Consequences of Fast Fashion
By Carolina Beirne, Kayla Krueger and Zyna Shoukat, 5/12/2020
The Social Implications of Fast Fashion
In the past, people would buy a shirt and wear it for years. Now, the newly emerging fast fashion industry is catalysed by the escalating demand for apparel. In fact, some business models exploit this linear style of shopping to build their inventory in order to provide the newest styles in clothes both cheaply and quickly to these customers, as clothing trends fluctuate. This rapid consumption and the need to deliver within these fleeting cycles of fashion stresses production resources, and many supply chains place profit above human welfare.
In 2018, The U.S. Department of Labour published a report which found evidence of child labour used in this industry in a myriad of countries, including: Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Approximately 260 million children are engaged in child labour worldwide, and the UN International Labour Organisation estimated that 170 million of these children are in the fashion industry. The labour required is low-skilled, and often some jobs are even considered ‘better suited’ for children. A prime example of this is cotton picking, as children have smaller hands and therefore are less likely to damage the crops. Moreover, the complexity of the supply chain makes the exploitation much more discreet, as corporations cannot control every stage, therefore monitoring this would be extremely difficult. Child labour is also manipulation of impoverished people, as often parents send their children to work out of necessity. The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and the India Committee of the Netherlands produced a report which states recruiters convince parents in penurious rural areas of southern India that the spinning mills will provide their daughters with a lucrative job, better living conditions, a stable food supply and opportunities for training, as well as a lump sum of money after their three years of tenure. However, “in reality, they are working under appalling conditions that amount to modern day slavery and the worst forms of child labour.”
It’s important to remember that fast fashion does not just hurt people who live thousands of miles away from the consumer – it also can have detrimental impacts on the shoppers. A problem with fast fashion is the increasing popularity of ‘vanity sizing,’ where producers label clothes with sizes smaller than the actual size of the item. For example, a pair of trousers may be labelled a size 34 but really be better suited for someone of a size 36. Abram Sauer, a writer for Esquire, carried out fieldwork where he discovered that actual measurements for men’s slacks were often 2-3 inches larger than the size advertised. Women have to cope with even great variability in sizes; as Stephanie Clifford of the New York Times found that a woman could wear a size four in one brand, but for another brand she may need up to a size 10! At first glance, it simply complicates shopping and increases return rates, but it also preys into the insecurities faced by most people worldwide. Simply put, downsized labels make customers feel better and improves their self-confidence, as stated in a study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. On the other hand, the need for larger labels has an adverse effect on the consumer by reducing their self-esteem, thus making them less likely to buy their clothing. Though a retailer may have to cope with customer complaints and inventory readjustments, they are still able to further their profits this way, as consumers engage in ‘compensatory consumption,’ where they buy items without sizes to make themselves feel better. In essence, even if they choose not to purchase these clothes, they may instead spend more on other, more expensive items, such as cosmetics and jewellery. Either way, the brands still win, all at the expense of a customer. The issues this can ignite with body image and one’s concern over seemingly fluctuating weight are immense, and can lead to furthering insecurities, feelings of decreased self-worth, and in extreme cases, eating disorders, as well as several other mental health issues.
But how can the everyday person help reduce these consequences? Fast fashion exists due to the need to satisfy the astronomical demands, so, by reducing these everyone can make a difference. For example, promoting consignment shopping, the purchasing of recycled or upcycled clothing, buying vintage garments or simply keeping purchases local is immensely effective. One can also stick to brands that are true to size, to minimize ‘compensatory consumption,’ thus removing support for companies who thrive on the detriment of vanity sizing. Revoking support for this will lessen the demand and hopefully make long strides to eliminating the practices of fast fashion indefinitely.
In the past, people would buy a shirt and wear it for years. Now, the newly emerging fast fashion industry is catalysed by the escalating demand for apparel. In fact, some business models exploit this linear style of shopping to build their inventory in order to provide the newest styles in clothes both cheaply and quickly to these customers, as clothing trends fluctuate. This rapid consumption and the need to deliver within these fleeting cycles of fashion stresses production resources, and many supply chains place profit above human welfare.
In 2018, The U.S. Department of Labour published a report which found evidence of child labour used in this industry in a myriad of countries, including: Argentina, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Approximately 260 million children are engaged in child labour worldwide, and the UN International Labour Organisation estimated that 170 million of these children are in the fashion industry. The labour required is low-skilled, and often some jobs are even considered ‘better suited’ for children. A prime example of this is cotton picking, as children have smaller hands and therefore are less likely to damage the crops. Moreover, the complexity of the supply chain makes the exploitation much more discreet, as corporations cannot control every stage, therefore monitoring this would be extremely difficult. Child labour is also manipulation of impoverished people, as often parents send their children to work out of necessity. The Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and the India Committee of the Netherlands produced a report which states recruiters convince parents in penurious rural areas of southern India that the spinning mills will provide their daughters with a lucrative job, better living conditions, a stable food supply and opportunities for training, as well as a lump sum of money after their three years of tenure. However, “in reality, they are working under appalling conditions that amount to modern day slavery and the worst forms of child labour.”
It’s important to remember that fast fashion does not just hurt people who live thousands of miles away from the consumer – it also can have detrimental impacts on the shoppers. A problem with fast fashion is the increasing popularity of ‘vanity sizing,’ where producers label clothes with sizes smaller than the actual size of the item. For example, a pair of trousers may be labelled a size 34 but really be better suited for someone of a size 36. Abram Sauer, a writer for Esquire, carried out fieldwork where he discovered that actual measurements for men’s slacks were often 2-3 inches larger than the size advertised. Women have to cope with even great variability in sizes; as Stephanie Clifford of the New York Times found that a woman could wear a size four in one brand, but for another brand she may need up to a size 10! At first glance, it simply complicates shopping and increases return rates, but it also preys into the insecurities faced by most people worldwide. Simply put, downsized labels make customers feel better and improves their self-confidence, as stated in a study published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology. On the other hand, the need for larger labels has an adverse effect on the consumer by reducing their self-esteem, thus making them less likely to buy their clothing. Though a retailer may have to cope with customer complaints and inventory readjustments, they are still able to further their profits this way, as consumers engage in ‘compensatory consumption,’ where they buy items without sizes to make themselves feel better. In essence, even if they choose not to purchase these clothes, they may instead spend more on other, more expensive items, such as cosmetics and jewellery. Either way, the brands still win, all at the expense of a customer. The issues this can ignite with body image and one’s concern over seemingly fluctuating weight are immense, and can lead to furthering insecurities, feelings of decreased self-worth, and in extreme cases, eating disorders, as well as several other mental health issues.
But how can the everyday person help reduce these consequences? Fast fashion exists due to the need to satisfy the astronomical demands, so, by reducing these everyone can make a difference. For example, promoting consignment shopping, the purchasing of recycled or upcycled clothing, buying vintage garments or simply keeping purchases local is immensely effective. One can also stick to brands that are true to size, to minimize ‘compensatory consumption,’ thus removing support for companies who thrive on the detriment of vanity sizing. Revoking support for this will lessen the demand and hopefully make long strides to eliminating the practices of fast fashion indefinitely.
The Validity of Sustainable Companies
With increased consumer awareness surrounding environmental degradation and calls for companies to adopt sustainable practices, the model of an environmentally conscious business has become ever more present in the modern fashion industry. However, the ethics and validity of a “sustainable” company remain indeterminable. It is all too simple for an organization to label themselves as sustainable, while leaving the means of their sustainable practices unknown.
Sustainable development is rooted in finding ways for the economy and industry to prosper while avoiding the depletion of natural resources. This implication generally means that the company uses practices that protect the environment. However, “sustainable and ethical” has become merely a blanket term that covers business models adopting practices that range from the source of their materials to the treatment of their workers. Material usage within a company is also a poignant value in building a sustainable company. For this reason, companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are criticized for their heavy production of single-use plastics. Although the word “sustainable” sounds promising, are these so-called “sustainable” companies actually engaging in practices that are benefiting the Earth and their workers and how can consumers tell?
One way to assess the validity of a “sustainable” business is by assessing the business’s cash flow, especially in terms of wages and cost of operation. An unsustainable company will cut corners to save money by unethically sourcing its materials in a way that harms the environment. For example, the Palm Oil industry is the primal archetype for unsustainability. The Palm Oil industry ravages the environment in terms of harvesting and deforestation, while also taking away the habitat for indigenous wildlife in Indonesia’s rainforests. Yet Palm Oil dominates international industries, being used in a plethora of products ranging from frozen pizza, to cosmetics, to biofuel. This is because the price of Palm Oil is often very low, therefore companies have to spend less money to yield a successful product. However if companies opt for an alternative material, a company could minimize their workers’ wages. Peak unsustainability is seeking out the cheapest method to execute their business, which sadly is seen quite often in modern industry.
Fast fashion and unsustainability is prominent in the clothing and textile industries. According to the World Wildlife Foundation, cotton dominates this industry, taking up approximately 55% of the textile industry worldwide. This is problematic because in the past five years the growth of organic cotton has declined drastically as the production of commercial cotton continues to take over the industry. It is important to note that the cultivation of commercial cotton requires more pesticide use and water than any other commercial crop. Cotton is primarily grown in countries with warm climates such as India and Turkey and provides employment for 100 million individuals worldwide. However, the lax environmental laws in many of these countries allow for dangerous herbicides and pesticides to be used, damaging both the environment and the workers involved. In spite of this, conglomerates remain ignorant over the persistent failure of the environment and proceed with the growth and usage of cheap, unsustainable cotton. Yet there is still hope for the future. Companies such as H&M and Forever 21, previously notorious for their practice of fast fashion, have restructured their business practices to accommodate for the welfare of the environment.
Although sustainable business practices are seen much more in the media, that doesn’t eliminate the presence and domination of unethical industries on an international spectrum. As climate change has continued to manifest itself around the world, the need for a collective sustainable business conversion is pressing. Validity and ethically secure business values are imperative in creating truly sustainable businesses, which ideally will increase in both scope and number.
With increased consumer awareness surrounding environmental degradation and calls for companies to adopt sustainable practices, the model of an environmentally conscious business has become ever more present in the modern fashion industry. However, the ethics and validity of a “sustainable” company remain indeterminable. It is all too simple for an organization to label themselves as sustainable, while leaving the means of their sustainable practices unknown.
Sustainable development is rooted in finding ways for the economy and industry to prosper while avoiding the depletion of natural resources. This implication generally means that the company uses practices that protect the environment. However, “sustainable and ethical” has become merely a blanket term that covers business models adopting practices that range from the source of their materials to the treatment of their workers. Material usage within a company is also a poignant value in building a sustainable company. For this reason, companies such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are criticized for their heavy production of single-use plastics. Although the word “sustainable” sounds promising, are these so-called “sustainable” companies actually engaging in practices that are benefiting the Earth and their workers and how can consumers tell?
One way to assess the validity of a “sustainable” business is by assessing the business’s cash flow, especially in terms of wages and cost of operation. An unsustainable company will cut corners to save money by unethically sourcing its materials in a way that harms the environment. For example, the Palm Oil industry is the primal archetype for unsustainability. The Palm Oil industry ravages the environment in terms of harvesting and deforestation, while also taking away the habitat for indigenous wildlife in Indonesia’s rainforests. Yet Palm Oil dominates international industries, being used in a plethora of products ranging from frozen pizza, to cosmetics, to biofuel. This is because the price of Palm Oil is often very low, therefore companies have to spend less money to yield a successful product. However if companies opt for an alternative material, a company could minimize their workers’ wages. Peak unsustainability is seeking out the cheapest method to execute their business, which sadly is seen quite often in modern industry.
Fast fashion and unsustainability is prominent in the clothing and textile industries. According to the World Wildlife Foundation, cotton dominates this industry, taking up approximately 55% of the textile industry worldwide. This is problematic because in the past five years the growth of organic cotton has declined drastically as the production of commercial cotton continues to take over the industry. It is important to note that the cultivation of commercial cotton requires more pesticide use and water than any other commercial crop. Cotton is primarily grown in countries with warm climates such as India and Turkey and provides employment for 100 million individuals worldwide. However, the lax environmental laws in many of these countries allow for dangerous herbicides and pesticides to be used, damaging both the environment and the workers involved. In spite of this, conglomerates remain ignorant over the persistent failure of the environment and proceed with the growth and usage of cheap, unsustainable cotton. Yet there is still hope for the future. Companies such as H&M and Forever 21, previously notorious for their practice of fast fashion, have restructured their business practices to accommodate for the welfare of the environment.
Although sustainable business practices are seen much more in the media, that doesn’t eliminate the presence and domination of unethical industries on an international spectrum. As climate change has continued to manifest itself around the world, the need for a collective sustainable business conversion is pressing. Validity and ethically secure business values are imperative in creating truly sustainable businesses, which ideally will increase in both scope and number.
The Environmental Cost of Fast Fashion
Fast fashion, which refers to the trend of inexpensive and widely available of-the-moment garments, has changed the way people buy and dispose of clothing. By selling large quantities of clothing at cheap prices, fast fashion has emerged as a dominant business model, causing garment consumption to skyrocket in the past few years.
While this transition is sometimes heralded as the “democratization” of fashion in which the latest styles are available to all classes of consumers, the human and environmental health risks associated with inexpensive clothing are hidden throughout the lifecycle of each garment. From the growth of water-intensive cotton, to the release of untreated dyes into local water sources; the environmental costs involved in textile manufacturing are widespread.
Vibrant colours, prints and fabric finishes are appealing features of garments, but many of these are achieved through the use of toxic chemicals. Textile dyeing is one of the largest polluters of clean water globally. Many of these chemicals are banned or strictly regulated in various countries because they are toxic, bio-accumulative, disruptive to hormones and carcinogenic.
Moreover, polyester is a popular fabric in fashion but when washed in domestic washing machines, it sheds microfibers that add to the increasing levels of plastic in our oceans. These microfibers are miniscule and can easily pass through sewage and wastewater treatment plants into our waterways, representing a serious threat to aquatic life because these microfibers do not biodegrade.
The devastating impact of toxic chemical use in growing cotton, was shown in a documentary called The True Cost, including serious birth defects in Indian cotton farmers’ children. Cotton growing requires high levels of water and pesticides – more so than any other commercial crop – to prevent crop failure, which can be problematic in developing countries that lack sufficient investment and are at risk of drought. Additionally, most cotton grown worldwide is genetically modified to be resistant to pests, which can lead to problems down the line, such as the emergence of “superweeds” which are resistant to standard pesticides. This results in an unfortunate feedback loop, where these crops need to be treated with even more toxic pesticides that are harmful to the health of farmers, livestock and the environment.
Furthermore, textile waste is an unintended consequence of fast fashion, as many consumers have begun to view clothing as a disposable good; people buy more clothes and don’t keep them as long as they used to. Since wardrobes in developed nations are saturated, in order to sell more products, retailers must tempt shoppers with constant newness and convince them the items they already have are no longer fashionable.
There is interest in moving towards a more circular model of textile production which reuses materials wherever possible, yet current recycling rates for textiles are very low. Despite a long-established national network of charity shops and increasing numbers of in-store recycling points in UK high-street stores, three-quarters of Britons throw away unwanted clothing, rather than donating or recycling it.
Choosing an eco-friendly fabric is complex as there are pros and cons to all fiber types. Garments which are labelled as being made from natural fibers are not always better than synthetic, as fiber choice is only one part of a complex picture. Fibers still have to be spun, knitted or woven, dyed, finished, sewn and transported – all of which have different environmental impacts.
Thus, recycled content is often best of all, as it reduces the pressure on virgin resources and tackles the growing problem of waste management. Reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion is the duty of every government, every company, and most importantly, every citizen, and is a difficult but necessary task.
Fast fashion, which refers to the trend of inexpensive and widely available of-the-moment garments, has changed the way people buy and dispose of clothing. By selling large quantities of clothing at cheap prices, fast fashion has emerged as a dominant business model, causing garment consumption to skyrocket in the past few years.
While this transition is sometimes heralded as the “democratization” of fashion in which the latest styles are available to all classes of consumers, the human and environmental health risks associated with inexpensive clothing are hidden throughout the lifecycle of each garment. From the growth of water-intensive cotton, to the release of untreated dyes into local water sources; the environmental costs involved in textile manufacturing are widespread.
Vibrant colours, prints and fabric finishes are appealing features of garments, but many of these are achieved through the use of toxic chemicals. Textile dyeing is one of the largest polluters of clean water globally. Many of these chemicals are banned or strictly regulated in various countries because they are toxic, bio-accumulative, disruptive to hormones and carcinogenic.
Moreover, polyester is a popular fabric in fashion but when washed in domestic washing machines, it sheds microfibers that add to the increasing levels of plastic in our oceans. These microfibers are miniscule and can easily pass through sewage and wastewater treatment plants into our waterways, representing a serious threat to aquatic life because these microfibers do not biodegrade.
The devastating impact of toxic chemical use in growing cotton, was shown in a documentary called The True Cost, including serious birth defects in Indian cotton farmers’ children. Cotton growing requires high levels of water and pesticides – more so than any other commercial crop – to prevent crop failure, which can be problematic in developing countries that lack sufficient investment and are at risk of drought. Additionally, most cotton grown worldwide is genetically modified to be resistant to pests, which can lead to problems down the line, such as the emergence of “superweeds” which are resistant to standard pesticides. This results in an unfortunate feedback loop, where these crops need to be treated with even more toxic pesticides that are harmful to the health of farmers, livestock and the environment.
Furthermore, textile waste is an unintended consequence of fast fashion, as many consumers have begun to view clothing as a disposable good; people buy more clothes and don’t keep them as long as they used to. Since wardrobes in developed nations are saturated, in order to sell more products, retailers must tempt shoppers with constant newness and convince them the items they already have are no longer fashionable.
There is interest in moving towards a more circular model of textile production which reuses materials wherever possible, yet current recycling rates for textiles are very low. Despite a long-established national network of charity shops and increasing numbers of in-store recycling points in UK high-street stores, three-quarters of Britons throw away unwanted clothing, rather than donating or recycling it.
Choosing an eco-friendly fabric is complex as there are pros and cons to all fiber types. Garments which are labelled as being made from natural fibers are not always better than synthetic, as fiber choice is only one part of a complex picture. Fibers still have to be spun, knitted or woven, dyed, finished, sewn and transported – all of which have different environmental impacts.
Thus, recycled content is often best of all, as it reduces the pressure on virgin resources and tackles the growing problem of waste management. Reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion is the duty of every government, every company, and most importantly, every citizen, and is a difficult but necessary task.
