Many argue that the advent of fast fashion has "saved" the fashion industry. In America, where less than 10% of the population is knowledgeable about couture designers, it has meant a whole new way of getting name recognition to the masses. For many young designers, such as Proenza Schouler who debuted their line for Target last winter, it is an opportunity to jump-start their career and finance their business. Additionally, the affordability of designer fashion has democratized the industry, making it accessible to more than the fashion-obsessed and the very rich.
However, arguments against the plebeian production of fashion have certainly mounted. For one, there is a significant amount of waste involved in all this consumption - the fashion industry is second only to agriculture in water usage. Over 8,000 chemicals are used to turn raw materials into fashion. In 2006, people were buying a third more clothing then they were in 2002. The increased demand has put momentous pressure on the suppliers, and often gets taken out unfairly on the workers. The new "value" fashion industry has doubled in size over the last 5 years; the growth is simply enormous while the implications of these rapid changes to the trade are largely being ignored.
I think there are several market weaknesses rearing their head. Externalities span from environmental waste to pressure on workers to work harder, faster, longer and without pay increase. Additionally, there is an information asymmetry in that most consumers don't have a clue where their clothing comes from or the effect their consumption has on these different stakeholders. There is also a culture factor present in that it is hard to change people; people will always be upwards aspiring. They want to touch some of the luxury they long for and if that means buying a Jimmy Choo H&M clutch for $45, then so be it. I have also heard it argued that there is a moral depravity issue at hand with fashion, as in why are we even buying clothing when one can go to a thrift shop and buy something that already exists because fashion doesn't matter. I disagree. Fashion most certainly does matter, it is a form of currency in a way in our competitive culture; who in their right mind is going to hire you for a serious job if you come to the interview dressed in an 80's power suit with shoulder pads, or an ill-fitting suit? I think fashion matters a great deal, and that people who immerse themselves into following it shouldn't be punished.
Some solutions have been offered to the fast food mentality of fast fashion. Organizations have sprung up to address the issue, notably the Ethical Fashion Forum in the UK and FutureFashion sponsored by Earth Pledge in the US. These non-profits seek to sign on designers to commit to using more sustainable means of production; so far, FutureFashion has had great success (counting among their "designers" Donatella Versace, Diane Von Furstenburg, Burberry, Thakoon, Yves Saint Laurent and many more) and presented their own runway show at New York Fashion Week in 2008 with sustainable looks sponsored a variety of designers. These organizations seek to encourage use of natural fabrics, recycled material and high quality products, as well as create fair guidelines for garment workers. They also lobby designers to refrain from partaking in designing lines for companies such as H&M.
The success and publicity that a return to high quality pieces with longevity and use organic materials has garnered in the industry is promising, though by no means a total solution. One problem is that studies have shown that only 1% of the US population would buy a more expensive "green clothing" article over a regular clothing article. The sad truth is that Americans don't care enough to sacrifice their cheap quick clothes. A smart solution would be for the clothing industry to install some regulations on itself before the government does. These regulations could dictate the chemicals that are allowed and those off limits, ethical sources for fabric, production plants who treat their employees fairly and some kind of an incentive for using recycled or organic materials. I think that once consumers expand their green awareness - as they are everyday - eventually the fashion industry will come under fire as well. Before that though, I think executives need to look at their business model and find ways to cut back the number of lines or looks they release each season. The rate they are operating - too much, too fast, too cheap - simply will not hold up.
Hm, interesting.
ReplyDeleteWhy SHOULD Fashion matter? You say it is because people will judge you for not keeping up, but isn't that a bit of a tautology? To stretch this to the point of silliness, you could say: "Fashion matters because people think it matters, and if they think it matters, then it It is a different thing to say fashiond DOES matter, and fashion SHOULD matter. If job interviewers only hire people who are White or male, then race and gender do matter, but really SHOULD they?
In fact, you present fashion's meaning as a very competitive thing... would Rawls say this is the TYPE of society we want, in which people are having to compete for status using their clothes? Who wins and who loses in this system? SHOULD those people win and lose?
It seems to me that at root, the environmental problem isn't so much that people wear clothes, or that they attempt to express themselves, or express social meanings through clothes, but that the fashion system leads them to want to change their clothes at very regular intervals - presumably every year, or more often - in any event, in far less time than it takes for the clothes to wear out. I think a lot of what you are talking about is the speed of this churn through which people go through their wardrobes, which requires tons and tons of fabric to be made and assembled.
Clearly it is in the fashion industry's interest to encourage this rapid purchase cycling, because that way they sell more clothes, have more revenue, and are presumably more profitable. And if these same high volumes are maintained, presumably they can even bring more production facilities online and reduce the stress on their workers. It is the large quantities of resources that go into assembling the products that account for these sales (and unsold stocks), and are then rapidly disposed of that seem more like the problem.
So perhaps a "solution" would be to encourage more "classic" fashions that don't change so quickly... But such a solution is exactly one that the industry itself is not going to propose - they instead seem more interested in recycling more, and using less synthetic fabrics (sub-point, are natural or organic fabrics really better? Presumably it takes a lot of energy to grow and fertilize and harvest the cotton they are made from, to feed the sheep, etc... although the sheep are presumably being raised anyway for meat, so that might not be an additional cost - until it gets dyed I suppose). But there is a basic question, and it's a technical one, of whether the solutions they are proposing will make a big enough difference when all the contingencies play out, and the numbers are all added together. I don't know about that, and I suspect you'd need some real industry insiders to be able to tell you. But if recycling and natural fabrics do not make so much difference (let's just assume for the moment), then does their campaign to reform themselves amount to nothing more than a greenwashing job that is trying to play on those who find eco-friendliness fashionable? I have no idea, I merely put the question out there.
Sorry, first paragraph got a little mangled there.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, very interesting stuff. A lot of stimulating things to think about there.
I agree that the fashion industry should quickly come up with a way to regulate itself before the government intervenes. If the government feels obligated to set regulations, it will completely distort market efficiency for the fashion industry. For example, if the government decided to set higher taxes on needed materials (i.e. non –sustainable synthetic materials) or on chemicals such as non-eco-friendly dyes, the cost of producing clothing made with said materials with rise. As a result, the clothing industry will minimize the amount of products made with these now costly materials; which in turn cripples the industries’ productivity.
ReplyDeleteOne way the fashion industry could save itself from this spiraling path toward government regulation is to simply change the direction of the trend. The fashion industry has major influence on what people deem “what’s Hot and what’s Not.” One could even go as far as to say that the fashion industry dictates (on a large scale) what people wear. With this being the case, the fashion industry could really push this idea of being Eco-Friendly Fashion forward.
According to an article I have recently read, this idea of being eco friendly has already begun to take off in the fashion industry. Leading fashion companies such as the USA’s Ecolor, have already made some changes toward more sustainable practices by using vegetable dyes for coloring their garments. If the fashion industry starts to adapt more environmentally friendly practices as this, the consumers will adapt and follow the trend as well.
But then this raises the question: “How long would this trend last?”
If the fashion industry finds a way to embed this idea of eco-friendliness into the culture of fashion, the trend will more than likely remain forever.
article link: http://www.gracenglamour.com/eco-friendly-is-the-new-fashion-statement/
I totally see your point, Dr. Gunz, that the fashion industry would never propose or advocate for a new model of fashion that wouldn't benefit themselves (ie the example of return to "classic style") and I suppose it was rather naive of me to suggest they would. However, I think that I am probably like a lot of fashion lovers and members of the industry, who naively believe that they ARE doing the right thing or making changes that will genuinely improve the environment.
ReplyDeleteI think you would find that the fashion industry, much more so than other areas of business, is made up of idealists, dreamers, whimsical people and artists. These types of people probably have a very difficult time seeing the panoramic view of consequences of the industry. I think for them, "green" is a t-shirt made of organic cotton with a witty phrase by Marc Jacobs and sold for a three digit amount. They think a return to old-fashioned methods of creating clothes that mean less waste and a lower quantities is a solution to the whole mess.
I have to admit that I failed to look at the situation with as wide a scope as you did, a failure I think many people fall prey too. However, when reading your comment I got this vision in my head of how a world would look with heavy restrictions on fashion and a return to strictly "classical looks". I can't imagine a world with everyone going around in drab grays, beiges, and dark colors. I think the tone a lot of fashion publications and houses have taken in the wake of global economic meltdowns and the growing threat of global warming has been one of upbeat optimism in the face of serious gloom. And I don't know if this could be considered an argument in favor of the resilience of fashion or expansions of the industry or whatever, but I think that they are more important now than ever before. The colors, exoticism, and excitement of fashion lately has represented a break from the daily diatribes of bleak realism.
I realize that not everyone requires a good shoe to feel uplifted, or to browse through a whimsical fashion shoot to see that the future may look brighter, but for certain audiences fashion is equivalent to hope. I realize that they are not perhaps the most accountable or logical industry, but I would suggest that they are attempting to curtail and remedy their practices. They are attempting not to compromise what they stand for while at the same time be more conscious of their impact on the earth. This is the point at which I hit a roadblock in the thought process....I cannot fathom a way this world could ever be Rawlsian in its equality. I can't begin to see where we go from here...
Interesting thoughts people. Agreed that fashion is an unusual industry made up of some unusual people (see the movie Zoolander for a satirical view of fashion industry political action).
ReplyDeleteErica, as far as I know the fashion industry isn't facing any particular threat of government action - unless it's a big enough emitter of greenhouse gasses to be caught in cap and trade. But I think you raise a fascinating idea that it might be possible to embed sustainable practices into the fashion culture... It would be interesting, though, how you could get "eco friendly" to be more than a fashion that was embraced for a season or two and then reacted away from ("eco is out!"), but rather made into a core cultural assumption that goes on unquestioned.
Anna, I don't think anyone is advocating that we move to mandatory all-gray clothing and the banning of all non-primary colors. The challenge for the environment is not to bring economic activity down to the minimum, it is to try to be a lot smarter about the consequences of what we do. Creating clothing per se I don't think would be that bad for the environment - sewing machines don't use THAT much power, and the amount of fabric people wear is tiny compared to the amount of food that they eat, pound for pound. Some fabrics might have particularly toxic side effects, but if they are just being used for a few thousand or tens of thousand high couture consumers, they would have to be INSANELY toxic to make any real impact.
But if you are using damaging fabrics, and also encouraging mass-consumers (of whom there are probably hundreds of millions worldwide) to replace their clothes on a faster and faster cycle, then perhaps you might build up some significant impact. From a fashion industry point of view you definitely want to encourage people cycling new clothes into their wardrobes faster, but the larger that industry becomes in terms of activity, the bigger the multiplier gets for any of its ill-effects (tons of raw material used, energy burned, toxic effluence it emitted, etc).
So how would you get the industry to consider minimizing the harm of its mass-produced products?