Beyond Individual Responsibility: Challenging the Moralistic Narrative of Sustainable Fashion

Fast fashion encompasses a business model focused on the production and sale of low-cost clothing collections that emulate current fashion trends. This approach employs a range of rapid response strategies with three main goals. Firstly, it aims to enhance fashion designs to align with the ever-evolving preferences of consumers. Secondly, it minimises lead times, ensuring restocking of popular styles and swift replacement of underperforming ones. Lastly, it seeks to maximises efficiency in transportation and delivery throughout the supply chain. What results are trendy clothes, with very competitive prices, that tend to go out of style relatively quickly, making them more likely to be discarded sooner by consumers [1].

The prominence of the fast fashion industry is intricately interwoven with individual’s identity formation. The continual and rapid turnover of fashion trends combines with our “continually evolving temporary identities” [1]. With every new style swiftly superseding the old, fast fashion provides the cultural material for our “constantly emerging desires and notions of self” to be expressed. Binkley’s (2008) concept of “multiple selves of evolution” helps us see fast fashion as one resources for producing socially acceptable outcomes [1]. Fast fashion’s business model has replaced “exclusivity, glamour, originality, and luxury” with “massclusivity” while evoking the joys of instant gratification [1]. It has sometimes been referred to as “McFashion” to signal not only the speed at which this gratification is provided, but also reflect on its abusive, mass production. Yet this resonates well for shoppers with desires for self-expression, cultural innovation, exclusivity, frugality, and materialism. The low costs of fast fashion garments make these values more accessible than they would be through sustainable fashion, especially in developing countries. The quick product rotations facilitate and rely on a practice of planned obsolescence Guiltinan (2009) and disposability characterised by a “limited functional life design and options for repair, design aesthetics that eventually lead to reduced satisfaction, design for transient fashion, and design for functional enhancement that requires adding new product features” [1].

To achieve this (more frequent store visits and more items purchased), the current Fast Fashion model requires short lead times, super low prices, and flexible procedures that react spontaneously to changes [2]. And this requires the use of cheap materials, labour, and real estate. The fashion industry would not reach its turnover of 1.3 trillion dollars without the brazen abuse and exploitation of textile workers (mostly women and girls), agricultural workers, undocumented immigrants, and underdeveloped countries in the global south [2]. Workers are often coerced to wages below the minimum or living standard, inhumane working hours, child labour, and hazardous conditions. Several reports have revealed that workers in some of SHEIN’s suppliers were working excessive overtimes (up to 18 hours a day and 75 hours a week) due to the enormous pressure they face to produce tons of clothes quickly.  The horrific Rana Plaza collapse highlighted the hazardous conditions and lack of basic rights that many exploited textile workers are forced to endure. Looking at the environmental implications, the fashion industry contributes between 2% to 8% of global emissions and uses more than 98 million tons of non-renewable resources annually. This includes oil needed to produce synthetic fibres, fertilizers used in cotton plantations, and at least 8000 chemicals for producing, dyeing, and finishing raw fibres and fabrics into clothing fabrics [3] [4]. Additionally, 93 billion cubic meters of water are used annually, approximately 1.2 billion tons of CO2 are emitted, and 500 thousand tons of microplastics end up in our oceans. With clothing production reaching levels 400% higher than they were two decades ago, these social and environmental concerns are likely to worsen.

This is unquestionably a frightening business model, one that is built on relentless consumption and tramples on our ethical concerns. To this, society has been increasingly growing conscious of the ‘anti-ethical’ standards of fast fashion. There is a bubbling “anti-market” stance amongst millennials and today’s youth who have “green values” and are becoming embittered by the thoughtless overconsumption and its consequences for society [1]. Consumers are more aware of how individual consumption reinforces organisational production, creating a never-ending cycle of insatiable hunger. Consumer’s notions of self are becoming wrapped-up in between their cherished 'green values' and the unsettling realization that fast fashion falls short of sustainability. The ambivalence felt towards fast fashion’s potential to be socially and environmentally unsustainable is a significant push to realigning consumers with sustainable fashion [5].

Sustainable fashion emerges as a beacon of hope. Presenting itself as a responsible alternative that prioritizes social and environmental consciousness, while valuing quality and longevity. The longevity and reusability of these garments address the problem of rapid disposal and excess waste perpetuated by the fast fashion industry [4]. Through the principles reuse and recyclability, sustainable fashion extends the lifespan of clothing items (through repair, upcycling, or passing them on to others) and marks a shift from a linear economy, towards a circular economy.

Studies have emerged showing the rising tide of anti-consumerism towards fast-fashion and positive consumer perceptions of sustainable fashion. This has been especially prevalent amongst millennials and Generation Z. A study by Vogue Polska and the Boston Consulting Group found that 75% of Polish consumers claim that sustainability is important to them. Consumers are more discerning about how frequently they purchase clothing, and which brands they purchase from. A study by communication firm Porter Novelli found that consumers are 2/3 more likely to consider and 71% more likely to buy from brands that they associate with purpose-driven words such as “responsible”, “trustworthy” “compassionate”, “transparent” and “ethical.” if the cost and quality were equal as a non-purpose-driven brand. Sixty two percent of consumers said it was important to consider these values even when making an impulse buy. This shows that increasing amount of consumer want fashion brands to align with their ecological identities.

However, several studies show that there is a contradiction between positive attitudes towards sustainability, and the purchasing of sustainable fashion. This suggests the influence of a complex nature of personal and conditional factors. A study by Bamberg’s (2003) explains that environmental and social concern cannot be identified as direct determinants of environmentally ethical behaviour, but only an important indirect determining factor. Research has shown that these contextual or situational factors (i.e., time, opportunity, financial constraints, or the ability to perform a desired behaviour) significantly affect the attitude-behaviour relation.

A framework developed by Stern (2000) proposes that there are certain factors which determine environmentally significant behaviours and identifies four causal variables that are determinant of environmentally significant behaviour: attitudinal, personal capability, contextual and habit and routine factors.

Throughout the research I’ve encountered, there’s a reoccurring relationship between income (and disposable income) and the intent to reconsider one’s ecological footprint. High income consumers have a negative ecological footprint, while low-income consumer have a positive footprint [6]. What does research say about this viewpoint:

1. Bernardes et al. (2018) study amongst Portuguese millennials shows that the extra financial commitment to purchase sustainable apparel to be a significant deterrent/impediment [6].

2. A study by Newman et al. (2014) discovered that when fashion consumers believe they have to give up essential benefits like affordability and quality, they tend to form intentions to avoid sustainable fashion [7].

3. A review of 53 articles by Joshi & Rahman (2015) found that a higher price point always outweighs ethical considerations [8].

4. A qualitative study by Connell (2010) among 26 eco-conscious consumers reveals that a majority of the consumers did not purchase co-conscious apparel due to economic constraints and their perceived limited availability [9].

5. Similarly, Gliem et al., (2013) in a study among 330 consumers with a median income of $50 000 – $100 000 found that for 42.09% of participants, the perceived price of green products was a significant obstacle when contemplating the purchase of green products [10].

6. Through 13 in depth interviews with German participants who were familiar with ethical fashion (and most of whom had work experience), Wiederhold and Martinez (2018), reported that they did not consider purchasing sustainable garments due to their perceived unaffordability in comparison to their limited budgets [11].

7. In an explorative study among 51 participants in focus groups, Johnstone and Tan (2015), found that consumers felt that it was “too hard to be green” due to their price sensitivity and the inconvenience of being ‘green’ [12].

Importantly, all these studies were conducted in the Western or developed countries, among consumers with comparatively higher average incomes, greater disposable incomes, expanding local industries, and vibrant domestic markets. If economic availability is the most common barrier to consumers not purchasing sustainable fashion in these relatively well-off countries, the extremely limited financial capability of the average South African would render the gap between consumer’s social and environmental concerns and purchasing ethical fashion a more pertinent factor. Admittedly, most of these studies suggest that these consumers could be more attentive of available ethical fashion brands they could buy from, the amount of fast fashion items they purchase, and the quality of these items. This could ensure that they spend a similar amount of money on ethical brands as they would on fast fashion brands. However, this accessibility is assumed and not a given for most consumers in the third world. From Stern’s (2000) framework, available technologies are part of the situational variables influencing environmentally significant behaviour, to which Dehosse (2020) adapts it to a more applicable variable of accessibility. For consumers to purchase ethical retail brands, they need to have access to them. Consumers living in rural areas or with ‘limited internet connectivity’, purchasing ethical clothes becomes a significant inconvenience and requires a higher level of effort. Studies show that consumers who are willing to purchase ethical products are constrained by limited accessibility or inconvenience [5].

South Africa has population of just over 60 million. Only 15.9 million individuals are employed and 32. 7% of working age adults are unemployed. Using their Household Affordability Index, the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity group (PMBEJD) indicates 13.8 million people are living below the poverty line of R 663.00 a month. Further, 30. 4 million people are living below the upper poverty line of R 1, 417.00 a month. The 2015 Living Conditions Survey has South Africans spending an average of 5% (about R582) of their annual income on clothing and footwear, which is almost double of what is spent on education. At the same time, poor households - those in Deciles 1 and 2 - are spending more than half of their income on food and non-alcoholic beverages, while higher income households are spending a significantly lower proportion of their income of food (Stats SA). Additionally, South Africa continues to be one the most price sensitive nations in the world with an ultra-competitive retail market and consumers who demand cheap fashion garments. In Nielsen’s latest State of the Retail Nation report, it was found that more than half of the respondents revealed that they choose the best priced products [5]. This only further encourages an avenue of success for fashion retailers offering maximum style at the cheapest possible prices. The continuing growth of Zara, Cotton On, H&M, and Superbalist stores has given South African consumers a larger access to trendy clothing items at affordable prices [5].

Though South Africans have a variety of options from which to purchase clothes, most of these are available in shopping centres in major cities. Most ethical fashion brands are concentrated in Cape Town and Johannesburg shopping centres or are available exclusively online. This unequal distribution serves one half of the South African consumer market, those with high spending power (a majority of whites and newly affluent blacks). Thus, only a small proportion of South African customers have the financial means and accessibility to be able to purchase ethical fashion.

If we were to accept that most money-strapped consumers held positive attitudes towards sustainable fashion, had knowledge about sustainable fashion and where to purchase these items, and had a strong intention to purchase ethical clothing, their limited financial capability and accessibility to these items would be a substantial mediating variable to the actual purchasing of ethical clothing.

Given the challenges faced by lower-income consumers in purchasing ethical fashion, and the centrality of clothing for individual’s personal and cultural identity, it is crucial that we approach moralistic statements about the perils of fast fashion with greater sensitivity. When prominent figures in the fashion industry, like Virgil Abloh and Livia Firth, casually draw snobbish analogies between fast fashion and fast food, it exposes their self-righteousness and a lack of understanding of the socio-demographic realities that consumers endure. These customers are not ‘SHEIN haulers’. They are bargain hunters trying to stretch their overwhelmed budgets so that it covers their necessities. Alexea Johnston astutely points out that “It is through a privileged lens that we demand people to relinquish their individuality and self-worth, for a small environmental impact compared to the companies themselves”. However, this argument is not meant to fuel entitlement. Access to good fashion is not a right.

Even when we do try to purchase ethically, we are not even making a dent:

In a report by The World Resources Institute and the Apparel Impact Institute, it was found that the most impactful methods to reduce the fashion industry’s emissions is to increase energy efficiency and switch to renewable energy in the supply chain [13]. Henrik Sundberg, a climate impact lead at the H&M Group, concurs with this viewpoint when he explains that “The biggest emissions happen when sourcing raw materials and manufacturing fabric and garments”. These observations highlight the urgent need for fashion brands to focus their efforts on reworking their downstream operations within the supply chain, instead of the rampant greenwashing that has been normalized in the industry. Despite bold sustainability commitments, the fashion industry’s efforts have not resulted in any significant environmental and social outcomes. A damning study from the Climate Board revealed that there was a stark contrast between the climate commitments from fashion brands and actual carbon reductions. Upon closer inspection, many of these ‘ethical’ solutions appear more impressive on the surface than in reality. For instance, Zara’s commitment to produce 50% of the clothes it sells with recycled material and “ecologically grown cotton”, or H&M marketing their use of Econyl (a nylon supposedly made from fishing nets and other waste) all sound commendable but require closer scrutiny. Touting organic cotton sourced from India and Bangladesh is deceitful in light of the proven corruption in these industries, and almost all synthetics are unrecyclable and are used in complex textile blends. These are other instances where fashion brands have fallen short of their responsibilities of their environmental and social responsibilities:

• According to the Fashion Transparency report, more than half of fast fashion companies do not disclose information about the factories.

• Despite the plethora of recycling initiatives, The Wired article claims that less than 1% of all clothing is currently recycled into new clothing, while the emissions savings of recycling polyester into polyester are unconfirmed.

• The fashion industry’s recent pivot to downcycled synthetic garments (from PET bottles) with the aim of reducing reliance on fossil fuels, has been found to be a false solution because it exacerbates plastic-pollution and landfills (and incineration). There have been very few investments to scale up fibre-to-fibre recycling [14].

• Most fashion brands have an underwhelming response to the worsening plastic-pollution crises, which only focuses on “end-of-pipe solutions”, rather than dealing with problem at the source [14].

• Walmart, URBN (owner of Urban Outfitters, Free People & Anthropology), LVMH and Kering, Kohls cancelled or suspended orders during the outbreak of the COVID-19 outbreak and declined to release $18 billion in unpaid wages and wage cuts to factory workers. Most brands are yet to commit themselves to ensuring factory workers earn a minimum wage, have security nets, and the right to unionize.

• Several reports found that H&M abandoned their ‘Roadmap towards a fair living wage in the textile industry’ (a campaign committed to ensuring that 850 000 textile workers would be paid a living wage by 2018). Further, a report by Nordea found that if H&M increased the retail price of a shirt by $0.55, it could ensure a living wage to factory workers in Bangladesh.

The sad truth is, there are legitimate processes fast fashion brands can perform to reach sustainable targets (Alden Wicker details several methods to achieve this). But in the absence of legislation and industry standard solutions, there is a lack of willingness to commit to these initiatives. Kurt Kipka, vice president of the Apparel Impact Institute, bemoans that “The reality is, whether the technology is there or not, the demand doesn't exist” [15]. With no pressure to be more transparent or implement sustainable processes, fashion brands merely “invite” and “encourage”, rather than demand their suppliers to set emissions targets. They have used any sustainability campaigns to score green points while guilting customers to take more responsibility than they have. This has allowed the industry to freely increase their already substantial bottom-line, while consumers must scrounge up their limited budgets to save the earth. To make matters worse, fashion brands have been shamelessly selling clothes under misleading sustainability labels and charging consumers more money for the illusion of ethical clothing. This indignity is disheartening for consumers who have made meaningful sacrifices to do their part, only for fashion brands to reap the profits of their pseudo-activism.

A report by Changing Markets investigated the sustainability claims of 46 global fashion brands and found that most of the brands were falsifying their sustainability claims and deceiving customers about their green efforts. The report also found that garments labelled as sustainable were in fact using the same amount of fossil fuel-based materials as ten years ago [14]. 96% of H&M’s sustainability claims flouted green-claims guidelines in some way (based on the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority) and their Conscious Collection was found to have a higher percentage of synthetics when compared to their regular garments (72% versus 61%, respectively) [14]. A Quartz investigation found that H&M blatantly lied about the environmental impact of garments: “For instance, a dress with a water-use score of -20%—as in, it uses 20% more water than average—was listed on H&M’s website as using 20% less.”.

---

Work Cited

1.            Joy, A., et al., Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion theory, 2012. 16(3): p. 273-295.

2.            Richard, M., Fast fashion: the hole in humanity that must be fixed. 2022.

3.            de Aguiar Hugo, A., J. de Nadae, and R. da Silva Lima, Can fashion be circular? A literature review on circular economy barriers, drivers, and practices in the fashion industry’s productive chain. Sustainability, 2021. 13(21): p. 12246.

4.            Muposhi, A. and T. Chuchu, Influencing millennials to embrace sustainable fashion in an emerging market: a modified brand avoidance model perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 2022(ahead-of-print): p. 1-21.

5.            Dehosse, S., A study of ethical fashion consumption. 2020, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

6.            Bernardes, J.P., et al. “Do as I say, not as I do”-a systematic literature review on the attitude-behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y. in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2018. IOP Publishing.

7.            Muposhi, A. and T. Chuchu, Influencing millennials to embrace sustainable fashion in an emerging market: a modified brand avoidance model perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 2022. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print): p. 1-21.

8.            Joshi, Y. and Z. Rahman, Factors affecting green purchase behaviour and future research directions. International Strategic management review, 2015. 3(1-2): p. 128-143.

9.            Connell, K.Y.H., Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel acquisition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2010. 34(3): p. 279-286.

10.         Gleim, M.R., et al., Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of retailing, 2013. 89(1): p. 44-61.

11.         Wiederhold, M. and L.F. Martinez, Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude‐behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. International journal of consumer studies, 2018. 42(4): p. 419-429.

12.         Johnstone, M.-L. and L.P. Tan, Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 2015. 132: p. 311-328.

13.         Sadowski, M., L. Perkins, and E. McGarvey, Roadmap to Net Zero: Delivering Science-Based Targets in the Apparel Sector. World Resources Institute, 2021.

14.         Foundation, C.M., Fashion brands’ addiction to fossil fuels. 2021.

15.         Wicker, A. The fashion industry could reduce emissions-if it wanted to. 2021.