The Oxymoron of Sustainable Fashion
Francesca Norrington
Over the past few years, sustainability has become an increasingly important topic in the field of design. Yet, the word sustainability arguably has been heavily overused and interpreted in many different ways to the point where it has loss any real sense. In this essay, I am interested in re-evaluating sustainability in the context of fashion, that some consider its polar opposite. It is very difficult to find an exact definition of sustainable fashion, but we can perceive sustainability as “the quality of being able to continue over a period of time” (Cambridge dictionary) and fashion as “a style that is popular at a particular time” (Oxford dictionary). According to these definitions we could ask ourselves to what extent is sustainable fashion a plausible concept bearing in mind that fashion in its nature is temporary?
It is without a doubt that the fashion industry has a very big impact on the environment. According to author James Conca, “Second to oil, the clothing and textile industry is the largest polluter in the world” (2015) and “Nearly 20% of global wastewater is produced by the fashion industry.”(UN Partnership on Sustainable Fashion and the SDGs 2018). Through such information, it is difficult to grasp how such a damaging industry may have a sustainable alternative as every aspect of this industry is deeply rooted in selling something new. When analysing fashion, it is important to distinguish fashion as fulfilling form above function. This distinction is what can be argued as the central cause of the waste created by this industry due to the great part of the products bought being not genuinely needed by the users and merely acquired to fulfil a desire or a want.
Sustainable fashion has become a very prominent topic in recent years, mainly due to consumer pressure. As mentioned by Ecothes, “12.5% of global fashion companies have pledged to make changes to their processes in favour of adopting more sustainable practices by 2020.” (2019) Accordingly, there is a clear shift in the market of fashion as many companies are realising the crisis and the urgency of climate change. Nevertheless, even though changes are being made, such changes cannot transform the nature of fashion. Mere greenwashing will no longer suffice to the consumers, instead, there is pressure to transform the process not just in the materials used, but also to re-design the product’s life cycle from raw material through to production of every component right through to distribution. Nathalie Aurora Lister in her thesis Fashion Me Green, argues that “The success or failure of Ecofashion depends heavily on the acceptance by the consumer of sustainable and ethical consumption.” (11) Critically, many commentators such as Lister view the fashion industry as a two-sided conversation where the consumer is crucial to success and thus is also crucial to the likelihood of the industry’s change. In the concept of Eco-fashion, the brands that are willing to produce sustainable clothing need the consumers to adopt this trend for it to be effective as after all the fashion industry is a business, driven by profit and growth sourced through the consumer.
The fashion industry has grown at an uncontrollable rate and continues to do so in response to global demand. Due to this, trends and styles are constantly shifting requiring excess production leading to excess buying and consequently: waste. As mentioned by Katie Roberts,
[t]he fashion industry has moved to a less sustainable model of operations. We once had four fashionably distinct collections that corresponded with the change of seasons, we now have 52 weeks of the year where any goes and trends come and go as quickly as the life cycle of an internet meme. (2017)
This in itself highlights the growing issue that fashion (even if labelled sustainable) is built on constant turnover. The industry retains a permanent linear economy fueled by consumers and their specific choices. This process arguably allows space for change however this change needs to take place not just in the large retail companies but also within the mind of the consumer and their purchasing choices. We can observe this through Evans Alexander’s poem Fashion:
And now to modes, she is an abject slave;
But bow supreme to fashion’s
idol swell,
And follow modes, though
leading straight to hell.
The tyrant fashion wields
a despot’s sway,
He purse depletes and dims
proud reason’s ray;
(Evans, 1887)
This particular set of stanzas, although written in 1887, is particularly interesting in its relevance to the concept of sustainability today. The poem touches upon the relevant themes of the addictive aspects of fashion set within the products but also in the general design and configuration of the shops and events that market the industry. This demonstrates how fashion in its nature requires an unusual form of addiction within the consumer that cannot coincide with sustainability. Evans further presents the idea of dimming of reason where he suggests that there is a loss of consciousness so to say within the active reflective abilities of the buyer — becoming somewhat at a loss of reason and unable to control her/his choices. It seems to portray the consumer as an inactive being merely consuming unconsciously and fashion as an active being controlling that very consumption. I would argue that for any slight shift to be made, the consumer needs to regain consciousness and take control.
Sustainable fashion, I would suggest is an oxymoron. Yet, we can find certain examples where production, materials and environmental impact, as well as the implications of fast fashion, have been considered. An example of this is House of Sunny, this brand “only produces small runs of each collection in a bid to act against fast fashion” (Williams, House of Sunny). In their philosophy, they work on only designing a set number of two collections a year that coincide with the seasons. Through this very simple process, they are directly tackling what Katie Roberts previously criticised and are forming a new perspective on how we as consumers should buy clothes. Although reasonable in her claim, there are examples where brands have taken into consideration the growing issue of fast fashion and have built a sustainable brand that values quality over quantity. More examples are Zena Presley, “Promoting slow and ethical fashion” (Davis 2019) and Misha Nonoo that works primarily in ‘one demand’ production instead of batch production as well as a more recent example with Gucci, announcing that, “it will cut the number of fashion shows it holds every year in an effort to reduce waste” (BBC, Gucci slashes ‘stale’ seasonal fashion shows).
Further examples where clothing brands have successfully produced clothing through careful and ethical production are Cinta The Label by Amy Sturgis, BITE, Misha Nonoo and more. But, in analysing the strategies and methods of the above-mentioned brands they are in their nature contradictory. Although sustainable in their production, they are not sustainable in their marketing strategies as their entire business relies fundamentally on the manufacturing of desire and thus on the consumer to buy new clothes.
Another example of this is the brand &other stories, I particularly like this brand so I recently joined their mailing list. Although they mention on their website “we want to reduce the environmental footprint in the fashion world and are working to do our part by engaging more circularly and sustainably practices.” (“Values & Sustainability — & Other Stories”), I continually receive emails encouraging me to buy new clothing from a never ending array of choices all of which most likely will be fashionably obsolete within a month. I would argue that this process is not sustainable because although it is claimed that the clothes are sustainable in production, the minor marketing that encourages a regular buying pattern immediately discredits the environmental integrity of the brand.
Such brands like &other stories in contrast to House of Sunny are technically brands that sell fashion that is sustainable but the key difference between the two is the consideration of planet over profit.
Any brand that presents itself as ‘sustainable’, but markets products in an attempt to convince their customers of un-needed clothing are contradictory.
As a result, I would argue that the only way for fashion to become sustainable is for it to no longer be ‘fashion’ as it is today but instead to adopt a function over form philosophy through the active role played by the consumer.
From my perspective and concerning the previous research, fashion as a concept with its current definition cannot be associated with sustainability due to its nature of consumerism and planned obsolescence.
Fashion refers to a style, a constant moving system that is always being updated and requires the systematic renewal of a wardrobe. This process in itself limits the durability of a product.
Furthermore, the fashion industry produces a considerable amount of waste and so at this point even though there is a shift where companies and consumers are taking into consideration their impact, sustainable fashion is not yet a concept that may be applied to such a wasteful and damaging industry. Upon reflection, we can understand that the words sustainability and fashion simply cannot be associated as their meanings are opposites. Fashion demands planned obsolescence whereas sustainability demands durability. There are examples where certain brands have taken into consideration issues such as fast fashion, material use, recycling and more yet these are regularly contradictory in their philosophies as they still depend on the consumer’s need to buy more, continuing to sell a style even if that style is sustainability. Therefore the oxymoron of sustainable fashion is not entirely problematic in its wording so much as it is problematic in its generalisation. However, before we may tackle the concept of a sustainable process of fashion we may first place attention upon the issues of consumerism. After all, the fashion industry is driven by the consumer and her/his choices — until the consumer can be persuaded to regain consciousness and take an active role in her/his purchasing patterns there is little hope of an environmentally friendly approach in the industry.
