The hidden face of "Fast - Fashion"
Winter months have dominated sensational sales in recent years, with January sales, Boxing Day sales and ahead of Christmas, Black Friday and Cyber Monday, two holidays originating from the US. These consistent cheap sales encourage buyers to make mindless purchases before and after the holidays.
The global fashion industry has an undeniable issue with pollution, waste and tremendous human rights violations. It is the second biggest polluting industry, due to the demand for clothes and the reduction of prices. The number of garments produced annually has doubled since 2000 and exceeded 100 billion for the first time in 2014. Shockingly, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned globally every second (Fashion Revolution). Globalisation has dictated mass-consumption, and such a wild and irrational consumption pattern is the core muscle of capitalism.
We believe that we need to accumulate goods, forcing us in a state where we consistently desire and seek something new, and fast fashion undoubtedly is a byproduct of it. You do not need 9 jeans, nor 10 coats, nor 4 leather jackets. But, not falling into the trap of the more the better is easier said than done as such a mentality is embedded in our system.
Nevertheless, just before we all get caught into the dark abyss of post-Christmas sales, this post can hopefully invite our readers to reconsider their buying and spending habits after discovering the environmental and human cost of fast fashion.
What is Fast Fashion?
Nowadays fast fashion brands produce about 52 “micro-seasons” a year, which is translated into, at least, one new collection every week. According to author Elizabeth Cline, the ever-popular Zara started the craze by shifting to bi-weekly deliveries of new merchandise back in the early 00s. Such a throwaway culture means clothing production has doubled since the year 2000.
Black Friday
Black Friday has had a rising presence in Europe after its success in the United States, which celebrates sales post-Thanksgiving day. High street brands as well as online slice the prices to gain attraction for pre-Christmas sales. Black Friday is the day of the year when everybody gets richer. Producers and brands get wealthier due to the high amount of people buying their products, and so do consumers as they come into possession of something for a lower price. Some could say it is a win-win situation. However, is it?
It is not because there are other factors to consider like the environment and the human faces behind the production of your recently bought item. Sass Brown, a lecturer at the Manchester Fashion Institute states:
For instance, Pretty Little Thing outrageously cut prices of 99% and sold items for pennies in 2020. That strategy encourages the “wear once, throw away” attitude when clothing items cost next to nothing. Pretty Little Thing like other online stores like Boohoo and Missguided churn out clothes at a rapid rate. But whilst you may think you are getting a bargain - nothing is free, someone is paying for your discounts.
Investigative work showed the reality of these cheap online shops. Good On You, a highly trusted source of sustainable ratings for fashion, scores these multinationals as among the worst sustainable brands in the UK (Good On You). For instance, Boohoo’s environmental rating is ‘Not Good Enough’ as it does not use eco-friendly material, and there is no evidence it has taken meaningful action to reduce hazardous chemicals.
Likewise, Boohoo rates ‘Very Poor’, their lowest rating, in the social front. There is evidence that proves that workers in Leicester, England were making as little as £3.50 an hour to make clothes for the company, well below the minimum wage of £8.72 per hour in the UK. These findings are even more disturbing when you realise that, on average, Boohoo items are either thrown away or abandoned in consumer’s closets after five weeks.
But online retailers are only a fraction of the problem, high street stores like H&M, Zara, Topshop, ASOS, and Forever 21 are amongst many retailers encouraging the buying of unnecessary and unethical clothing. (https://www.curiouslyconscious.com/2020/07/fast-fashion-brands-uk.html/)
Environmental Cost
All of the elements of fast fashion—trend replication, rapid production, low quality, competitive pricing—add up to having a large impact on the environment and the people involved in its production.
HOW MANY TONNES OF CLOTHING ARE WE THROW AWAY PER YEAR? and an estimated 92 million tons of textile waste is created annually from the fashion industry.
The environmental damage, which the fashion industry continues to create, is partly due to fast fashion. The textile industry creates 1.2bn tonnes of CO2 a year, more than international aviation and shipping combined, consumes lake-sized volumes of water, and creates chemical and plastic pollution.
Brands like Forever21 use toxic chemicals, dangerous dyes, and synthetic fabrics that seep into water supplies in foreign countries where the clothing is made. These microfibres add increasing levels of plastics in our oceans which is dangerous to aquatic life since 35% of microplastics found in the ocean come from synthetic clothing.
Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated the fashion industry produces 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions every year and used an estimated 1.5tn litres of water annually (The Guardian). Water shortages might seem like a faraway concept, but the reality is, it is not. South Africa experienced this in 2018.
But why is the fashion industry so bad?
Cotton is currently estimated to be the most widely used material in the clothing industry, making up a third of global textile production (Fashion Revolution). It takes about TWO THOUSAND gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans - that is more than enough for one person to drink eight cups of water per day for ten years. The long term damage of this can be seen in Uzbekistan, where cotton farming used so much water from the Aral Sea that it dried up after about 50 years. Once one of the world’s four largest lakes, the Aral sea is now little more than desert and a few small ponds (See photos below)
Fashion also causes water-pollution problems. Textile dyeing is the world's second-largest polluter of water since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams, or rivers. The dyeing process uses enough water to fill 2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools each year. All in all, the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of all industrial water pollution worldwide.
The industry is polluting our water, air and land at an increasingly rapid rate, if we do not create smarter and more sustainable ways to shop we will cause irreversible damage to our Earth, as the founder of the Conscious Fashion Campaign Kerry Banningan states;
“The perpetuating cycle of over production and consumption relies on the use of natural resources that contributes substantially to environmental degradation.”
“The whole fast fashion value chain from manufacturing to delivery all plays a role in the destruction of ecosystems and increased pollution. Is an unfathomable cheaply priced garment truly worth the depletion of our water, soil and air?”
Human Cost
The same urgency that throws quality out the window also keeps the costs of these pieces of clothing incredibly low. Multinationals such as H&M and Zara are focused on producing as many items as possible in the short-term, and are banking on the ”ocean of clothing” they manufacture out for their profit. These brands earn millions while selling pieces cheaply because of the sheer number of items they sell daily, no matter the cost or markup. Hence, garment workers putting together fast fashion items are undoubtedly being paid well below the minimum wage. Author and journalist Lucy Siegle summed it up in the documentary The True Cost.
"Fast fashion isn’t free. Someone, somewhere is paying”.
As exposed by investigators, in the UK Boohoo was paying staff in factories £3.50 an hour, over half of the legal minimum wage. These types of factories are in every inch of the globe, better known as sweatshops, with a high density of clothes being made in Asia as there are very little employment laws or protection. More specifically, over 70% of EU imports of textile and clothing come from Asia.
“Made in Bangladesh”
Globalisation and trade liberalisation have provoked gender inequalities in the Third World which have enhanced a pessimist sentiment towards development (Beneria et al 2003: 161-162, Franzway & Fonow 2011: 9-10) and industries like fast-fashion mirror that belief. It is undeniable that globalisation has granted more opportunities for women to work outside the household and generate income. However, it is crucial to wonder at what cost, if it is empowering and if accessing the labour market in weak conditions is always in their best interests (Pearson 1998: 181).
The fashion industry in Bangladesh is one of the main pillars of their economy since the 90s, and the country is one of the largest hubs for the manufacture of ready-made garments. The role of women in this industry is crucial since it is the largest employer of females in Bangladesh, and around 85% of the garment workers are women (Silliman 2020: 209).
Since employers prefer female labour as they constitute a cheaper workforce (Beneria et al 2003: 163), the term ‘feminisation of labour’ in the manufacturing industry arose. However, their work conditions highly distant from the average global work standards. Workers are locked in the rooms since many owners fear illegal appropriation of equipment and clothing (Karim 2014: 162). Besides, those rooms and buildings are unsafe and unclean, which prompts respiratory illnesses and makes mass fainting highly likely. Their health conditions are so unacceptable that the term ‘body mining’ was introduced to refer to their weak and malnourished bodies due to the intense work (Silliman 2020: 217).
Moreover, most of these women are exposed to sexual and physical violence from their male supervisors, managers and co-workers. Tragically, it has become a normalised activity and part of the daily routine of female workers in these factories (Silliman 2020: 207). Nevertheless, women barely report sexual harassment as their husbands can label it as unfaithfulness, or could risk losing the job. Hence, they cannot condemn an injustice because they need to keep the income their families rely on. If a non-consensual encounter is ever reported, it will be filed as a voluntary resignation (Silliman 2020: 212) since their temporal contracts make their firing easy.
As Spielberg (Kabeer 2004: 11) describes it:
"if you are lucky, you´ll be a prostitute – if you are unlucky, you´ll be a garment worker’"
The male-led hierarchy at the workplace must change for these women to feel safer. Contrarily, if it was gender-mixed or women-led, female employees could use the whistleblowing mechanism safely, and there would be fewer possibilities of sexual or verbal assault.
Outrageously, women cannot usually unionise, and factories hire informers to know about potential rebellious workers to avoid boycotts. Additionally, the government banned protests around factories since 2005 (Karim 2014: 163). However, it has not stopped women from exercising activism lately but, consequently, they have suffered from dismissals, violence or even shot by the authorities (Human Rights 2019). This dictatorial-based dynamic entirely blocks any chance to speak their minds and exercise the right to freedom of expression, stated in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations 1948). Thus, it is not even about their null participation in the decision-making of their professional activities, but getting punished with layoffs.
“One of my coworkers was new and she was having difficulties in doing her task. The supervisor and line chief scolded her. They also held her hands and touched different parts of her body sexually … She didn't tell anyone about it. Sharing these incidents is risky as things spread and everybody gets to know about them. Many (workers) have husbands or boyfriends. What would happen to the relationship (if such incidents are disclosed)? Sharing jeopardizes the reputation not only of the victim, but also of the factory. That's why such things are not shared.” Arifa, Helper (Naved & et al 2018: 155)
The world press ignored women in this industry until the incident of the Rana Plaza in 2013 in which the collapse of a very poor-infrastructure building killed over 1,100 workers (Karim 2014: 153). The day before, employees were forced to work despite the warnings of cracks in the walls and failing structure. The factory owners threatened workers with salary suspension if they refused to work, but most men did not enter the factory as feared less the threat compared to women (Akhter 2014: 141). This unfortunate incident made public the conditions in which these women have to work and, bitterly, raised awareness of their unethical labour situations at the expense of western industries.
These fast-fashion brands also have the wrong idea of empowerment by applying the ‘girl effect on development’, which explains the importance of gender equality and the participation of women to improve productivity and economic growth in developing countries (Hickel 2014: 1361). However, females are not numbers, and economic efficiency cannot measure their empowerment. Remunerated employment for women does not equate to empowerment but rather to an alternative to a no-way-out pattern for the majority. It is pivotal to break up with the assumption that more labour opportunities translate into women empowerment to generate effective solutions (Jayakarani 2012: 209).
These brands need to reinforce labour conditions and stop demanding fast production to these females to meet idealistic targets while giving up their health and dignity. They need to establish average working hours, give proper contracts, punish gender violence and find a balance between their commercial objectives and ethical labour schemes. These conditions are not unrealistic since these companies have the resources and income to make this possible.
What is the only reason why those brands have not placed those mechanisms yet? Because, ironically, it would decrease their billionaire net worth. By buying fast-fashion, we are directly giving a pad in the shoulders of all these multinationals and agreeing with their human rights violations and inhumane labour conditions. Fast-fashion brands and governments prioritise economic welfare over ethical practices for these females and overall garment workers.
Final Thoughts
The dilemma relies on the fact that fast-fashion and sustainability cannot go in the same sentence. Fast-fashion cannot be sustainable. These brands would have to slow the production pace, cancel the ‘micro-season’ collections, invest in good factories infrastructure, pay fair wages, offer fixed contracts, and switch their bad quality, polluting fabrics as well as production methods to environmentally-friendly solutions, among others. As optimistic and idealist as we are, we do not perceive Zara or H&M becoming sustainable brands. But, unquestionably, we cannot buy items for fashion purposes at the expense of the planet and millions of exploited workers. Scandalously, the global order has applied fast-fashion as a universal rule and is accepted by shareholders and society more generally, as long as it turns a profit.
It is difficult to change our attitudes toward shopping. However, if we recognise the environmental and social consequences, we can become aware of the bigger picture. Once we start consciously buying, we will enjoy knowing we are part of the change. Like buying things that we need, more than what we want, to wear clothes time and time again, and to give them away to charity shops rather than throw them away, and to buy second-hand goods and give them a second life. Remember that ethical clothing does not necessarily have to be more expensive. You can get ethical items for a higher price due to the better quality product and fairer pay for staff. Nonetheless, we have been buying from second-hand shops (both online and physical ones) during the last two years, and it is a gamer changer. We buy fast-fashion items in a very good state that people did not want anymore for a remarkable smaller price.
Here are some secondhand stores where you can buy: Micolet, Humana, Thrift.plus, One Scoope Store UK, White Rose, .....
Imagine the change we would create if these brands sensed the urgency of their customers for more ethical choices...they could adapt to these growing demands. The onus is on us.
REFERENCES
Akhter, S. (2014). Endless Misery of Nimble Fingers: The Rana Plaza Disaster. Asian Journal of Women's Studies, 20(1), pp.137–147.
Benería, L., Berik, G., Floro, M. (2003).'Development as if all people mattered' in Gender, development, and globalization economics as if all people mattered, New York; Abingdon: Routledge, pp.161-169.
Benería, L., Berik, G., Floro, M. (2003). 'Development as if all people mattered' in Gender, development, and globalization economics as if all people mattered, New York; Abingdon: Routledge, pp.161-169.
Blackall, M. (2020). Critics Attack Pretty Little Thing's 8P Black Friday Dress Deal. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/nov/27/critics-slam-pretty-little-things-8p-black-friday-dress-deal>
Dean, C. (2019). Waste – Is It ‘Really’ In Fashion? - Fashion Revolution. [online] Fashion Revolution. Available at: <https://www.fashionrevolution.org/waste-is-it-really-in-fashion/>
Franzway, S. & Fonow, M.M. (2011). 'Feminist politics and transnational labour movements' in Making feminist politics: transnational alliances between women and labour, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, pp.1-23.
Hickel, J. (2014). The ‘girl effect’: liberalism, empowerment and the contradictions of development. Third World Quarterly, 35(8), pp.1355–1373.
Human Rights Watch (2019). Bangladesh: Investigate Dismissals Of Protesting Workers. [online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/05/bangladesh-investigate-dismissals-protesting-workers
Jayakarani, R. et al (2012). Defining empowerment: perspectives from international development organisations. Development in practice, 22(2), pp-202-215.
Kabeer, N. (2004). Globalization, labour standards, and women's rights: dilemmas of collective (in)action in an interdependent world. Feminist Economics, 10(1), pp.3–35.
Karim, L. (2014). Analysing Women's Empowerment: Microfinance and Garment Labour in Bangladesh. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 38(2), pp.153–166.
Pearson, R. (1998). 'Nimble fingers revisited: reflections on women and Third World industrialisation in the late twentieth century' in Jackon, C. & Pearson, R. Feminist vision of development: Gender analysis and policy, London: Routledge, pp.171-188
Rauturier, S. (2020). How Ethical Is Boohoo?. [online] Good On You. Available at: <https://goodonyou.eco/how-ethical-is-boohoo/#:~:text=Boohoo's%20environment%20rating%20is%20'Not,not%20from%20its%20supply%20chain.>
Silliman, S. (2020). 'Fast fashion, production targets, and gender-based violence in Asian garment supply chains' in Banerjee, S. (ed) Labour, global supply chains, and the garment industry in South Asia, Routledge, pp.207-227.
Stanton, A. (2020). What Is Fast Fashion, Anyway?. [online] The Good Trade. Available at: <https://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/what-is-fast-fashion>
United Nations (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [online] Available at: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Absolutely spot on! 🌍 It's crucial for us to wake up to the real costs of fast fashion. Instead of mindless shopping, let's embrace mindful choices that respect both our planet and the people behind the clothes we wear. Together, we can shift the narrative and make a positive impact! 💚✨