In recent years, fast fashion has become synonymous as the antithesis to sustainability, fair work practices, and the environmental movement— and for good reason. The manufacturing process has raised moral and ethical concerns as it includes exporting garment production to less developed countries at less than minimum wage, to maximise corporation profit. Even more worrying, the definition of fast fashion according to Earth.org highlights that it is “cheaply produced and priced garments that copy the latest catwalk styles and get pumped quickly through stores in order to maximise on current trends”. The rapid capitalist business model upon which it thrives has had extremely detrimental effects on the environment. Continually producing clothes for each season or new trend also means that fast fashion makes up 10% of global carbon emissions, as creating these garments involve many processes that produce excessive waste, water pollution, leaching of toxic chemicals and microplastics. However, as climate change awareness has been at the forefront of the news, fast fashion has started to slowly fall out of fashion on social media in favour of more sustainable options. It has now found its replacement in conscious fashion. Conscious fashion— along with the synonymous terms of ethical, eco, organic, and fair trade fashion — encompass the idea or the insinuation that either the process of manufacturing the garments, materials used, dyes, and materials are also sourced responsibly and all people involved in the sourcing and manufacturing process are well-paid and working in fair conditions. There is more to be said about what constitutes ‘true’ conscious fashion, as these terms have been hijacked by big fast fashion corporations. Nonetheless, this article will explore how the politically correct move to rebrand fast fashion by advertising conscious fashion could still be a form of overconsumption. As fast fashion is being masked as new eco-movements through false claims and greenwashing marketing tactics, we need to reflect on what our shopping habits could meaningfully represent through a sustainable lens.
If one were to search the impact that the fashion industry has on the planet, the move towards conscious or eco-fashion seems like a natural and welcome shift in consumer habits. Indeed the fashion industry is the second largest polluter of the climate catastrophe after the oil industry. The water consumption for growing commonly used materials like cotton, or simply the amount of water — 2720 litres — to make one shirt is a jarring fact given the social implications of such a finite resource like water distribution to developing countries. On top of that, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process that are often outsourced for cheaper labour are often not disposed of effectively and leech plastic microfibers from the cheap synthetic garment materials into bodies of water, contaminating water for local communities and marine life. As these are just a sample of the extent that fast fashion can be destructive to our planet, it is unsurprising that the marketing campaigns for larger fast fashions corporations have attempted to rebrand their business model.
Brands such as Primark, ASOS, Zara, Boohoo and H&M have all tried their hand at different collections of ‘eco’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘conscious’ collections. However, this begs the question; at the rate that fashion giants like H&M update clothing trends and collections, how can continuing to promote consumption— even if more sustainable than previous— not be a form of greenwashing? Greenwashing according to Aja Barber at the Guardian is defined as “when a brand makes claims about something being ethical or sustainable, that, upon further inspection, turn out to be false or exaggerated”. Additionally, if a brand is notorious for harmful and exploitative supply chain practices, the marketing for sustainable clothes becomes just a clever distraction. An example of this is the promotion of vegan leather. While it seems very appealing to own clothing that is not made from animal hide, the alternative masquerading as ‘vegan’ leather is the fact it is made from plastic or often plastic coated and may not last as long as real leather. It may lead people to feel better about buying vegan leather pieces since it doesn’t harm animals, but that does not mean it does not come with a host of its own issues. As Estelle Goodwin put it for ‘Fashion takes Action’, Canada’s first non-profit fashion organisation focused on sustainability: “Veganism and sustainability are not mutually exclusive.”
In addition to the phenomenon of vegan leather, there has also been the push towards embracing more sustainable or recycled materials like polyester, recycled cotton, or organic fabrics. Materials like organic cotton boast that it uses 91% less water than normal cotton, because it does not use synthetic chemicals, pesticides or fertilizers to create garments from the fibre. This is certainly a positive step, but for brands to use this as the catalyst to encourage consumers to purchase their ‘eco-friendly’ garments is also a significant overstatement.
When something is scaled up for mass consumption, especially by a fashion giant, the use of organic materials is better but is ultimately not eco-friendly because it encourages the production of more waste. Furthermore, because farming of organic cotton is done through smaller farms, it produces less yield overall; to meet demand in the end using organic cotton on a large scale could produce more greenhouse gases because it is less space efficient. Moreover, many brands commonly use the greenwashing tactic of claiming the use of natural fibres, while overstating the percentage that was used for a given garment. In other words, this concept coincides what Mehar Mehar noted in an article for Down to Earth; brands can manipulate the way they market clothing to ‘appear’ to be more environmentally positive but in actuality it has the same effect, if not worse for the environment, because the lack of transparency can confuse the consumer and encourage them to spend more on ‘conscious’ pieces without as much guilt.
In light of all these facts, it’s clear that the burden of information and research needs to fall on the consumer since we cannot with good conscience rely on a top-down approach. Alternatives such as slow fashion have been defined by Barber as “the antithesis to fast fashion.[…] Instead of buying into fast-fashion, research small labels and lend your support to those that are doing things the right way. Slow fashion brands tend to avoid being trend-driven and instead focus on classic pieces that will stand the test of time”. The truly ‘sustainable’ way to minimise the impact on the environment is to shop second hand or local, reuse or upcycle clothing that already exists in your closet and the last resort if one must buy is to try and buy pieces that will last for the long-term. Of course this is easier said than done, but being informed is a good start, researching the background of fashion marketing, and critically thinking about how language and consumerism are constantly at play in the rebranding of fast fashion can end up being both environmentally and financially beneficial.
Edited by Olivia Shan
Sokhema Sreang is in her last year at McGill University and she is pursuing a major in International Development and a minor in Sociology. She has joined Catalyst as a staff writer and is particularly interested in the politics of developing countries, social protection and social change.
One thought on “How fast fashion has become rebranded as ‘conscious fashion’”