Turning to Regenerative Agriculture and Social Media
Climate change. Greenhouse gases. Water waste. Global warming. Unfair wages. Cheap labor. Inhumane conditions. These are some of the effects of fast fashion, a huge industry that cannot share the wealth with its workers while damaging the environment. There has been so much damage done that needs to be addressed and repaired. While there are many solutions, regenerative agriculture can bring back sustenance, and social media can immensely help this issue because it is relevant today.
While getting dressed may be a daily routine, there is so much history behind fashion and its effects on our environments worldwide. Fast fashion seemed to begin with Zara in the 90s. According to Bhardwaj and Fairhurst fast fashion,”…order to increase the variety of fashion apparel in the market, the concept of adding more phases to the current seasons (that is, the period during which fashion products are sold) in a fashion calendar came into existence.”. Essentially, companies want to gain more by outsourcing their work for cheap labor and then sell these clothes at lower prices. They also produce their clothes with cheaper materials and fabrics. It helped fuel economic growth. However, it is negatively affecting people and the environment. Fast fashion is easily disposable due to the low price and material. It is also in high demand because people want obtainable and affordable trendy pieces for fashion. These companies provide an endless amount for anybody to purchase. “Impact of Influencers in Consumer Decision Process: the Fashion Industry” by Sudha and Sheena argues that influencers are a form of a marketing ploy by researching consumers’ decision-making process. Fast fashion has been around for a while but has been gaining even more traction these last few years due to social media and influencers.
While the fast fashion industry is doing very well for many years now, there is an alarmingly dangerous effect on our environment. According to Niinimäki, Kirsi et al., the industry wastes 44 trillion liters of water annually for irrigation, causes water pollution, 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, and 15% of fabric wasted during production. Niinimäki et al. claim, “…cotton has the highest water footprint of any fashion fibre.” Not only do they waste water, but they waste local water supply for different communities that manufacture the clothes. Then, some of the chemicals that are used end up polluting the whole ecosystem. Through every step of making clothes, there is a sinister effect on the environment, communities, and people, from cultivating fabrics to manufacturing clothes, exporting the products, and then to consumers constantly disposing of these clothes.
In order to produce clothes, you need fabric. Fabric originates from farms. Monsanto makes promising deals with farmers for prosperity to keep up with the demand of clothing production, but instead gives them chronic stress over debt. Unfortunately, according to the book “Every Thirty Minutes Farmer Suicides, Human Rights, and the Agrarian Crisis in India,” stated that “ In Andhra Pradesh alone, at least 17,775 farmers committed suicide between 2002 and 2009.”(CHRJ 9). Then, according to CHRJ, the debt burden falls onto the deceased’s family members, having rippling effects( 9). So, these effects extend to not the environment, but people as well.
Production of fashion had usually been done for every season, which is four times a year. Now, there is a high production of clothes for dozens to even hundreds of seasons. These clothes are produced with cheap labor by factory workers in different countries. Companies outsource their work or products to produce their clothes for a cheap cost, with cheap fabric. Factory workers work in inhumane conditions with a non-livable wage. Companies exploit them because they know that people are willing to work to support their families in any way. The documentary, The True Cost, reveals the mistreatment of workers and the terrible working conditions (7:30). The film shows how workers and farmers are exploited for this industry. A factory collapsed in Bangladesh and killed 1,134 people. They were ordered to evacuate; but, the factory owner ignored those warnings to continue the work. However, the factory owners were pressured by companies to get these clothes out of production quickly. These people risk their lives to afford necessities in life. So, while the industry provides cheap and trendy clothing in other countries, it exploits the people who make or provide for it.
Now, after clothes distribute across the globe, the problems do not end with the production of clothes. Approximately 60% of clothes produced are disposed of. However, about 15% of the clothes are recycled. While some of the clothes were recycled, about 1.1 billion tons were lost during the whole process. Even though washing clothes shed microfibers, according to Associated Press, these come from synthetic clothing, like most workout clothes. These tiny pieces were found in surrounding waters around the U.S., Which means it contaminates our waters and even affects our marine life. People dispose of clothes quickly due to the cheap cost. It is part of the business, so consumers can constantly buy more and more clothes, which causes more and more pollution waste. It is a vicious cycle.
So what now?
Regenerative agriculture is one of the many answers. This farming incorporates organic farming practices, including conservation tillage, cover crops, crop rotation, composting, and pasture cropping. The primary key to this agriculture is improving the environment, using technologies that regenerate and revitalize the soil and the environment, and promote biodiversity. Regenerative agriculture leads to healthy soil rather than deteriorating land and leading to productive farms and healthy communities and economies. Dana Thomas states that “…farming must stop such pollution and reduce the carbon already in the air.” in the article “Why Is Fashion Talking About Regenerative Farming?”(2021). The usual farming done puts out carbon emission, contributing to our environmental issues. So, regenerative farming helps solve this issue and gives back to the environment through the whole process.
The transition to different farming is expensive and takes years, so there are different grants for farmers to apply for to begin regenerative farming. The article, “In a Bid to Be More Sustainable, Fashion is Incorporating Regenerative Farming.”, states that, “The Regenerative Fund for Nature, in conjunction with Conservation International, an environmental NGO in Arlington, Va., is valued at 5 million euros and will disperse grants to farmers and NGOs…”. This gives companies and farmers incentive to begin regenerative farming, which will produce better quality clothes. Better quality clothes lead to more prolonged use and fewer clothes being disposed of, being excellent for the environment.
Consumers should also be mindful about how they consume fashion, how much, and why. They can slowly begin by reflecting on much they consume fashion, what the issues are with fast fashion, and how they contribute to the issue. Then, they can change their consumption in whatever way is viable for them, such as buying from sustainable brands, thrifting, and disposing of clothes less. There should be an understanding of how the lower socioeconomic class consumes fashion and the nuances there. Even for plus-size people, there are cheaper brands that cater to their size. It is essential to acknowledge that people should not be shamed for not knowing about this issue. In hindsight, once more people learn about these issues, more people will care and take different actions to stop fast fashion and demand more of these companies.
The way consumer behavior can begin to care and change is through social media. A study done by Deloitte reveals how social media influences consumer behavior. They found that “Consumers who use social media during their shopping process are ≈4x more likely than non-users to spend more or significantly more on purchases as a result of a digital shopping experience.”(16 ). So, in more recent years, influencers have been taking over social media, endorsing fast fashion brands, and constantly doing hauls. This influences their audience is to buy from these brands and dispose of clothes constantly. It would be better if these influencers endorsed sustainable brands, thrifting, or other ways to be more mindful. People turn to social media to learn about new things, see reviews of products, so it has significant power to change consumption and behavior of many. It calls attention to the issue and elicits people to advocate for the rights of the people and for the environment.
Conclusively, there are many factors in this horrible cycle of fast fashion, however some more than others. Fashion brands discovered a way to produce more clothes cheaply while profiting more, then have dozens of seasons of clothes to advertise to consumers, who buy constantly and dispose of clothes quickly. These actions have grave consequences on the environment and people around the world. It is time for there to be a change in this industry for the better of our planet and the rights of people. So, the change falls onto companies to change their production, how they receive their fabric, consumers to be more mindful and to advocate, and utilize social media to bring awareness to change consumer behavior. Companies must take accountability for their unethical and unsustainable practices and move towards better alternatives.
References
Bhardwaj, Vertica, and Ann Fairhurst. Fast Fashion: Response to Changes in the Fashion Industry. 18 Feb. 2010, www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09593960903498300?casa_token=cJymlkPU7fAAAAAA%3APjFhQJbsEqGeuXQaUVJL9h0yzl2CbI9BQguML4Z5w6OTaRhsYC3eOvBI2hiJaUSotyCiO8szuHMQtQ.
Bick, Rachel, et al. The Global Environmental Injustice of Fast Fashion, Environmental Health, 27 Dec. 2018, link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940–018–0433–7#citeas.
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights, and the Agrarian Crisis in India (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011)
“In a Bid to Be More Sustainable, Fashion Is Incorporating Regenerative Farming.” Earth.Org — Past | Present | Future, 5 May 2021, earth.org/fashion-is-incorporating-regenerative-farming-to-be-more-sustainable/#:~:text=The%20Regenerative%20Fund%20for%20Nature%2C%20in%20conjunction%20with%20Conservation%20International,%2C%20wool%2C%20cashmere%20and%20leather.
Lobaugh, Kasey, et al. “Navigating the New Digital Divide.” Deloitte, 2015.
M, Sudha, and Sheena K. “Impact of Influencers in Consumer Decision Process: the Fashion Industry.” Https://Search.proquest.com/Docview/2232623787/Abstract/64269E101E2B4B89PQ/1?Accountid=7118, SMC Journal of Indian Management, search.proquest.com/docview/2232623787/abstract/64269E101E2B4B89PQ/1?accountid=7118.
Morgan , Andrew, director. The True Cost, Life Is My Movie, 2015.
Niinimäki, Kirsi, et al. “The Environmental Price of Fast Fashion.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 7 Apr. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0039-9).
Press, Associated. “Yoga Pants Are Destroying the Earth.” New York Post, New York Post, 26 July 2017, nypost.com/2017/03/15/yoga-pants-are-destroying-the-earth/.
Thomas, Dana. “Why Is Fashion Talking About Regenerative Farming?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Apr. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/04/20/style/fashion-regenerative-farming.html?searchResultPosition=1.
Zaman, Munir Uz, and Agence France-Presse. “A Report Blamed the Mayor for Wrongly Granting Construction Approvals and Recommended Charges for the Rana Plaza Building’s Owner.” The New York Times, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/asia/report-on-bangladesh-building-collapse-finds-widespread-blame.html.
