’t have is the motivation to change, because their motivation is greed. Fashion’s business model demands unbridled year over year fiscal growth. A less profitable year, despite being profitable, is considered a setback. Yet the shareholder boards, CEOs, and owners do not suffer; they continue to amass wealth. Remember, we are talking billions of dollars. Of profit. Every year. This is why we need strong legislation, that crosses borders, and demands action with demonstrable results. Where action is lacking and/or results miss targets, there must be penalties and requirements for corrective action. Punitive action must also be proportional, meaning larger companies that are responsible for larger harms will receive harsher and greater disciplinary actions versus smaller companies with lower impacts.
Fortunately, there is a proposal co-sponsored by Fashion Revolution that aims to address these issues in the European Union. All EU citizens are invited to sign on to support this proposed legislation. And in the US there is the FABRIC Act, which aims to enact similar reforms. Let’s hope these policies are only the start of a much broader, more impactful shift to a kinder, more humane and thoughtful fashion industry.