It is very easy to blame one group of people for any issue. And when it comes to the damaging levels of pollution caused by the fashion industry, there is a hell've a lot of finger-pointing.
Yes, you can blame brands for producing too much, influencers for constantly pushing shopping hauls, and governments for not having clear recycling plans, raw materials guidelines and labour safety regulations. You can blame the middle class for not slowing down their buying of ultra-fast fashion, treating clothing as disposable. Social media has an obvious correlation to the uptake of shopping since 2008. We can even blame the downstream green businesses that are making it OK to buy, wear once and then sell on.
Now, I am not going to repeat well-printed stats about how much unworn clothing sits in wardrobes. That recycled polyester is damaging to the environment. That we have gone from 4 seasons a year of collections, to weekly drops by certain brands. It is a respected fact that fashion contributes to 20% of global water pollution and 7-8% of CO2 emissions. That last stat does not account for shipping and downstream emissions created from reselling and renting. Though, as we will see in the next section, the emissions from reuse avenues appear very low.
So let's unpick all the touchpoints of a garment to understand where the damage comes from.
Production
Approximately 90% of the total carbon footprint for any garment starts at production. There are variations on this number depending on where it is produced, but by the by, let's jump into what you should consider:
- There is the processing of virgin natural materials: picking, dying, spinning, etc.
- There is the sourcing of artificial materials - oil refining, processing, spinning, etc. Viscoses, for example, while for tree pulp, still have to go through quite a bit of treatment to make.
- There are fabrication costs to turn the milled fibres into rolls of fabric in various patterns, etc.
- Transport costs are involved in moving around the components and delivering materials to factories.
- There are the machinery costs and production costs to make a garment.
- There is the sampling process, when various patterns are produced and sent worldwide for the clients/brands to inspect.
- There is the packing and dispatching of finished articles to brands and retailers.
- There is also the potential for large volumes of stock being destroyed and remade due to quality control stages.
Within the above, there are other ethical issues. Who is supplying the oil to produce polyester? Are garment workers given fair and safe treatment? Are the farmers producing natural crops being paid enough, etc?
Take point 8 and replicate this weekly for ultra-fast fashion. That is a whole lot of CO2 being produced and by-products going to dumps.
Overall, within production, the amount of water waste is staggering. With that doom and gloom, let's move on to retail.
Retail
We are in an Omnichannel world. Most clothing will end up in large distribution centres. Then sent to stores or held for online sales. Either way, emissions come from the following 3 additional areas:
1. Damage - both in-store and online clothing ends up unsaleable after returns and in-store & stockroom damage.
2. Returns being dumped - it is well published that the cost of processing a return means it is cheaper to simply give a refund and send the clothing to reprocessing and disposal.
3. Unsold stock - some of this gets transported to discounted stores. But a huge amount is set for disposal/destruction.
Consumers
Overconsumption. Technically, without the demand from consumers for newness, the production process could be greatly reduced. Therefore, why do we feel we need to buy so much? It is easy to blame 'poor' people for buying from an ultra-fast player. But the evidence is established, it is people on good salaries who could afford to buy better, who are choosing not to. Why:
1. Influencers have sprung up to push a lifestyle of continuous hauls. On a positive side, it helps consumers gather reviews to reduce buying dud products. But on the downside, what started as well-intentioned content appears to be vague reviews of brands we have never heard of, that miraculous, we 'must need'. Trust in influencers is on the decrease. But they still hold a huge amount of power over consumers' realistic notions.
I would also posit that brands and influencers have a slightly unhealthy relationship. If consumers start to drop off buying, Influencers are mobilised strategically to get you back parting with your cash. If it weren't for social media, would we have gotten to this point?
2. Addiction. The dopamine hit of a new item. When it comes to clothing, some consumers just can't say no. We are all prone to phases of over-buying - a change in weight, a change in profession, a major life change, etc. However, with experience, one learns to prioritise other uses for money. Become more creative with styling. Swap with friends and family.
However, I know people who get bored easily and put no value in their clothing; per se, they simply want newness. Charity shops are seen as a way to absolve them from any ethical questions regarding the impact of their disposal.
3. Marketing push from designers and brands. New collections mean one thing - 'you're out of fashion'. For some, being seen to be on trend is a way of life. It taps into another aspect of human nature - acceptance. Those wanting new things and acceptable overlap on the Venn diagram of consumer behaviours. However, the groups can be different. For example, trend followers will look to older items in their wardrobe to stand out, leaning into another trend of 'vintage'.
However, those seeking newness would avoid the thought of second-hand. There are definite contradictions with the motivations to buy. However, the commercial need to create new trends only happens because consumers will lap them up. This is nothing new. Societies since the Greeks and Romans (and more than likely earlier) love to show status via style.
Green cycles
What I am referring to here is all the new businesses springing up to tackle waste. Are they really helping?
1. Charity shops. There were times you knew you could find a vintage steal if you wanted to the right postcode. But unfortunately, not all donors will give the give stuff. Less than 50% of clothing donated is fit for resale. The bulk ends up on containment shipments to less developed countries, some to recycling, and the rest to landfills.
2. Resell platforms. From your eBay to Vinted, you cannot blame consumers for wanting to get some money back on their clothing. There are the perils of counterfeit goods and catfishing of items, but on the whole, it is a thriving ecosystem. Many a Halloween costume will be sourced this way. I have sold to people on a tight budget going to a wedding. Yes, there are transport and packing costs, but at least it is one less item being purchased from an ultra-fast player that will be of such poor quality, it will end up in the bin after one wash. But, it can be a bit too addictive for some, a further justification to buy once and resell.
3. Rental - This is a mixed bag. Renting out a suit or a dress from an old school shop can mean items will have a longer life with a much lower CO2 impact. However, some of the renting-of-a-wardrobe sites can be an issue. Some studies refer to the 'rebound effect' whereby consumption is increased due to renting being used at a higher rate than buying an item and wearing it repeatedly. Another term used is 'share-washing' to a similar effect. What might be the happy medium is renting being used for formal wear and not pairs of jeans:).
4. Other recycling/repurposing. Using old clothing to make new items is always an option. But it should be a last resort and not a demand pull to buy something new for a 'craft project'.
The big tobacco challenge
The biggest issue is in production. Plenty of initiative and talking at conferences hasn't curbed the flow. Brow-beating people isn't going to help, and there is joy in the creative abilities of designers. Why should art suffer to tackle ultra-fast fashion?
Addiction and societal norms around overconsumption keep the cycle going. I have to give props to influencers who refuse the deals to have their own clothing lines. They get the most sustainable thing you can do is not produce more, when there are so many already talented people who we should support. So what can we do?
I love the industry. I love seeing the creativity of new styles. Clothing is an extension of our 'self'. It can change our mood, make us feel accepted, etc. But do we need so much?
- If you are doing a weekly haul of 10-20 items, and you already have a full wardrobe, there is a chance you may have an addiction. You can seek out support, but also consider unfollowing a few influencers, and try to reduce your screen time.
- If you find yourself buying things and never wearing them, you may need to reset your strategy. Do you need to talk to a stylist, a personal shopper or a friend who could help you?
- Can you share more with friends and family?
- Stop dumping at charity shops. If you are tired of an item, consider archiving. Vacuum pack items. In a year, take them out, and you may have a new inspiration. But do not use storage savings as an excuse to buy more:).
- Be wary of greenwashing. Recycled polyester is not good for the environment, and there are other health risks from chemicals leaching from fabrics into your skin. If you are investing in a heavy coat that you plan to keep for 20+ year's there are sensible reasons (waterproofing and prolonged use) for opting for high-quality poly. Just question the intentions of the marketing:).
- You are not entitled to extremely cheap clothing. That can be hard to hear. But how did your parents afford to dress well? Let's face it, when you look back at old news reels. people did look more put together. We can buy less but buy better.
Clothing does wear out, we change size and have events in our lives that require our self-expression to shine and to pay respects. So the fashion industry is going nowhere. However, like big tobacco, the push to flood the market with so much clothing is not sustainable. As smoking is bad for our lungs, so are the outputs of fashion production bad for our planet's lungs.
Brands can still make profits and grow. We just need the more ethical brands to win through. There is nothing wrong with a Zara or H&M. They just need to reduce the volume of collections, make better and help consumers on the route to buy 1 great jacket, instead of 3 low-quality jackets. The brand will make the same amount of money, just with less stock. Consumers have to stop expecting a €/£/$10 dress at the expense of another human's rights. It will be a team effort.
