Jevon’s Paradox: Circular Economy and Sustainable Fashion
Circular economy and circularity have been buzzwords at the forefront of sustainability discourse amongst non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and corporations. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the circular economy is a systems solution framework based on three principles: eliminating waste and pollution, circulating products and materials of retained value, and regenerating nature. An industry of particular interest in terms of its relationship with circularity is the sustainable fashion industry. Sustainable fashion is a term that is used and overused to identify clothing that was made and exists in a way that should protect the environment and people (although the latter is often left out). Appropriate categorization of sustainable clothing involves the evaluation of the product’s whole lifecycle from the utility of natural resources like water and the production of CO2 emissions to the working conditions and wages of garment workers. In terms of circularity, circular fashion is designed to be easily disassembled to be recycled, remade, and reused while maintaining its highest value. Its production is decoupled from the use of finite resources with non-regenerative and toxic processes and its consumption encompasses the elimination of waste such as microfibers and clothing landfills. These elements reflect a fashion industry that would exist in the utopias that my peers and I previously imagined and blogged about. However, just as we had concluded, this is far from today’s reality.
According to a 2019 McKinsey survey, the online launch of sustainably tagged products among mass-market apparel brands and retailers had increased fivefold since 2017. It is important to note that without company transparency there is no way to guarantee the appropriate labeling of sustainable or circular products, hence the greenwashing phenomenon. Due to this reality, the actual sustainability of some products is to be debated. This means the observed production and consumption increase in these “sustainable” items and collections may just result in the utilization of more resources and the creation of more waste. If the environmental benefit or gains of a partially “sustainable” product does not outweigh its remaining externalities that do not address sustainability (e.g. resource-intensive recycling processes for a partially recycled product), does “sustainable” fashion cause more harm than good? For example, a study found that textile reuse has greater environmental benefits than textile recycling. Specifically, textile recycling processes using fossil fuels for energy show an increase in climate impact. Other “sustainable” fashion options also pose a dilemma. Although rental companies like Rent The Runway eliminate the purchasing of new clothing products, their major source of CO2 emissions comes from shipment to and from customers. Such emissions are said to be offset by carbon credits, a solution that is again up for debate. The skepticism of the carbon credit market comes from the certification of “zombie projects” (unlikely to represent real environmental integrity) and carbon credit project overlap between companies that result in an overestimation of GHG reductions. This false substitution for real climate action is only contributing to the progression of climate change. Finally, there is the thrifting conundrum from its rise in popularity in mainstream media often through “thrift hauls” that pose ethical and environmental concerns. The lower-than-retail-priced clothing items have resulted in an increase in its consumption, triggering price increases that will predominantly affect low-income shoppers. While the resale of clothing items is a more sustainable option than the production of new products, consumer “thrift hauls” combats the initial positive sustainability byproduct from thrifting because it is overconsumption. Interestingly, a study in the Journal of Business Research also found that sustainability efforts within the fashion industry may promote an increase in sales due to a moral self-licensing effect that consumers experience by purchasing “sustainable” clothing. In other words, this notion of moral suasion and guilt-free purchases from sustainably-centered marketing results in more consumption.
Evidently, there is a slippery slope from the development of the sustainable fashion industry into an unsustainable one. These dilemmas within the sustainable fashion industry emerge from Jevon’s Paradox and the Rebound Effect where increasing efficiency leads to an increase rather than a decrease in consumption and the use of resources. Jevon’s paradox claims that in the long term, the rebound effect can dramatically exceed the original gains from initial efficiency. Within the sustainable fashion industry, we have seen such initial efficiency from the environmental benefits of recycling textiles and the renting or resale of clothes (where costs are lowered); however, we also saw that environmental and social harm can evolve from such initial solutions. It is critical that these rebound effects are diligently addressed in order to set the foundation for an airtight circular economy. To mitigate this paradox, retailers must not look at sustainability as an add-on or addition to their brand but rather as an integral part of the functioning of their company and the creation of their products. This way the efficiency gains from such sustainable products will not be combatted by the present or future impact of all the other unsustainable practices and products of the company. This means no exclusive “sustianability” collections or overconsumption and overproduction opportunities, but rather a due diligence evaluation of their current products and supply chain with a strategic plan to make it more circular (e.g. transition to renewable energy). Sustainability needs to be the only option in every circumstance and at every stage.
