The Fashion industry has been split into this ‘good guy’ & ‘bad guy’ storyline. Slow Fashion being the hero, coming to save the day; but are the roles really that clear cut? In reality, is Slow Fashion likely to dominate in the coming years? Well, to understand this we must first look into the differences between these two players.
It’s perhaps taking much longer than it should, but slowly people are beginning to realize the urgency of climate change; they’re also coming to understand that our addiction to consumption and convenience are significant contributors. The fashion industry is notorious for being at the forefront of these impacts, accounting for about 10% of global CO2 emissions according to the 2018 Climate Works report. This makes it the second most polluting industry in the world.
One of the most commonly used materials is cotton, it’s incredibly resource-intensive and requires up to 2,700l (594 Gallons) of water to produce a single t-shirt. It’s fairly difficult to contemplate the water usage to meet the global demand for cotton products, as it is to consider the impact of artificial fertilizers used to intensify those agricultural processes. On the surface, these are environmental impacts but they’ll often have a direct impact on people as well. As these fertilizers leach into water systems, drinking water becomes unsafe for many communities. In a similar manner, microfibres enter the water through the washing of fabrics and our food supply chains become inevitably contaminated.
It’s safe to say that these are rarely thoughts that pass through your mind as you head to the store to add to your wardrobe. However, this is the proposed reality of pushing ahead with ‘business-as-usual’ and turning a blind eye in favour of rapid economic growth. It’s the ‘Fast Fashion’ story, one characterized by cheap labour, intense and harmful agriculture, and unsafe conditions; all to facilitate cheap and convenient clothing for large fashion corporations. Despite this narrative, many larger companies are making concerted efforts to become more accountable for their impacts. Household names such as Burberry, Adidas, Puma, and H&M have all committed to reducing their emissions by 30% before 2030. They clearly see how market demand is changing.
So what is ‘slow fashion’? As the name suggests, it’s seen as the antithesis of its fast counterpart in almost every way. The term ‘slow fashion’ is said to have been coined in 2008 by a designer named Kate Fletcher. She wrote an article published in The Ecologist about slowing fashion down and the reality of choosing quantity over quality. The model is characterized by longevity and quality in mind. Spending more to get more value back. This means less of a strain on natural resource extraction and less intense production, labor, and agriculture. A more resourceful model in theory for sure, but also a far cry from our now deeply rooted reliance on low cost and chasing new trends.
So why haven’t we immediately adopted a slower approach to global fashion? What’s holding us back? Well, because the fast fashion industry is so firmly established; despite seeing significant growth in the number of slow fashion initiatives, they still only form a micro-section of the market.
According to data from PCI Wood Mackenzie, around 60 percent of globally used textile fiber is still derived from oil-based polyester. This is because the higher price of more eco-friendly materials is proving an obstacle for their uptake by fashion companies. Brands are simply not willing to take the risk of moving away from an already lucrative business model.
Consumer behaviour is also a large part of why it may be more difficult than we imagined to transition to a slower, more conscious fashion industry. When people are so accustomed to buying an entire outfit for less than 100 dollars, providing a new option for buying one item of clothing for more than that will seem less accessible to many. It’s easy to soak up the values and practices of those in your social bubble and to believe that slow fashion is taking over; I’m certainly guilty of forgetting that the majority lie outside of my bubble. It’s hardly representative. The reality is that it’s not going to be an overnight process.
For these values to be adopted into the mainstream, we need larger companies to launch slow fashion initiatives and show support. They will, as they continue to witness customer demand shift towards that. They already have done, to an extent. However, with that comes a real danger of ‘green-washing’. Using environmental and social responsibility as a marketing tool, whilst continuing to produce huge quantities of low-cost clothing with no intention of moving away from that.
There is also the argument that the responsibility lies with governments to encourage change in business practice. By introducing greater taxes on plastics and oil-derived materials, it may push these reluctant brands to change their offering. An obstacle to this is that many political parties in power, including the conservative party in the UK, traditionally prioritize economic growth at the expense of social and environmental consequences. To expect a political party with right-wing values to go against the direction of maximum growth is potentially a tad unrealistic.
Maybe that’s just my skepticism. However, governments must sell themselves too; they also have to meet market demand during elections. If people want to live in a more sustainable society, then governments will introduce policies to appeal to that market, in order to win elections.
Additionally, we should avoid seeing larger companies as the evil entity in the story; it’s much less clear than that. Businesses follow money and money comes from the market and what is in demand at any given time. With the eminence of sustainability on the consumer's mind, it wouldn’t make much sense for companies not to have at least one foot in the sustainable market. The threat of ‘green-washing’ aside, it’s clear that this is how we facilitate an economic system with sustainability playing a greater part.
“Sustainability is no longer considered just to be a mitigating risk or part of supplier compliance, but it is becoming increasingly seen by CEOs as a ‘must’ in doing business.” // Achim Berg, global leader of consulting firm McKinsey’s apparel, fashion and luxury group.
This is why the notion that spending power and voting power of the individual should never be underestimated.
From a business perspective, being labelled as ‘sustainable’ is an extremely vague and ambiguous label. What makes a business ‘sustainable’? Perhaps businesses of all sizes should be provided with a far better blueprint of how to improve their operations. The leadership forum Global Fashion Agenda outlined eight “crucial sustainability priorities” including complete transparency throughout the supply chain, safeguarding workers’ rights, becoming more energy-efficient, and reusing textiles. Companies should be expected to make concerted efforts to overall criteria, rather than picking and choosing.
This sounds like a high expectation, but opting for one or two areas to improve will only be considered a form of ‘green-washing’ by many. After all, reducing single-use plastic could be considered irrelevant if garment workers are exploited for cheap labour under unsafe working conditions. Additionally, an emphasis on organic cotton over synthetic fabrics does not address the stress of water usage placed on cotton-producing regions in countries like India and China, as shown by a 2019 report conducted by the British parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee.
“We don’t describe ourselves as a sustainable brand because there is always more to do, and I’m not sure there is any such thing as a truly sustainable fashion company.” — Designer Rejina Pyo
Yes, the term ‘Sustainability’ has always been rightly criticized as being too broad. However, a term used to cover all industries will inevitably be broad; a set of guidelines must be defined, with criteria specific to each industry. After all, what does it mean for a fashion brand to be ‘sustainable’ and when should they be allowed to market themselves as being so?
I’d love to see a scoring system for companies in the future. We already have certifications that exist such as ‘B Corp’ that really hold its member companies to account but it’s membership-based. It’s a competitive advantage to hold that label but companies aren’t leveraged into chasing the certification.
One of the main obstacles in a capitalist society is that even if major brands implemented sustainable practice at every stage of their operations, they would eventually hit a stumbling block. An increase in profits, generally demands an increase in consumption, which progress towards a more sustainable society will not allow. Many argue that climate and profit cannot co-exist. This is why we must find a way to profit from resourceful models and it’s why we should all be advocates of the ‘Circular Economic Model’.