Fast Fashion and Sustainability: The Perfect Oxymoron
Fast fashion companies have operated for more than two decades in impunity, destroying the natural resources of the planet with intensive cultivation and pollutive dyes. The time has come for them to take responsability and slow down the pace of their productions.
Unless one is in total denial, no one can ignore the fact that the planet is in danger. This is why we take actions to slow down the forthcoming consequences of what we have been doing for decades. We go grocery shopping with our reusable tote bags to avoid the single use of plastic bags; we eat from our local farmers and producers to reduce our carbon footprint; we avoid using plastic straws. When it comes to our wardrobe, however, we are used to buying low-price clothing items made on the other side of the world for huge worldwide retail companies, who renew their lines of collections every two weeks or so. Undoubtedly, we can be sure these items are the same in other rich developed countries. The habit of purchasing low-priced low-quality fast fashion items has become a worldwide issue.
If a simple T-shirt turns out to be out of shape after three laundry cycles, we can assume the quality of the fabric is really poor; we throw it out and buy a new one. At the speed they are manufactured and at the price they are sold, mass-produced clothes cannot be durable. Fast fashion and sustainability are discordant.
Fast fashion is a harmful business model that heavily contributes to destroying the planet’s resources, especially water, and therefore, it should be banned by the fashion industry. Clothing companies must reduce the pace of their productions and consumers must change their purchasing habits so they can come together to a more reasonable and sustainable offer and demand system.
High pace production and rapid restock by fast fashion companies contribute tremendously to destroying the environment, especially waterways.
Cotton is the most commonly used natural fiber in the textile industry, especially for apparel. Just one kilogram of cotton requires 10,000 liters of water. The high demand the apparel industry puts on cotton suppliers force them to bring water where there is a lack of it by collection of natural rain water or irrigation. Because of intensive irrigation, the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan lost 90% of its surface over the last decade to cotton cultivation . On one hand, all fibers, either natural or human-made, require water in their growing process. On the other hand, a fiber like hemp requires half the amount of water cotton needs in comparison.
When we expand the amount of water needed for other fibers that are also used in the apparel sector, we can clearly imagine why water and access to water has become a major concern.
Additionally, the documentary film Riverblue sarcastically observes how we can predict what colors will be fashionable next season by looking at the rivers surrounding textile factories. This comment refers to the dyeing stage of fabric: once the fibers are spun and woven into fabric, they go through dyeing, printing and finishing processes. All these stages require tons of water, chemicals and heavy metals. Textiles factories, mostly located in developing countries (i.e. China and Bangladesh) throw away water waste down the drain and these chemicals end up in waterways. Because of a lack of regulation by local authorities, these factories are not required to clean or recycle their water waste. This example sheds light on how the fashion industry directly impacts the environment. To add to this, consequences of toxic dyes make it even worse.
When related to mass production where inputs and outputs are multiple, the problem of water pollution becomes an immediate urgency that will have irreversible consequences on future generations if ignored. Actions towards global warmth like the Global Climate Strike with marches and protests that took place in September 2019 in several cities around the world demonstrate people’s awareness of the issue. A significant change is on the rise.
In the same manner, final consumers can also play a more active role to reverse the trend. Because they are at the end of the supply chain, they can open the way to change by shifting their behavior and seek for durable better-quality products. The supply chain can be described as the route a garment takes from the factory it has been made to the closet of the customer who bought it. Manufacturers ship their orders to clothing companies’ wholesale warehouses, before they are dispatched to retailers and sold in stores to customers.
When garment collections are renewed in store every two or three weeks in the fast fashion model instead of every season in the traditional model, consumers are made to believe they have to purchase the products they see right away before they are gone. This creates an ongoing desire to possess new items, generating a want instead of fulfilling an actual need. It appeals to emotional motives and not reasonable motives.
Indeed, consumers are continuously exposed to advertisement through social media, website trackers, online suggestions that encourage them to buy. As an example of this hyperconsumerism behavior, consumers are usually informed few days before Thanksgiving there will be huge promotions in stores. On Black Friday, they will arrive early, some even before the stores open, to purchase the items they have been luring on for days. Would they purchase them if it was not for the promotions and all the “don’t miss your chance” messages? Probably not. This is why consumers must be proactive by asking themselves if they do need this particular product at this particular moment.
They also must question fashion companies beyond the price tag: where does this item come from? who made it? was this person decently paid? Was this person provided with the basic safety and comfort to achieve his/her work? However, these are questions we do not ask instinctively because we do not see the underlying problems. The garment factories are located in foreign countries on the other side of the world; as far as we are concerned, we are just happy we bought the items on sale.
In response to this kind of hyperconsumerism, some consumers are making smarter choices like donating and buying second-hand clothes. By doing so, they make an altruistic action. Expanding the lifespan of a garment prevents it from being thrown in a landfill and therefore, reduces its ecological impact. It is true mass production serves mass consumption, but what if consumers’ demand created the offer instead?
For this purpose, more consumers are buying from retailers like Everlane. Founded in 2010, the San Francisco-based clothing retailer chose total transparency. They publicly share information about their production process, clearly explain the breakdown of their prices for each category of garments and disclose the factories where their products are made. Everlane was among the first ones to adopt a radically different way of thinking: while mass production is based on the velocity of renewals and consumers’ appetite for new trends, they believe we should “buy less but better”.
This is a very daring statement since it implies that the company has to spend more time and resources than its competitors to source the best quality, sustainable and ecological raw materials in order to provide higher quality outputs. In spite of the higher price of their products compared to mass-produced products, more and more consumers are responsive to their approach, as the awareness of sustainability has been growing over the past few years. However, some customers still remain concerned and skeptical about the price even though they are thoughtful of durability and ecology. Clearly, not everyone can afford to buy pieces from sustainable retailers, nor has the time to search for alternative sustainable brands. Rome was not built in a day; we have to start somewhere. Because consumers are decision makers about what they buy, they have the power to influence what companies are selling. If consumers ask for durability, high quality, transparency, companies will have no other choice than respond to their demand.
Fast fashion is a destructive business model. The speed at which fast fashion retailers renew their collections to bring new trends is an ecological disaster for the planet and it encourages hyperconsumerist behavior. Nevertheless, it is unfair to put the burden of revolution on consumers’ shoulders, as well it is unfair to solely put the blame on fast fashion companies. There must be actions from both consumers and companies, from both demand and offer sides if we want to make a real responsible change towards more sustainability.
