Introduction
The impact of manufacturing on the environment is the subject of countless papers and reports. Among them are such large parts of the economy as energy, transportation, and agriculture. However, none of them are as connected to the current trends in people’s consumption as the fashion industry. Clothing manufacturing and retail united under this term are one of the largest contributors to global pollution (Maiti 2022; Solino, de Lima Teixeira, and de Medeiros Dantas 2020). At the same time, clothing is one of the social aspects people pay attention to in their daily lives, as it represents their status, personality, and style (Domingos, Vale, and Faria 2022). Thus, the societal view of fashion directly impacts the industry, and a change in trends becomes reflected in companies’ policies.
In recent years, the rising attention brought to climate change resulted in a shift in many people’s views of fashion, leading to the establishment of a new movement – sustainable fashion. While the description of this term is broad, it appears to encompass the notions of environmental protection, human rights, and conscious shopping. Many large brands, including H&M, Zara, Nike, and others, seemingly adjusted their practices to this trend, changing their presentation and reporting on better practices. Nevertheless, research demonstrates that “sustainable” does not equate to anti-climate change action, which is diluted by growth-driven economic strategies. Currently, sustainable fashion is not defined in national or global policy, and this term is largely misused to manipulate customer behavior without delivering real change to the environment.
Background: Fashion Industry and the Environment
The problem of polluting industries is not new, but the changes in people’s consumption of clothing are particularly troubling. Fashion remains one of the most impactful industries on the world’s environment. More than 60 million metric tons of various clothing items were consumed globally in 2019, and this number continues to rise quickly as consumption in developed countries has increased by more than 400% in the last two decades (Maiti 2022). This number does not include the apparel that reached the store but was not sold to people, ending up in landfills or being incinerated. The purchased items share a similar outcome, as more than half of all purchased apparel goes to the landfill (Dunfree 2018; Štefko and Steffek 2018). Accounting for the clothes that do not leave the store, this number rises to more than 80% (Dunfree 2018). Therefore, the industry produces a significant volume of product that becomes discarded without the ability to be repurposed or remade into something else.
The introduction of synthetic fibers in the industry has led to another major issue – microplastics. Such materials as nylon, acrylic, polyester, and others do not biodegrade, similar to organic fabrics. Instead, they break down slowly, becoming small pieces of plastic fiber that pollute the water, being consumed by marine life and, eventually, people (Maiti 2022). More than a third of all microplastics found in the ocean come from synthetic fabrics (Brewer 2019). This means that the problem of microplastics is directly connected to the fashion industry.
Apart from that, the process of producing and transporting clothes requires enormous amounts of materials and generates waste. Among the major issues is water consumption, as one cotton shirt can require about 3,000 liters (or 700 gallons) of water to be made (Reichart and Drew 2019). Wastewater – the result of manufacturing – pollutes bodies of water near factories, and approximately 20% of all wastewater in the world comes from the fashion industry (Brewer 2019). It should be noted that most companies outsource their production to a small number of countries (Brewer 2019; Dixon 2019). As a result of wastewater dumping, these regions have a high concentration of untreated bodies of water, which makes the water unusable and even toxic. Combined with the fact that such developing countries do not have the financial means to clean wastewater, it becomes a national issue.
Another issue is carbon emissions, which are directly tied to climate change and rising temperatures. The production of garments contributes about 10% of emissions globally, as it is an energy-intensive process (Pucker 2022). Manufacturing requires energy for the machines and petroleum for synthetic fibers, while the delivery of created goods also needs fuel. As noted above, outsourcing increases waste during all stages of production.
The industry also has many social problems both in terms of production and consumption. First, the need for large amounts of clothing to be produced at a cheaper rate has led to many companies moving their manufacturing plants to countries with lax labor laws and low wages (Dixon 2019). Research shows that, in such countries as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, and more, there exist instances of forced and child labor in the industry (Maiti 2022). Laborers, primarily young women, get paid extremely small wages that do not support access to basic needs and facilities (Maiti 2022; Reichart and Drew 2019). Thus, the industry also contributes to the economic disparity in developing countries.
Finally, another social aspect of the fashion industry is related to its consumers, whose purchasing decisions are both guided by and influence the industry. To satisfy the changing needs of consumers, companies work to increase the speed of manufacturing and the output of new collections each year. At the same time, by offering low prices and low-quality items, the businesses contribute to frequent purchases of clothing and easy regular wardrobe changes. The mix of the mentioned above factors makes the fashion industry incredibly impactful on the environment through the combination of direct and indirect influences.
Sustainability, Fast Fashion, and Slow Fashion: Definitions
The impact of the fashion industry on the environment and the drive for faster production and mass consumption has been reported on in mass media, leading to a change in consumption ethics. The new movement became related to the term “sustainability,” and such new definitions as “fast fashion” and “slow fashion” were introduced. First, the described above harmful drive for mass consumption and quick manufacturing are often linked to the term “fast fashion.” While the description of this idea is broad, fast fashion mainly implies that clothes are trendy and cheap, but they were produced without any regard for social or environmental impact on the planet (Reichart and Drew 2019). Most of these items are not made in the countries where they are bought, and the materials are low-quality, synthetic, and not sturdy. However, the term also describes the industry’s approach to clothing as a whole – the production costs are cut as much as possible, while the collections in stores are changed as often as every other week.
Second, the term “sustainable fashion” refers mostly to the manufacturing process; however, it is also vague. For consumers, a sustainably produced garment can mean that it was manufactured locally, workers were paid fairly, and materials were sourced in environmentally-friendly ways (Ernest 2021). However, any one of these factors and other similar elements may be used by brands to declare their closing sustainable. As the idea behind sustainable fashion is relatively new, it is not documented in any official documents, making the use of this term very broad.
Finally, the last term is “slow fashion,” and this notion encompasses the idea of sustainability but adds some style elements and a consumer outlook on buying garments. In contrast to fast fashion, slow fashion describes companies that pay attention to the manufacturing process, transportation, workers’ rights, and materials used. Additionally, slow-fashion garments are expected to be of higher quality and last longer. Brands usually focus on casual and “trendless” designs to combat the need to update one’s wardrobe repeatedly. As a result, the ideas behind slow fashion also touch on people’s consumption habits, advocating for less frequent purchases and reduced consumption overall (Brewer 2019). Therefore, while sustainable and slow fashion are similar terms, the former refers only to clothes, and the latter is a social movement against overconsumption.
Issues in the World of Sustainable Fashion
As noted in the description of the term, sustainable fashion is entering the mission statements of companies to fulfill the needs of clients, but its use is vague. The ideas included in sustainability clash with the basic foundation of all for-profit ventures – to increase the revenue and growth of the company (Pucker 2022). Nevertheless, consumers want more sustainable clothing due to the rising concern about the environment and the growing impact of climate change (Pucker 2022). As a result, enterprises may include sustainability in their value statement and update some of their practices without fully committing to the notion of slow fashion. Moreover, in some cases, sustainability is not achieved in any way, becoming a “buzzword” rather than a real part of the business.
Transparency and Greenwashing
The first potential issue of misusing sustainability is the lack of transparency in companies’ accountability reports. This problem exists due to the businesses’ need for profit and the absence of clear definitions of what can be declared sustainable. For example, H&M is a brand that has been massively critiqued for its fast fashion practices – the company offers a new collection of clothing every 3 to 4 months and changes some items every week (Pucker 2022). The garments at the store are cheap, and most items are produced overseas, which implies high carbon emissions and water consumption.
As a response to the growing popularity and demand for sustainable clothing, the company has created a collection called “Conscious,” which is described as containing “more sustainable materials” (Ernest 2021). However, it is not explained how “sustainable” materials are produced and whether the company includes workers’ rights in this definition. Moreover, the company’s idea of sustainability does not align with slow fashion, as H&M continues to produce vast quantities of clothing, including in its sustainable collections, thus driving growth rather than conscientious purchasing. This practice and many similar instances are called “greenwashing” – when an initiative has the appearance of an eco-friendly program without the substance of one.
Greenwashing may also constitute a lack of transparency in reporting the company’s environmental impact. For instance, reports may not represent the emission rates truthfully, as most retail companies do not own manufacturing plants and outsource most of the emission-heavy processes to other businesses (Ernest 2021). Moreover, companies may not disclose the specific elements of manufacturing and sourcing, such as where the material is grown and how it is handled, as in the example described above.
Recycling
Apart from providing vague or incomplete information, companies may also contribute to overconsumption by misusing the idea of a cyclical economy. In slow fashion, it is also noted that second-hand clothing, reusing, and repurposing old apparel for new garments are suggested to combat overproducing. Several companies have adopted this principle into their programs and introduced recycling programs. They take in customers’ old clothing and state that good-quality items will find another owner to prolong their use. However, in reality, these initiatives are another way to increase consumption and reduce the social pressure on individuals to buy less.
One can return to the example of H&M – the company has a recycling program in which clients can bring in used clothing and get coupons or other perks in return. It is promised that the recycled clothes will be donated to thrift shops, a portion of the garments will be recycled into new clothes, and only the most worn items will be thrown out (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). However, studies show that most items donated through this program are transported directly to the landfill, negating the program’s idea entirely (Dunfree 2018; Pucker 2022). Therefore, corporate-sponsored programs that make the brand appear more sustainable do not bring any meaningful change to the state of the industry.
Materials and Financial Barriers
Nevertheless, even if a company follows most sustainability principles and is transparent in its environmental impact, it still can contribute to pollution or encounter barriers to business stability. As noted above, the use of resources in manufacturing is a major issue in sustainability, and some companies choose to approach this problem with novel technical solutions. Some businesses, such as Nike and other shoe manufacturers, use new materials, including recycled synthetics and “vegan” leather from organic and synthetic materials (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). Regardless of the companies’ claims, these products made from synthetics still enter the retail industry and are likely to end up in a landfill, contributing to pollution (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). Moreover, the production of these items is costly, and only large corporations can manage to make a profit out of such innovative ideas. Therefore, to maintain the appearance of a sustainable brand, companies need to make the product desirable and produce enough to match the expenses of design and manufacturing.
Consumer Behavior
Finally, the ideas behind sustainable fashion do not deter consumers from buying less clothing. In contrast, they are focused on advocating for purchasing specific types of garments. Therefore, a major social issue surrounding sustainable clothing is its focus on changing consumer habits without challenging overconsumption (Pinnock 2018). Such initiatives as fashion rentals and thrift shops claim to have a smaller impact on the environment due to the lack of clothes manufacturing in the process (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). Nonetheless, these businesses continue to sell or rent cheap, low-quality goods that go to landfill, similar to new items purchased from fast fashion brands.
At the same time, people may be less reluctant to buy or rent more clothing due to the appearance of the practice as ethical and sustainable. The hidden cost of transportation, washing, and other preparatory steps result in a small difference between wearing new and used clothing (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). A similar problem can be attributed to brands that can contribute to overconsumption by using sustainability as a marketing technique. A person can feel more responsible by purchasing garments from sustainable brands, even if the purchase is spontaneous or unnecessary (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). Therefore, the main issue of overproduction of clothes that later go to landfill is not resolved.
Benefits of Sustainable and Slow Fashion
Although sustainable fashion appears to have many issues that still make the fashion industry a substantial contributor to pollution, it has some social and environmental benefits. First, the idea of sustainable fashion raises people’s awareness of the problems that persist in the clothing industry. In particular, people may also educate themselves on how clothing is made, in what conditions garment workers have to work, and what environmental impact each item has (Ernest 2021; Pucker 2022). As a result, increased discussion of sustainability can lead to more attention to human rights and environmental causes, improving advocacy and ensuring the creation of new movements against fast fashion.
Another potential benefit can be attributed to slow fashion, which evolved out of sustainability. In contrast to sustainable fashion, slow fashion incorporates anti-consumption ideas and changes people’s perception of the clothing industry in a more conscious and human-centered way (Ernest 2021; Didonato 2022; Pucker 2022). The progression of this movement can be viewed as its strong side because the lack of change from corporations inspires people to demand more from businesses and increase their knowledge of environmental protection.
Solutions and Opportunities for the Future
The problems outlined above call for solutions to be devised and implemented to combat the issues plaguing the fashion industry. The main concern with sustainability that leads to other problems is the lack of definition, leading to the term’s misuse and misinterpretation by manufacturers and consumers. It is crucial to move away from the concept of sustainability and focus on metrics and scientific terms that clearly outline the goals that a business needs to reach to minimize its negative impact on the environment (Ernest 2021; Didonato 2022; Pucker 2022). For example, Pucker (2022) suggests quantitative reports that do not have any unnecessary information, delivering transparent rates of change instead. Moreover, legislative change is necessary to regulate the use of terms and encourage innovation and positive change through restrictions and subsidies (Pucker 2022). Overall, the idea of slow fashion can become a foundation for future environmentally-conscious generations that represent a new approach to the economy.
Conclusion
The fashion industry is one of the main contributors to climate change, and its impact continues to grow together with people’s demand for new clothing. The industry’s processes are optimized for cheap materials and labor, creating a hostile business model to workers and the environment. These practices result in stores with frequently updated collections and low prices – which is described as fast fashion. To combat the industry’s detrimental effect on nature, the idea of sustainability was introduced, encompassing notions of local production, high-quality materials, and human rights protection. Nevertheless, the commercialization of the term has led to it becoming diluted, vague, and inconsistent across the industry. Slow fashion, a more socially aware view of the industry, calls to retire sustainability and focus on transparency and anti-overconsumption as the main ways of mitigating the industry’s impact on the planet.
References
Brewer, Mark K. 2019. “Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and Responsibility.” Laws 8(4): 24.
Didonato, Jill. 2022. “Slow Fashion Will Shift Your Relationship with Clothes.” Byrdie.
Dixon, Emily. 2019. “The Problem with ‘Sustainable Fashion.’” CNN Style.
Domingos, Mariana, Vera Teixeira Vale, and Sílvia Faria. 2022. “Slow Fashion Consumer Behavior: A Literature Review.” Sustainability 14(5): 2860.
Dunfree, Nell. 2018. “The Troubled Second Life of Donated Clothes.” Scienceline.
Ernest, Maya. 2021. “The Sad Reality of Sustainable Fashion: ‘Exaggerated, False, or Deceptive.’” Input.
Maiti, Rashmila. 2022. “Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact.” Earth.org.
Pinnock, Olivia. 2018. “The Problem with the Term ‘Ethical Fashion.’” Forbes.
Pucker, Kenneth P. 2022. “The Myth of Sustainable Fashion.” Harvard Business Review.
Reichart, Elizabeth, and Deborah Drew. 2019. “By the Numbers: The Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of ‘Fast Fashion.’” World Resources Institute.
Solino, Lívia Juliana Silva, Breno Moore de Lima Teixeira, and Ítalo José de Medeiros Dantas. 2020.“The Sustainability in Fashion: A Systematic Literature Review on Slow Fashion.” International Journal for Innovation Education and Research 8: 164–202.
Štefko, Róbert, and Vladimira Steffek. 2018. “Key Issues in Slow Fashion: Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.” Sustainability 10(7): 2270.