Each year billions of dollars are shredded and engulfed in flames as a way to keep the fashion industry exclusive and its products at market price. These dollars are made of cotton, nylon, polyester and a stew of toxic chemicals to replicate runway looks. In a society riddled with the notion that consumerism is our duty, we often fall victim to a buy, buy, buy mentality. Leading us to fall for the trap set by our Capitalist Society in collaboration with the fashion industry to make us believe that we need to keep up with the trends. These trends have a name, fast fashion. These trends are not only taking away from personal expression through style and material choice, but they are creating a toxic relationship between fashion and the natural world. 21ST-CENTURY FAST FASHION IS CAUSING DETRIMENTAL HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT DUE TO THE USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS, THE INCREASE OF WATER POLLUTION AND THE DEVASTATING BULK OF TEXTILE WASTE PRODUCED IN THE PROCESS FROM CONSTRUCTION TO DISPOSAL. Aggressive attention to alternatives assessments is how this sicking cyclical system will be brought to its knees.
PALASH KHAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
Fast fashion was born in the late 1990s as online shopping and loitering in malls while munching on soft pretzels became a favorite activity of the low rise jeans-wearing population who wanted runway looks for department store prices. This rise in demand from the public created the perfect storm for fast fashion’s ill practices to take over the clothing market. Taking advantage of laborers abroad became a critical element for fast fashions success story “[M]any mass brands force factories in countries like Bangladesh and India to compete against each other on pricing. Because the manufacturers want the business so badly, they play ball, agreeing to lower and lower rates for their work” (Brooke). The use of cheap, wasteful, synthetic materials played a key role too, but what really takes the cake in terms of what element fostered fast fashion’s success is the encouragement of the throwaway culture pushed by the fashion industry. The fashion industry is responsible for encouraging us to buy the newest looks at the lowest prices and guilty of manufacturing without asking themselves “is that planned obsolescence compatible with sustainability?” (Massey, 3).
Teenagers shopping | Source: Shutterstock
H&M is one of the clothing manufacturers leading fast fashion’s polyester posse. “H&M is the world’s third-largest clothing retailer...best known for its speed and reaction time” (Leonard, 116). Their quick reaction time to make new clothes on-trend, partnered with extremely low prices is the death sentence to fast fashion heaven for those who want to look like a million bucks for the price of $10. H&M is known to contract with the cheapest manufacturing companies they can, and many of them. Working with multiple factories allows them to never fall behind on production and continue to push out new style after new style to meet customer demand. Because it’s common knowledge to the public that H&M uses poor quality materials, they have created a ‘Conscious - Sustainable Style’ clothing line. “H&M launched the clothing conscious collection initiative worldwide in 2013 and promotes a sustainable concept in ethical consumers in retailing. Consumers can return the old apparel products (any brand and any condition) to all H&M stores across 54 countries. In return, consumers can get a 15% off coupon for their next purchase. By offering rewards, less ethical consumers are encouraged to return the old apparel products” (Shen, 3.4). With initiatives like this rising in popularity, there is hope for a future of more sustainable fashion, the trick is, it can’t be fast.
As more companies are pushing the narrative that being environmentally conscious as a consumer is trendy, we see initiatives in these fast fashion megastores trying to save face and stay a main competitor by implementing conscious clothing lines. “Those with an interest in fashion and shopping are likely to seek new knowledge regarding clothing products, which leads to greater curiosity about eco‐apparel and ultimately a greater propensity to purchase [environmentally friendly clothing]” (Gam). Because environmentally friendly and ethical sourced clothing lines can sell out via Instagram ads, these megastores are having to catch up to the changing priorities of fashionistas around the globe. The power of social media and cultural influences can not be ignored in regards to fast fashions rise, and hopefully, its downfall.
“We believe a greener future is a better future. Together, if we make small changes…”
-Timberland
While there are brands, like the previously mentioned H&M that are notorious for disregarding the health of the planet with futile attempts at proving their loyalty to the environment by offering “sustainable” cotton basics. There are brands like Back Beat Co. that live in the same space of fashion-forward, youthful style that sincerely considers mother earth.
The “about us” page on the Black Beat Co website claims “We incorporate environmentally friendly practices in our designs by using low-impact goods like GOTS-certified organic cotton, recycled cotton, hemp, and tencel. We also use 100% post consumer recycled mailers and clothing bags for shipping” (Back Beat Co.).The site’s use of bold language is fitting for the company's bold commitment to deplete the fast fashion market and encourage small scale production operations using low impact materials.
“LOW IMPACT, HIGH COMFORT, That’s what we’re all about.”
-backbeat.co
Black Beat Co, is a brand that pushes ads on Instagram and Facebook with their environmentally conscious mission being at the forefront of their campaign. Many other brands do the same, even those that don’t commit to such values in reality. This begs the question, are these brands considering the environment because it is truly at the core of their brand’s identity or are they pushing this mantra because it sells? The next question then being, should we care? Does it matter why a company is working to alleviate their environmental impact and encourage socially and environmentally respectful customers? If the answer is that yes, we should care, because it’s not coming from the ‘right’ place, we are gatekeeping and determining who gets to be a ‘true’ conscious consumer. This is a danger in the fight against fast fashion and one that will make all living things the losers, if we don’t allow everyone to play a role in bettering the environment, to whatever degree they are willing and or capable.
[C]onsumers are showing increasing concern for the environment and they are willing to pay premium prices for eco-fashion and apparel products” (Choi). This emerging awareness is causing the fast fashion industry to reevaluate and make changes. Unfortunately, if this qualm is approached with risk assessment, fast fashion production will be perpetuated thanks to the adverse effect prioritization that is risk assessment. In this situation, risk assessment says, ‘keep up the poor practices, it works. We sell therefore make money and have happy fashionable customers.’ The issue that now needs to be considered by these fast fashion producers is that some of their consumers are experiencing growing pains as they try to justify their environmentally reckless purchases. In this scenario, cotton is risk assessment elixir for the sickness that is fast fashion. Deepening the idea that not everyone gets to be a conscious consumer increases the rift that sits between the fashion industry and the materials used to make these toss away garments.
Naturally occurring materials such as cotton, wool, and hemp are long-lasting and sustainable when locally sourced but tend to be more expensive than synthetic materials. Which leads the manufacturer of fast fashion styles to choose the less expensive options that come with elevated environmental impacts. The most common synthetic material that is used in fast fashion is polyester, a plastic made with crude oil. When washed, it releases mass amounts of microplastics into the waterways which can harm marine life as well as the humans who will drink the affected water, as the microplastics are often too small to be filtered out.
A study conducted by the University of Plymouth found that “each cycle of a washing machine could release over 700,000 microscopic plastic fibers into the environment” (Maddy White). With microfibers being released at this rate it is no doubt that there are serious consequences for buying cheap, synthetic clothing. “Consumers want garments to last a reasonable life in relation to their expectations, which are influenced by material and garment quality, how frequently it will require laundering, care processes, maintenance, style, fashion trends, brand, purchase price and considerations of the frequency and intensity of wear in its intended context of use” (Maddy White). Although this is what the consumer wants, it is not how consumers spend their money, which perpetuates the fabrication of fast fashion styles.
In order to make consumer wants realities, fashion producers will have to reevaluate and come at the industry with fierce alternatives, “including the option of not doing something, that is healthier for humans and the environment than the existing means for meeting that need” (Rossi, Tickner, Geiser). In order to abolish the flawed fashion industry systems that are currently being perpetrated by past and present risk assessment practices. Environmentally conscious and forward-thinking brands can lead the way for the fast fashion brands that want to stitch up the wounds they have caused. The most affordable, easy to understand, realistic and efficient way to make these changes happen is through “alternatives assessment [,] a robust yet practical framework for evaluating and identifying safer chemicals, materials, and products” (Rossi, Tickner, Geiser). With the alternatives assessments completed, the companies can then get feedback from real people, who are tasked with making purchasing decisions every day. These people can tell the companies what they think of the different alternatives, creating a dialogue, and a solution that will be met with gratitude and familiarity. Alternatives assessments are easy to understand and encourage engagement from those conducting the assessments and those affected by the outcomes.
It is a disappointment that there is not a neatly packaged solution to the hurt fast fashion brings to the environment tied with a bow to be offered to all of the 21st-century fast fashion producers. To show them how to alleviate the toxic chemicals, water pollution and the masses of textile waste that come along with the industry's production. Luckily, there is an almost as simple way to come up with solutions, a framework called alternatives assessment. “The goal of assessment is information-based decision making” (Walvoord, 3). If alternatives assessment is used to revamp the fashion industry's current environmental and social impacts, more fashionistas will be wearing high quality, low impact, fashionable clothing. All without bringing more ill fortune to the environment than is necessary. This would make for a healthier world with more opportunities for clothing to be worn and loved in years to come. The fall of fast fashion is contingent on our wallets, even if that wallet is from a factory in Bangladesh.
Giftsformen.io
Works Cited
Brooke, Eliza. “'The True Cost' Is a Jarring Look at the Human Casualties of Fast Fashion.” Fashionista, 28 May 2015, fashionista.com/2015/05/the-true-cost.
Choi, Tsan-Ming. “Apparel and Accessories Manufacturing.” The World of Fashion, 2011, doi:10.5040/9781501304309.ch-020.
Gam, Hae Jin. “Are Fashion‐Conscious Consumers More Likely to Adopt Eco‐Friendly Clothing?” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 2011, www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13612021111132627/full/html.
PETRE, Aureliana-Loredana. “The Impact of Alternative Assessment Strategies on Students.” Proceedings of the Scientific Conference AFASES, vol. 2, May 2017, pp. 157–160. EBSCOhost, doi:10.19062/2247-3173.2017.19.2.22.
Shen, Bin. “Sustainable Fashion Supply Chain: Lessons from H&M.” MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 11 Sept. 2014, www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/9/6236/htm#sec3-sustainability-06-06236.
Walvoord, Barbara E. Fassler. Assessment Clear and Simple: a Practical Guide for Institutions, Departments, and General Education. Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Imprint, 2010.
White, Maddy. “Fast Fashion Isn't the Problem; Synthetic Fast Fashion Is.” The Manufacturer, 2018, www.themanufacturer.com/articles/fast-fashion-isnt-the-problem-synthetic-fast-fashion-is/.
No comments:
Post a Comment