Sustainability and Fashion
Can the fashion industry be sustainable?
Sustainable clothing made with natural and recycled fabrics used to be the stereotypical uniform for nature-loving hippies, whose flowy, loose-fitting aesthetic reflected a lifestyle free of societal restrictions. Their clothing, oftentimes either self-made or purchased secondhand, was constructed for comfort, practicality, and in defiance of corporate culture. Today, many companies are challenging the convention that sustainable clothing is suited only for the hippie niche by producing environmentally responsible apparel that is both stylish and modern, and designed for all kinds of people. The image of a sustainability advocate is no longer one of an airy new age flower child harvesting mushrooms at a festival in the woods; instead, the sustainability movement has become more inclusive, from a city-dwelling outdoor adventurer outfitted in Patagonia to a protesting 16-year old Swedish girl taking stage at the UN climate conference. And as the future of our planet looks increasingly grim, more and more companies are incorporating environmental values into their business models by working towards neutralizing their carbon footprint, maintaining an ethical supply chain, and converting to sustainable fabrics and clean energy while also reducing their use of virgin plastic.
Large fast fashion brands like Zara and H&M have received substantial media attention in response to their rolling out large-scale sustainability initiatives, and the public accolades create a positive feedback loop by encouraging these companies to strive towards even bigger sustainability goals. Oftentimes, however, their impressive targets take many years to hit. Thus, much like the story of the tortoise and the hare, smaller efforts that are more easily implemented (and also create positive impacts that compound over time) may actually transform the fashion industry more quickly than the large-scale initiatives.
For example, Zara committed to achieving 80% renewable energy at their headquarters, distribution centers, and stores by 2025. This transition takes time because the company distributes roughly 840 million garments per year to over 6,000 stores in 96 countries. Zara’s renewable energy goal is just one part of their multi-pronged sustainability plan, and the financial and human resources required to radically transform the operations of such a large company are exorbitant. Thus, fast fashion giants are balancing their need to improve their environmental impact with the costs of becoming more sustainable by adopting a slower-paced incremental approach. Smaller brands like Christy Dawn and Wol Hide have less complex operations and can more easily implement sustainable practices (i.e., using deadstock fabrics and ethical production methods with a low environmental impact) if they are willing to take on the costs of doing so. There are 28.8 million small businesses in the United States, and their efforts are important. Activism from both large and small companies will over time have a large-scale cumulative impact on the environment. However, large companies like Zara and H&M are so big that small changes have a massive impact across the entire industry, whereas even large changes from small companies will be limited by the size of the company, no matter how sustainable it is.
Sustainable production gained momentum in the last few years as clothing companies became targets of scrutiny for producing excessive waste, emitting large quantities of greenhouse gasses, and fueling the global addiction to toxic chemicals. Apparel and footwear production accounts for approximately 8.1% of GHG emissions (equal to the climate impact of the entire European Union). And if clothing production continues business as usual, GHG emissions from textile manufacturing alone is projected to rise approximately 60% by 2030. Environmental groups have found that huge fashion companies are responsible for transforming important river ecosystems in China, India, and Bangladesh into biological dead zones replete with chemicals banned in other parts of the world. The World Bank reported that treating and dying textiles makes up a fifth of industrial water pollution globally. But you don’t have to look at developing countries to understand the negative impacts of the clothing industry. In 2018, H&M reported $4.3 billion of unsold inventory and Burberry reported that it burned over $37 million of goods to preserve the brand’s status by avoiding having to sell their products at a lower cost. Additionally, the microplastics in synthetic materials like polyester, nylon, rayon, and acrylic (these materials are used for yoga pants, fleece jackets, etc.) leach into water ecosystems via washing machines, causing the bioaccumulation of microplastics in our food chain.
Apparel and footwear production accounts for approximately 8.1% of GHG emissions (equal to the climate impact of the entire European Union).
These reports are inspiring companies to invest more in green technology, like the development of innovative eco friendly textiles (i.e., mushroom leather and synthetic spider woven silk). The North Face, for instance, rolled out clothing made with climate-beneficial wool, which comes from grass-fed animals that graze on land where carbon farming practices are implemented. The farm uses regenerative agriculture practices and reportedly sequesters 165,683 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Conventional farming practices typically degrade soil from the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, and heavy irrigation — while regenerative agriculture promotes soil health, soil fertility, and carbon sequestration.
The incremental shift away from the unsustainable production of clothing and textiles for both large and small businesses lacks the public enthusiasm that comes along with more transformative approaches taken by leaders in other industries (i.e., Tesla); and yet, incrementalism is important in an industry overrun by cheap, disposable clothing made without consideration of environmental and labor conditions. The pervasive practice of manufacturing and selling low cost clothing presents two primary barriers to creating a sustainable clothing industry:
a company’s willingness to take on the financial risks of converting to sustainable production; and
the customer’s willingness to pay higher prices for sustainably produced goods.
Incremental actions help overcome these barriers by allowing companies to test and demonstrate the possibilities of sustainable clothing production, as well as help shift the consciousness of producers and consumers by making ethical fashion a more mainstream concept. Over time, more companies will see the benefits of environmental and ethical considerations in production decisions, and investing in green technology and practices will become the standard practice for the entire industry.
Because garment production is just one side of the sustainability problem in the fashion world, the pressure to be more environmentally conscious has shifted onto consumers as well. The idea of sustainable consumption is somewhat of an oxymoron because the most sustainable option is always to consume less or not at all, but the consumption side of fast fashion reflects the production side in that we consume clothing indiscriminately and imprudently. Thus, conscious consumption, where consumers make positive decisions on what they buy, is a viable step towards reducing consumption entirely because it requires that people consider the environmental impact and labor conditions that their buying promotes. In theory, purchasing an expensive beanie made from sustainable wool grown by farmers paid living wages is impactful because it supports a sustainable economy and industry, and encourages fellow consumers to consider similar buying choices. Made with higher quality materials, the beanie will last longer and won’t need to be replaced as quickly as a lower-quality product.
Research findings comparing consumption behaviors of non-sustainable consumers and sustainable consumers support the idea that conscious consumerism is just an incremental step in the right direction rather than the end goal. Researchers found that the positive environmental impact of conscious consumers is only marginal. Specifically, they found no statistically significant differences in the carbon footprint between sustainable consumers and non-sustainable consumers. Thus, the value in buying sustainable clothing lies more in how making green choices influences human behavior and its potential to lead to more radical change.
This success of incremental environmental activism is illustrated by the plastic bag ban in California. Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth was the first mainstream media that brought concerns about environmental responsibility, and specifically climate, to a broad audience. The media’s coverage of the issues informed the public about the problems at hand. Consequently, more and more people adopted new behaviors like bringing reusable bags to grocery stores, and the movement against plastic bags gained momentum. In San Francisco, a broad coalition of voters approved the nation’s first ordinance banning plastic bags in 2007. Today, cities all over our nation have implemented bans on plastic bags, and studies show these bans have been effective at reducing waste. California experienced an 85% reduction in plastic bag use just six months after the statewide California plastic-bag ban was enacted, and that results in less plastic waste in landfills and oceans.
The lessons about incrementalism from the plastic bag ban can be extrapolated and applied to the fashion industry. The rise of environmental values with both producers and consumers may drive people to the polls to support environmental legislation and leaders who will then implement radical change. Voting with your dollar rewards companies that promote sustainable practices, and can also raise awareness about environmental issues that appear in local, state, and national elections.
Producing more sustainable clothes involves reducing the use of harmful materials, chemicals, and virgin plastics, better management of pollution, supporting animal rights and ethical labor conditions, and reducing GHG emissions. Reducing the environmental impact of consumers requires greater consideration of the environment in purchasing decisions, showing up to the polls to support leaders who are committed to change, and dramatically reducing the amount of clothing purchased in the first place.
When looking at the worsening health of the planet and how individuals can contribute to improving the outcomes, the fashion industry is important to consider because everyone can relate: We all buy clothes, wear clothes, wash clothes, and dispose of clothes. No advanced degrees are required to understand the negative impact the clothing industry is having on the environment. Furthermore, the environmental degradation and concerning labor conditions evident in the fashion industry illustrate bigger-picture problems at hand: climate change, capitalism, and wealth inequality, their impacts on our planet, and how human behavior is part of the solution.
Consider the following before you support fast fashion:
Impact: Look at how much clothing you buy, and research the values of the companies you’re supporting. If you can afford to purchase clothing from more sustainably-minded companies, do so. If your budget doesn’t account for more ethically-produced clothing, consider buying less.
Reuse: Consider buying second-hand or vintage clothes, or swapping clothes with friends.
Repurpose: Turn your clothing into something else functional, like a rug, grocery store bag, or even rags for using around your house or apartment. If you love your clothes despite the tears and holes, revitalize them with a patch.
Resell or Rent: thredUP, Tradesy, and Poshmark are a few services you can use from your home to make money on clothes that you don’t wear anymore. Rent the Runway is a service that provides dress and accessory rentals for events.
Recycle: If your clothing is damaged and not repairable, consider donating it to a local textile recycling program. The 2014 Disposal-Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste report reported that more than 1.24 million tons of textiles were disposed of in California landfills in 2014. These textiles can be reused and https://earth911.com/ can help you local organizations that accept textile donations. You can also find local organizations that accept clothing donations like women’s shelters and Dress for Success.
Research: If you want to buy new clothing, learn what materials are environmentally-friendly and purchase clothes made of those materials. While there are pros and cons to all types of fibers, the degree of harm that each causes is variable. Choosing organic fabrics is almost always better than non-organic fabrics due to standards for chemical use involved in processing fibers.
