The boom in fashion resale platforms

Resale is the new black. From luxury heavyweights to fast fashion giants, brands are increasingly capitalising on the growth in second hand. Ganni, Gucci, COS, Levi’s, Nike, Adidas, and Mara Hoffman are a few of the brands contributing to the 275% uplift in brand-owned resale shops.

Certainly, some brands—especially those with proven track records for pursuing more sustainable practices—are launching resale because it makes sense. But the fact that the global second hand apparel market is set to grow three times faster than the overall apparel market (16 times faster in the US) is undoubtedly a driver too.

Resale is the new black. From luxury heavyweights to fast fashion giants, brands are increasingly capitalising on the growth in second hand.

On surface level, resale seems like an obviously ethical move for any brand. And when paired with a shift in business model away from linear overconsumption, resale can help brands become more circular and emphasise degrowth principles. That’s all while opening up new revenue potential. In both ways, resale can be a win-win when certain brands get on board.

But what happens when brands with the worst reputations for overproducing polyester clothes destined for landfills get into resale? What happens when some of the most infamous fast fashion brands launch resale without addressing the underlying symptoms of the problem they’ve created? That’s where the ethical questions of a seemingly good move become trickier to answer.

The over-producing brands want a slice of the pie

They may appear to be unlikely participants given the linear, buy-sell-dispose nature of their business model, but a wave of fast fashion resale platforms are hitting the market.

In February, Pretty Little Thing (PLT) announced via UK creative director Molly-Mae Hague that it will launch resale in 2022. “It will be an app where girls can resell their PLT pieces and pretty much anything pre-loved,” Hague said at the time.

The following month, Boohoo Group, which owns PLT, announced it will be rolling out a resale platform for all of its brands—which include NastyGal, MissPap, boohooMAN, Warehouse, and Debenhams—by 2023. This is likely a move to win back the sales that its customers have started to take elsewhere. PLT was the fifth most listed brand on Depop in 2021, behind Topshop in the top spot, Zara in third, and ASOS in fourth. Boohoo came in seventh.

With the disheartening rise of ultra fast fashion, many people have come to expect low prices and constant variety, but they also care about the environmental footprint of their consumption choices.

Erin Wallace – VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP.

“A factor that contributed to resale’s growth during the past several years is the mindset shift that has taken place among consumers,” says Erin Wallace, VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP. “With the disheartening rise of ultra fast fashion, many people have come to expect low prices and constant variety, but they also care about the environmental footprint of their consumption choices.”

“Many shoppers are realising that thrift offers the same variety and value as fast fashion, without the waste,” Wallace tells me. She points out that the company’s 2022 Resale Report found that nearly two in three consumers believe their individual consumption habits have a significant impact on the planet.

Will it work when fast fashion gets in the game?

While Boohoo’s plans will be revealed later this year, it is known that PLT’s offering will be app-based and designed to sync with users’ purchase history so that previous purchases can be easily listed for sale.

The sync-up may sound pretty useful and timesaving, However it may mean that there is a limit to which items users can sell. That’s not necessarily unusual. On Mara Hoffman’s Full Circle marketplace, for instance, only items purchased from 2019 onwards can be sold while further capacity is developed. However, given that Boohoo Group shipped over 62m orders in the financial year 2021/22 alone, it will be imperative to spread the service as far as possible in order to keep such high volumes of clothing in active circulation.

Also up for discussion is whether the new crop of resale platforms will offer cash—in the vein of Depop and Vestiaire Collective—or store credit. When brands offer it as the only option, store credit in return for resold fast fashion products handcuffs circularity to consumption.

When brands offer it as the only option, store credit in return for resold fast fashion products handcuffs circularity to consumption.

So far, existing own-brand resale platforms are a mixed bag. COS offers cash minus 10% sales commission, Adidas offers “rewards”, and Levi’s offers store credit. Upon the PLT announcement, Hague noted, “it is great to make a little bit of money for our girls as well”, which hints at cash, but doesn’t offer a concrete answer. We did reach out to PLT, but they declined to take part in an interview. Boohoo Group also did not respond to interview requests.

For its reGAIN recycling program, PLT currently offers discounts to shoppers who drop clothes off at recycling points or charity shops to “ prevent the unnecessary pile up of discarded clothing in landfills”. That’s despite the fact that “recycled” clothes and charity shop donations still end up in landfills or being incinerated.

The test: are brands reducing total production?

For fast fashion resale to really “disrupt the fashion industry”, as Hague said it will, it must displace production in a substantive way. Most of fashion’s emissions are generated in the production stage, so if you reduce production in favour of reselling what already exists, you reduce a great deal of fashion’s overall impact. When Hugo Boss announced it would be launching a resale platform in the third quarter of 2022, it stated that “buying second hand saves an average of 44% of CO2 emissions compared to buying new”.

Reducing production as a path towards degrowth can happen and it can be a success, albeit so far only on the luxury level. British brand Toast is set to produce 20% fewer styles than in previous seasons, while Ralph Lauren has been trying out “financial growth through degrowth of resources”, making less product but more money.

“Overproduction is a massive issue within the fashion industry,” says Wallace. “[Our report] found that second hand has displaced 1bn new clothing purchases in 2021 that would have been purchased new. The more people make the switch to second hand, the less demand there will be for new clothing.”

This is a sensible conclusion to draw for platforms like thredUP that are not contributing to the demand for new clothing. But when it comes to brand owned resale platforms, we’re not yet seeing much evidence of brands slowing down production accordingly.

One brand which plans to do just that, however, is Another Tomorrow. Resale had been on cards for the New York-based brand since it launched in January 2020, and the time was right in April 2022.

“The language I’ve started to use is treating clothing as an asset again. I think when you start to think about clothing as an asset, you start to think ‘how do you care for and service that asset’, and resale is a part of that,” says founder and CEO Vanessa Barboni Hallik. “It’s really our hope that these resale businesses do supplant the need to continuously make new products.”

When it comes to fast fashion, layering resale into the product offering is just lip service when it’s not paired with a meaningful commitment to change.

Erin Wallace – VP of Integrated Marketing, thredUP

In terms of reaching an equilibrium which allows the offsetting of production with resale, Hallik says it’s difficult to model how much product customers will sell via Another Tomorrow’s authenticated resale service, but that it could take a couple of years. The plan is, at least, in motion for Another Tomorrow, but is it possible that fast fashion brands could, or would, follow suit?

Wallace is clear about what the answer should be. “When it comes to fast fashion, layering resale into the product offering is just lip service when it’s not paired with a meaningful commitment to change,” she says. “To tackle the fashion industry’s waste problem, we need to create solutions that impact both overproduction and underutilisation.”

Resale models require quality and longevity

Overproduction isn’t the only issue that resale could address. Quality and longevity are in the mix too because if brands want to enter the resale market, they need to be sure that their clothes will hold up.

As a luxury brand with quality at its core, Hallik says there is a conflict involved with resale. “We’re putting product out into the world that we completely intend to be timeless and have longevity and be held onto, so it’s a bit strange to say, ‘give it back!’” she says.

“However, as a system-wide approach, I hope it’s an incentive for companies to make higher quality products. Because if it falls apart, there’s no second bite of the apple. My hope for fast fashion is that they recognise that resale can be quite profitable if they make products that can stand the test of time.”

Material recapture, redesign, recycling, and other end of life services must make up part of a wider strategy—otherwise it becomes the consumers’ sole responsibility.

Of course, even the most high-quality clothes are subject to tears, moths, and other misfortunes, so it’s also vital that resale isn’t a one-note stab at circularity. Material recapture, redesign, recycling, and other end of life services must make up part of a wider strategy—otherwise it becomes the consumers’ sole responsibility to distribute their waste, and local access to solutions other than landfill are few and far between.

If fast fashion brands did all that, it’d mean dismantling the entire business model—and if you ask sustainability experts, that’s arguably the most sustainable move those brands could make.

What’s the verdict: circular or cynical?

Without reducing production or prioritising quality and longevity, fast fashion’s foray into resale will be, in many ways, a mere cash grab.

However, that such brands are clamouring to join in shows just how normalised second hand has become. And that could be instrumental in shifting consumer mindsets. In addition, the strides made in the industry in recent years, while still not nearly robust enough, have been significant. They demonstrate the dual power of consumer pressure and system change, and if the momentum continues it can be applied to resale, too.

It will remain important for consumers to look for meaningful action and have high expectations for true circularity and a slowing down of production. “At least they’re doing something”, isn’t necessarily a helpful position when we’re up against a tight time limit for our climate.

But citizens and consumers can use this moment as both a positive progression and a launchpad for more. “If fast fashion brands can commit to offsetting their production through resale, and creating clothes that last,” Wallace says, “we will all be better off.”

The post Fast Fashion Brands Launching Resale Platforms: Circular or Cynical? appeared first on Good On You.

The plastic packaging problem

In recent years, we’ve come to learn that, contrary to Aqua’s “Barbie Girl” lyrics, “life in plastic” is not fantastic.

Plastic takes decades to decompose, releasing harmful chemicals into the earth and the air in the process and endangering the lives of a wide variety of species, including us.

As more and more people are starting to wake up to the devastating impacts of plastic, many governments have started banning single-use plastics, and many individuals are now switching to more eco-friendly and reusable options, especially when it comes to food packaging.

What about fashion?

It turns out fashion is no stranger to the single-use plastic problem: with the rise of online shopping and the increase in amounts of clothes purchased every year (looking at you, ultra fast fashion), we’ve also seen an increase in plastic packaging used by brands.

From the bag or box your order arrives in, to the individual bags the clothes and accessories are packaged in, our online orders are often full of plastic.

According to some studies, “packaging is the dominant generator of plastic waste, responsible for almost half of the global total.” That’s an enormous (and growing) amount of often non-recyclable waste.

But things are starting to change, and more eco-friendly alternatives are starting to appear.

We’ve talked about our tips for sustainable online shopping before, as we know shopping for ethical and sustainable fashion brands online is sometimes easier—and, in the current situation, even necessary. So today we’re covering sustainable packaging alternatives to look out for the next time you order fashion online.

Compostable packaging

Compostable packaging is made from plant-based or fossil fuel materials and can break down at the end of its life, providing the earth with useful nutrients. However, that doesn’t mean you can dispose of your compostable packaging wherever you like. As the name suggests, it has to be disposed of correctly and be added to your composting bin. Be careful—while all compostable packaging is also biodegradable, the contrary is not necessarily true, so always check the instructions on how to dispose of the packaging correctly. Unfortunately, brands will often try to greenwash here, even going so far as to use the word compostable when they really mean biodegradable. If the brand doesn’t provide specific instructions on the disposal of their packaging, chances are it’s not as simple as it seems.

The good news is some fashion brands have started looking at compostable packaging: New-Zealand-based Maggie Marilyn, for example, packages her garments using ComPlast, a cassava-based compostable bag. The brand goes even further by using compostable bags to ship wholesale items. The bags are made by The Better Packaging Company from corn starch and synthetic polymers.

German brand LANIUS has also been using compostable bags, and Finisterre uses marine safe garment bags and mailbags made from unbleached kraft pulp, both of which are compostable.

But creating and sourcing compostable bags is still time-consuming, costly, and there is a lack of processes and systems in place to make it a standard across the fashion industry. We look forward to seeing more and more brands jump on board to reduce their plastic footprint as this option becomes more accessible.

Recycled packaging

We’re also seeing a lot of brands—ethical or not—saying they use cardboard, recycled, or recyclable packaging when shipping online orders. One label to look out for here is the Forest Stewardship Council—while it’s not quite as good as compostable and biodegradable options, it ensures that the cardboard used comes from responsibly managed forests.

LANIUS, for example, offers the possibility to choose an already used carton as a shipping option for your order. All packaging materials they use, from cardboard to stickers, are also carefully selected.

Reformation is also paving the way for other sustainable brands: it uses plastic-free and 100% recycled paper products, as well as recycled paper hangers.

Another of our faves, Whimsy + Row, sends out products in 100% recycled and recyclable boxes that are pretty enough to reuse, too.

Fashion For Good has also launched a pilot in partnership with Adidas, C&A, Kering, Otto Group, and PVH Corp., “The Circular Polybag Pilot”, to reduce the use and impact of polybags in the fashion industry. The pilot is currently looking at a solution to manufacture recycled polybag, using a high percentage of post-consumer polybag waste.

Reusable packaging

A growing number of companies are also encouraging customers to reuse packaging and are offering easily reusable alternatives to traditional packaging.

RePack, for example, is looking to reduce waste in the fashion industry by providing retailers with reusable and returnable packaging. Amongst Repack’s customers is one of Good On You’s favourites: MUD Jeans. RePack’s packaging comes in three adjustable sizes which are designed to last at least 20 cycles. The customers can easily return the packaging for free by post and can be offered a reward for doing so.

Other brands are also shipping their products in reusable bags, such as HARA, which sends its sustainable underwear in beautiful OEKOTEX100 bamboo bags. These can be reused for storing things or to organise your belongings when travelling.

The plastic you don’t see

Even if some brands are doing their best to offer sustainable packaging options, there is likely still plastic packaging further up the supply chain that is less obvious to consumers.

In fact, items are often shipped to the brand’s distribution centre, shops, or to other parts of the supply chain in plastic packaging, to prevent them from being damaged.

In 2014, Patagonia experimented with completely eliminating the use of polybags. But the results were disappointing and the brand quickly realised it wasn’t possible to ship products without a plastic polybag as doing so damaged items to the point that they became unsellable. Patagonia concluded that a damaged garment has a greater environmental cost than the polybags and Patagonia is, to this day, still looking for an alternative.

Packaging reduction

While the sustainable packaging movement is a commendable one and all the options mentioned above are certainly better than plastic, another important pillar in the sustainability of supply chains and shipment to remember is packaging reduction. It’s great that brands are using compostable or recycled materials, but this should be happening alongside reducing the amount needed altogether. All too often, online orders (or even supply chain orders) are packaged in far more layers than strictly necessary, and a great step in reducing the environmental footprint of a brand would be the elimination of this excess plastic.

What you can do

Not buying or shopping less is always the most sustainable way to go, but if you need to buy something online and want to reduce your environmental footprint then we recommend looking for the sustainable packaging options mentioned above.

Of course, shopping physically, whether for new or second hand items, is also a good option to reduce the amount of packaging and single-use plastic. You can ask for a paper bag or, even better, bring your own reusable bag. If the activist in you is itching to have a say here, consider contacting brands you know to use unsustainable packaging practices and call for change.

Discover our tips to shop online sustainably and reduce your impact

The post Eco-Friendly Packaging Is in Fashion: What Does It Mean and What Are Your Options? appeared first on Good On You.

On social media, trends come and go faster than ever

Each week it seems that social media spouts a new fad that’s the “must-have” item of the moment. Much to the disdain of many, a lot of these trends are borrowed from past eras, plucked out of boxes marked “never again! (and put down those eyebrow tweezers!)”.

Revisiting past trends is nothing new in fashion, but the practice has been ramped up since the arrival of micro trends. Think: one particular sunny green dress that had TikTok in a chokehold, the “cottagecore” revival (a cousin of the “twee” trend that also saw a comeback), ugly dad sandals, checkerboard prints, and chunky plastic rings.

Not every micro trend is evil. In fact, many of these looks might inspire us to dig deeper into our closets and rediscover items we haven’t worn in years. Or maybe it drives us to rescue some garments from a local charity shop.

The problem is that fast fashion brands fuel the feedback loop of these trends—quickly turning out cheap polyester versions to meet the newfound demand. That’s where micro trends raise ethical questions—and even some questions about our consumer psychology.

Here’s what you need to know about our culture’s obsession with trends—and how they keep getting quicker.

What are micro trends? The fast fashion connection

Micro trends take what you know about trends and accelerate the process: these trends rise to popularity quicker and then leave the trend cycle faster. While traditional fashion trends typically last a few years, micro trends’ life spans are shorter, with some lasting less than one season.

Many tout social media and its hypervisibility as the main culprit. It goes hand-in-hand with ultra fast fashion; faster production, exploitative manufacturing processes, and plastic clothing are needed to keep up with the demand that micro trends create.

Faster production, exploitative manufacturing processes, and plastic clothing are needed to keep up with the demand that micro trends create.

In other words, to understand micro trends is to understand the driving force of ultra fast fashion’s marketing machine. Earlier in 2022, I investigated the model driving SHEIN’s remarkable rise to be the most profitable business in its category—a brand that puts thousands of styles on its website every week. In my research, I spoke with Rita Liao, TechCrunch reporter and editor of Attention Factory, to get a deeper understanding of how SHEIN profits off of an ever-quickening trend churn.

“SHEIN puts [new products] online instantly, and then blasts it over social media. And because it’s just online, they’re also able to collect feedback very quickly,” Liao told me.

Because SHEIN is so digitally versed in data, it can pre-empt what will sell before a product is even made.

Matthew Brennan, author of Attention Factory, coined a new term to describe how fast trends turn with businesses like SHEIN: “real-time fashion,” a retail model that acts as a mirror to breaking social media trends.

An unending, exhausting push towards what’s new

Digging deeper into what drives micro trends ultimately brings us to questions of psychology. For an expert perspective, I tapped behavioural psychologist Carolyn Mair, author of The Psychology of Fashion, who launched the University of Arts London’s Psychology Department at London College of Fashion.

Mair points to fashion brands’ eagerness to supply products for sale as fueling a deeper phenomenon. “The desire to buy trend after trend isn’t about attention span—it’s about habituation. When we experience something for the first time, it excites us and gives us pleasure, but with repetition over time, the pleasure dissipates because we habituate to the experience,” she tells Good On You.

The desire to buy trend after trend isn’t about attention span—it’s about habituation.

Carolyn Mair – author of The Psychology of Fashion

Growing accustomed to the feeling motivates people to make new purchases in hopes of reigniting that pleasure and excitement.

And so, this routine of chucking out barely-worn clothes has become a spectacle of sorts. On TikTok, there’s a trend of videos where users show-off clothes they regret buying. “POV: you were influenced to buy all the micro trends last summer and now you’re disgusted,” reads one video.

Pop culture, TikTok, and surging searches

Social media, entertainment, and celebrity moments now have the ability to be moulded into micro trends at lightning speeds. Take Euphoria; after season two aired, fashion e-commerce searches surged. When character Maddy Perez (played by actor Alexa Demie) wore a black cut-out dress, there was an 890% increase in demand for the trend search.

There’s another very human and very simple reason behind the rise of micro trends: “We follow trends because we want to belong,” Mair tells me. “When we follow a trend, we show our belonging to others who follow that trend and dissociate ourselves from those who do not.” That alignment gives wearers a sense of belonging and cohesion—traits that all of us understand to be aspirational.

When Euphoria character Maddy Perez wore a black cut-out dress, there was an 890% increase in demand for the trend search.

Almost ironically as micro trends fixate on newness, many of these impermanent trends leech off existing throwback styles. What we’re seeing is a sort of trend “archaeology,” an urgency to catalogue moments in time, both past and present.

Take “indie sleaze” for example, a name that was coined retrospectively to classify the hipster years in the early 2000s and 2010s.

Nostalgia has always been pervasive in fashion, and it’s something that Mair is pragmatic about. “Fashion has always been cyclical because there are limited possibilities with clothing styles, silhouettes, and so on,” she says.

Why are we seeing more of this now? Yes, increased social media usage is one element, but Mair asks us to consider the upheaval of the past few years, too. “Nostalgia is appealing particularly in times of turmoil and uncertainty when we tend to look back with ‘rose-coloured glasses’ imagining that the past was much better than the present.”

An antidote to the trend churn: personal style

It’s one thing to understand this, but another thing to try to wade through the sea of ultra fast fashion and micro trends. A way to help maintain a discerning eye when faced with endless streams of trends is to look inward and try to define your own personal style. It’s easier said than done; humans are constantly evolving, our tastes change, and our identities are in flux. Instead of focusing on aesthetics, you can home in on your belief system and overall function of your wardrobe.

“If you have a clear organising logic in your wardrobe, it’s easy to sit out irrelevant trends and focus instead on investing in staple pieces and caring for what you already have,” says journalist and theatre nerd JD Shadel, who has reported on TikTok #hauls’ connection to ultra fast fashion trends.

In the theatre world, a production concept is the key messaging and vision that ties a show together—it’s an idea that Shadel suggests people can implement into their own wardrobes. “The production concept isn’t merely an aesthetic concern—it defines how all the elements come together in harmony,” they tell me. “Every creative decision is guided by that overarching concept.”

When we define a production concept for ourselves, it helps us look past micro trends and only purchase garments we truly love. “I buy things because I fall in love with them,” fashion icon Iris Apfel once said. And that might be the best tip of all.

Ask yourself: Do you ‘love’ this or do you want to buy it because you think it’s trendy?

Ask yourself like Apfel might: Do you “love” this or do you want to buy it because you think it’s trendy? Trends themselves aren’t inherently evil. But when an exploitative business model drives us to over consume in the name of self-expression, that’s when we know we have a problem.

Ideally, each person’s “production concept” becomes their personal style—it’s specifically tailored to their own needs. If we make our choices selectively and slowly, guiding them by what we know works for us rather than what we think is trending, we might be less prone to fall prey to the dizzying churn of styles we see on our social media feeds.

Certainly, our morals shouldn’t follow the fast-dying pace of a micro trend. If we have a clear and strong purpose that underpins our fashion decisions—such as a dedication to workers’ rights, a commitment to caring for the Earth, and a desire to support local, small businesses—it can help us stand up to the forces of fast fashion.

The post What Are Micro Trends? How Styles Change Faster Than Ever Before appeared first on Good On You.

Millions of pounds are owed to workers

In recent news, UK-based Frasers Group has reportedly acquired digital fashion retailer Missguided for $25.1 million USD, according to The Guardian. The deal includes certain intellectual property of both the Missguided and Mennace brands.

Missguided fell into administration on May 30, 2022, after being issued a winding-up petition by clothing suppliers. The fast fashion company first fell into financial difficulties in fall 2021 but was saved when private equity firm Alteri stepped in to buy a controlling stake.

Recently, on 10 June, 2022, Labour Behind the Label organised a protest in London—calling on the brand to pay workers first. Millions of pounds are still owed to suppliers around the world, the organisation says.

The post Missguided in Every Sense of the Word: a Cautionary Tale of Fast Fashion Exploitation appeared first on Good On You.

Citizen Wolf: The zero waste, made-to-order solution

The fashion industry is polluting the planet, but change is on the horizon. A few notable brands are stepping up to transform the way people wear clothes with innovative tech that feels like sci-fi and fits like a dream. Citizen Wolf is one such brand. This Australian label we first chatted to in 2021 has been making Magic Fit® custom t-shirts for six years after starting from scratch in 2016.

A certified B Corp, Citizen Wolf has successfully cut and sold over 50,000 made-to-order tees, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars on their website. Using a 94% accurate system that only needs your height, weight, and age, the brand creates a mathematical model of your body used to create clothing that is perfect for you. This system means less waste, fewer returns, and higher customer loyalty and satisfaction—and it’s all done in a special-made ECA-certified factory right in Sydney.

Citizen Wolf is “the technology company on a mission to reengineer the way your clothes are made at scale, to save our planet.” With a direct-to-consumer model that has proven to work, co-founders Eric Phu, Zoltan Csaki, and Rahul Mooray are now inviting you—the consumers—to become a business partner and “help write the next chapter of sustainable fashion together”.

For as little as $250, you can get in on the ground floor and become a shareholder as the brand moves to expand its offering to “any garment, for anyone, anywhere in the world”.

We’ve built the technology, we’ve built the brand, and we’ve proven the model. Now, from as little as $250, you can become a Citizen Wolf shareholder and help us achieve our global ambitions. Join us, and help unf*ck the fashion industry.

Ready to invest? Head to Citizen Wolf’s Birchal campaign and register your interest by June 20th

 This information is intended for people entitled to invest in Australian companies. Always consider the general CSF risk warning and offer documents before investing.

The post Become a Shareholder in Citizen Wolf to Flip the Fashion Industry appeared first on Good On You.

Is local always better? It’s not that simple

On the topic of international shipping and shopping sustainably, things can get complicated. If we are purchasing ethical fashion from the other side of the world, surely any positive impact gained is negated by a negative impact from carbon emissions?

Well, it’s not quite that simple. Every action has a reaction, so what choice has the least negative impact? We break it down for you below.

The journey of a piece of clothing

When understanding the impact of our individual purchases, we need to consider the entire journey the item has taken before it gets to us. Chances are, no matter how sustainable a fashion brand might be, that item of clothing has, at some point and in some form, travelled around the world. Bummer.

The standard life cycle of an item of clothing looks something like this:

Source: Common Objective

As the diagram indicates, the journey is complex and lengthy. It’s extremely rare for raw materials to be grown, processed, sewn, and sold all in one location. Each stage of the supply chain has some form of impact on the environment.

When we look at shipping specifically, the impact on the environment is considerable. Ships handle roughly 90% of global trade, transporting nearly 10 billion metric tons (11 billion tons) of goods per year. It has been estimated that shipping accounts for 2.5% of of the world’s total CO2 emissions and a 2015 report from the European parliament estimated that number could rise as high as 17% by 2050. Yikes.

Source: CNN

Despite this pretty major carbon impact, transport via boat is actually the cheapest and most carbon-efficient option we have right now. A big ship will emit about 10 grams (0.4 ounces) of carbon dioxide to transport 1 metric ton of cargo 1 kilometre (2 tons of cargo 1 mile). That’s roughly half as much as a train, one-fifth as much as a truck, and nearly a fiftieth of what an aeroplane would emit to accomplish the same task. This last point is important—we’ll come back to it shortly.

So, what’s better? Buying online, or buying locally?

The truth is, locally made isn’t always better. Regardless of whether we buy a piece of clothing online or on our local high street, that item has likely already travelled around the world in some form, and had a considerable impact on the environment up to that point in its journey.

Due to harmful time- and cost-cutting initiatives, a high street ‘fast fashion’ item will have a considerably higher carbon footprint overall than its ethical counterpart, even if the ethical item is coming from the other side of the world.

Fast fashion is often made out of cheap synthetic fibres such as polyester, which uses fossil fuels as its base, and requires a considerable amount of water and energy to produce in comparison to more sustainable options. It’s likely that the clothing has been coloured using synthetic dyes which can not only release chemicals when they come into contact with your skin (not cool), but can leak toxic waste into waterways, resulting in significant environmental and human damage.

The supply chain of a fast fashion brand is also incredibly inefficient with waste. It’s estimated that 35% of all materials will end up as waste sent to landfill. Then we must consider the carbon emissions from the shipping itself, as the item gets sent around the globe to utilise the cheapest labour at each stage of its production.

While the ethical t-shirt you buy online likely has a smaller footprint than the one you’d buy at your nearest H&M, it’s still important to be aware of greenwashing. Many brands, including small and local labels, now put “ethical” or “sustainable” on their Instagram bio or website, with no solid evidence to back up their claims. Don’t be afraid to ask brands where their clothes are made, and remember to use our app or directory to help you decide which brands to support.

There is no perfect solution. However, avoiding fast fashion, buying fewer, quality and second hand pieces is guaranteed to help shape a better future for all people, the planet, animals.

How to reduce your fashion’s carbon impact

So, how can we reduce our fashion’s carbon impact, even if we are already buying ethical and sustainable brands? Here are some recommendations:

Support ‘circular’ or zero-waste brands

The number one way to reduce your fashion carbon footprint when buying new is to support brands that have achieved a circular or zero-waste supply chain (where they offset all emissions and waste from their entire supply chain). They will have the lowest carbon footprint of any fashion brand. A completely circular supply chain is difficult to achieve, but there are a number of brands that are making great progress in this space. Look out for the Cradle2Cradle certification and double check the brand’s rating on the Good On You directory if you’re unsure.

• MUD Jeans (Great) uses a high proportion of eco-friendly materials including GOTS certified cotton and it creates high-quality, long-lasting products. It offsets carbon emissions through a valid carbon offset program. The use of eco-friendly materials limits the amount of chemicals, water and wastewater used in production.
• Reformation (Good) has been carbon neutral since 2015 through a mindful supply chain and the use of climate credits (for any greenhouse gases emitted, it pays for credits to offset its impact). The brand also offers customers the opportunity to purchase climate credits themselves when making purchases.
• Stella McCartney (Good) was the first brand to achieve a gold Cradle2Cradle certification on its wool yarn. It is also a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, and uses a number of eco-friendly materials. It has ambitious waste-reduction strategies in place across the entire supply chain, and measures and reports on its direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.
• Funky Kalakar (Good) is also working hard to achieve a circular supply-chain. They collect the old and worn-out accessories or shoes and upcycle or recycle them, to give them a new life.

Support brands who support environmental organisations

The next best thing is to support brands that donate money towards organisations that are helping to combat climate change. Look for brands that have environmental protection at the heart of their mission, and support organisations such as 1% for the planet or are B Corp certified.

• TAMGA Designs (Great) has made it their mission to fight deforestation. Through 1% for the planet, every sale donates 1% to the Sumatran Orangutan Society (S.O.S) and Orangutan Information Centre (OIC), both of which actively work to re-plant the Sumatran rainforest. The brand also uses forest-friendly, sustainable fibres in all of its clothing.
• Patagonia (Good) belongs to both the Sustainable Apparel Coalition and 1% For The Planet. It rejects fast fashion by creating high-quality, long-lasting products, and offers a repair and reuse program. It even goes so far as to discourage customers from purchasing too many of its products.

Don’t use fast shipping

Selecting the fast shipping option means that your item will be delivered to you via aeroplane instead of a cargo ship. As we mentioned earlier, transporting via aeroplane results in significantly more carbon emissions than via ship.

Use in store or centralised pick-up options

If you have the option, using these delivery options will reduce your personal carbon footprint as it will mean less courier van transport—couriers can deliver bulk deliveries to these locations instead of having to go door-to-door. Collect your items via public transport, by bike, or on foot for bonus points.

Try to reduce your consumption generally

Adopt a minimalist approach with a capsule wardrobe, and only purchase items that you really need, that are high-quality, and will last you a long time. Or try to find pre-loved items from your local vintage boutique. See our guide on how to build a capsule wardrobe, or the best spots for second hand shopping.

The single best thing we can do for the planet is to keep our gear in use longer and cut down on consumption.

Patagonia

Other downsides of international shipping

Of course the environmental impact of international shipping may not be your only concern. Many counties apply import taxes, so make sure you understand the additional cost before placing that overseas order or you may be in for a nasty surprise. Returns are also a hassle, so be aware of that risk if the sizing is wrong or there is another problem with your order.

The post Fashion’s Carbon Footprint: The Ins and Outs of International Shipping appeared first on Good On You.

A brief history of digital fashion

Last month, the fashion world witnessed the first-ever Metaverse Fashion Week. Once again, the conversation around “web3” and “metaverse fashion” has been thrust into the spotlight. But, of course, digital fashion is nothing new, as our Sims days can attest.

If you’re not the gaming type, maybe it was that ephemeral moment when Alicia Silverstone in Clueless dressed her digital self and then magically appeared in that infamous yellow, two-piece plaid set that every college girl recreates on Halloween. Whatever your first introduction, digital fashion has been around since the beginning of the internet, but until recently, wasn’t as widely publicised.

In the past few years, augmented and virtual reality opened up new conversations around digital fashion. COVID-19 pushed it further into mainstream lexicon.

When the pandemic hit and fashion was forced to take a step back, virtual fashion proponents emphasised that there is more to the technology than flashy marketing ploys and CGI fashion shows. In an almost “sustainable” dreamworld, it seemed to offer clothes without production, pollution, waste, and fashion shows without international flights. Soon, it was all over the media with luxury houses like Dolce & Gabbana unveiling digital collections attached to NFTs (one-of-a-kind digital files), and brands like Adidas announcing that they will enter the metaverse by selling NFTs.

So, what does it all mean? Is the metaverse and digital fashion better for people, the planet, and animals? Is this the solution we’ve all been waiting for?

Let’s dig into digital fashion and see what’s real.

What is the metaverse?

First things first. The term “metaverse” refers to a virtual space created within the internet using 3D technologies. In the metaverse, the user is immersed in a virtual space where they can do everything they do in real life, such as visiting exciting locations, meeting people, buying works of art, or selling real estate.

This concept is directly related to such technologies as blockchain, augmented and mixed reality, “non-fungible” tokens (NFTs), and many other tech advances of recent years. While NFTs can seem confusing, they’re really just a way to own digital assets, like a MetaBirkin, in a decentralised, non-fungible way.

In simple terms, the metaverse provides an ecosystem or platform for creating, owning, and monetising digital assets. It’s all built on blockchain technology. The metaverse relies on it not only as a ledger for digital goods, but also to be maintained and creatively expanded without a central organisation controlling everything.

How does it relate to fashion?

As fashion immerses itself in the metaverse, it takes two primary forms: the first is a combination of physical and digital, where clothing can be worn using augmented or virtual realities. The second is fully digital, where items are sold directly to an avatar or as NFTs.

Fashion brands clearly see the metaverse as a new way to engage tech-savvy and young consumers. For example, in 2021, the Gucci Garden premeried as a pop-up on the online game platform Roblox to sell the brand’s designs, featuring handbags and accessories that could be valued in real currency. Similarly, Balenciaga went fully digital when it launched its collection of clothes in Fortnite as “skins”, or outfits for game characters. You could purchase them using V-Bucks, the Fortnite world currency, which is purchased with real money. Then, late last year, Nike made waves by launching Nikeland—its own metaverse store that allows users to try on virtual products, in addition to playing to the strengths of Roblox as a platform with games such as dodgeball.

Wanting to be a digital leader, Nike has been among the first big brands to push the idea of virtual goods having value on parity with their real-world counterparts, in line with Burberry and some luxury manufacturers. In their eyes, it adds some utility to the brand extension rather than just being a collectible for the sake of it, which is necessary to prevent NFTs simply becoming a fad.

The metaverse and sustainability

The fashion industry is hugely wasteful. In 2020, management consulting company McKinsey predicted that, if nothing changes, by 2030 fashion would be responsible for 2.7 billion metric tons of carbon emissions a year. It is of paramount importance that the industry cuts down how much it produces and pollutes.

How does the metaverse fit in? Proponents of digital fashion would have you believe it could mitigate some of the industry’s impacts. Theoretically, if the metaverse caught on in the mainstream, designers would be able to significantly cut back on production, reproduction, and the waste created in the process by having fully virtual showrooms, launches, and events. While cutting back on resources, you might also hear metaverse boosters talk about the infinite creativity and exploration that the metaverse allows.

While digital designs are not yet big earners compared to physical clothing, and may never be, they have potential to change the fashion industry’s footprint on the planet. For example, physical garments can be authenticated as NFTs and have a digital twin. This means that new fashion creators have the same chance of building a metaverse-native brand as a heritage label, without ever needing to have a physical presence. To create digital fashion, the only tools required are a computer and the right form of design software like Clo3D or MarvelousDesigner.

To put it another way, people could enjoy a virtual fashion week or a version of the garment that they would like to buy to post on social media, without the waste associated with it. It’s an interesting vision for clothes as entertainment—one fraught with opportunities, but also chances to hijack the system.

While many have highlighted these opportunities, few have addressed the physical production processes. Instead, they’ve discussed the metaverse purely from a marketing and product perspective—wanting to capitalise on the value proposition without taking the time to address current overconsumption, unethical marketing practices like greenwashing, and other ethical concerns.

For example, earlier this year, Nike reported that its revenues for the third quarter ending on February 28 totaled $10.9 billion, up 5% on a year-over-year basis. Nike’s digital sales in the latest quarter rose 19% from the prior year, fueled by 33% growth in North America. CEO John Donahoe told analysts on the earnings call that Nike will continue to grow its presence in the metaverse, through its tie-up with Roblox as well as its acquisition of the virtual sneaker marker RTFKT.

The ethical conundrums metaverse fashion raises

All of this raises some ethical concerns. As many “foes” can attest, physical clothing will always be relevant as long as we walk this Earth. So, until our physical consumption and obsession with trend wanes, the metaverse will be just as “unsustainable” as other marketing or social channels for Nike or Adidas to promote their newest products.

In line with this thinking, Eco-Age, a consulting and creative agency specialising in fashion sustainability, has recently launched the Eco-Verse Division. This new division exists to advise clients on how to enter the NFT and metaverse world “ethically,” ensuring they respect both environmental and social standards in the process.

While this is a step in the right direction, unfortunately blockchain technology is extraordinarily energy intensive. NFTs are often recorded on Ethereum, a blockchain-based platform with its own cryptocurrency that uses a mechanism called Proof-of-Work to document transactions. Unlike Bitcoin, which is another cryptocurrency, Ethereum uses a ledger technology that companies can use to build new programs, making Ethereum far more robust. If Bitcoin was version 1.0, Ethereum is 2.0, allowing for the building of decentralised applications to be built on top of it.

As the media has noted, crypto has been under fire recently for its energy consumption. According to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF), Bitcoin currently consumes around 110 Terawatt Hours per year—0.55% of global electricity production, or roughly equivalent to the annual energy draw of small countries like Malaysia or Sweden.

While it is widely accepted that it is an energy intensive process, the relative carbon emissions associated with this energy production are still not entirely understood. There is still much debate about the actual energy mix and the mining process, leading to often inaccurate portraits.

Looking to the future

Where does this leave us—is the metaverse friend or foe to people, the planet, and animals? So far, it’s something in between.

As Auret Van Heerden from Eco-Age says: “The metaverse is already being built, by us, the users of digital media. It is our data and behaviour that enables the metaverse. In order for it to be beneficial, we urgently need to engage in order to set ethical standards, protect human rights and environmental standards, and restore agency to the users.”

This means having not only a right to know how it’s being built, but being involved in the process so that it can be environmentally and socially responsible from the beginning. This includes having a democratic ecosystem and ownership, acknowledgment of current unsustainable production in the real world, and marketing standards for brands and digital creators.

Without a solid foundation and standard setting, the metaverse will just be another channel for overconsumption and buying frenzy with the only true winners being those at the top.

The post Metaverse Fashion Raises Ethical Questions: What You Need to Know appeared first on Good On You.

Brands want you to think they’re into Pride

It’s that time of year again when so many brands want to be your gay best friend. In fashion media, that means queer journalists’ inboxes get filled with press releases for seasonal Pride collections. One glance over my inbox and you’ll see phrases like “celebrating the LGBTQ+ community,” “living out and proud,” and “expressing your authentic self” among the press announcements for everything from tank tops to tube socks—all available with rainbows for a limited time only.

So ubiquitous are fashion brands’ multicolour collections that they’re now an annual staple on the marketing calendar. In a few cases, these initiatives are made in close collaboration with LGBTQ+ creatives and donate all the profits to LGBTQ+ causes—but those kinds of collections are in the minority. More often, it seems brands pop up every spring with their announcements of new products, with vague platitudes to self-love and unevidenced claims to support the community.

This can make Pride feel like merely another seasonal event for brands to push products or earn some positive PR—a feeling that’s spawned TikTok memes and become widely reported on in the press in the past two decades.

What’s accelerated in the last fews years is the churn of cheap fast fashion Pride collections. At surface level, that might come off as merely opportunistic and insensitive—enabling brands to capitalise off of a community they do relatively little to support during the rest of the year. But frequently, the harm runs much deeper, with a dark side brands hope you won’t see.

From SHEIN’s hundreds of polyester Pride looks to Boohoo telling us “Pride isn’t just a party”, brands with alarming human rights and environmental track records are increasingly trying to profit off of an event that started with a riot against police brutality and has continued annually with demonstrations against oppression. That’s what we call pinkwashing, and fast fashion seems to see the benefits.

What’s the harm if a few extra cheap t-shirts spread a message of love, you might wonder? I’ve taken a deep dive into the Good On You ratings for a number of brands that have launched Pride collections. What I’ve found won’t be shocking to many LGBTQ+ people, but it’s certainly disheartening: the positive brand image brands gain from Pride collections is often a cynical distraction from the far less inspiring impacts throughout their supply chains.

Rainbow capitalism and Pride collections

Any discussion of fashion’s history is inseparably linked with queerness. Many of the world’s largest fashion brands—from Christian Dior and Calvin Klein to Yves Saint Laurent and Alexander McQueen—are named after gay men. Designers have co-opted and appropriated LGBTQ+ subcultures and nightlife for catwalk looks and mainstream trends.

For many queer and trans people, our clothes have long been ways of affirming our identities and countering cis-heteronormativity. Clothing ourselves is, after all, a way of non-verbally communicating to the world around us. Long before there were hookup apps, for example, there were handkerchiefs, which some queer men used to flag what they’re looking for in a partner. And even as Pride events have become more party-like, they remain a space for gender exploration and subversion.

Style is clearly a central part to the diverse expressions of Pride around the world. But there’s a reason that queer people take to social media each year to call out giant brands engaging in so-called “rainbow capitalism”—ie the Pride collections feel like a cash grab.

Pride collections have become a turnkey way for brands to position themselves as inclusive and diverse. With studies finding as many as 20% of Gen Z adults identify as LGBTQ+, it’s a profitable image for brands to portray. And so-called “rainbow retail” can be big business, with some analysts estimating that global LGBTQ+ spending could be higher than £3 trillion, according to Forbes.

For some of TikTok’s most popular brands such as SHEIN and Boohoo, the only thing the queer community gets is more inane slogan t-shirts.

Labels ranging from fast fashion giants like Forever 21 and H&M jump on the bandwagon each year. Even luxury houses like Gucci have come out with product launches like the £640 rainbow sneakers they dropped back in 2017. And step into almost any major department store between May and July and you’re certain to be greeted with racks of “love is love” graphic t-shirts.

Sometimes, there is monetary support for the queer causes wrapped up in these campaigns. In 2021, for example, Abercrombie & Fitch donated more than £150,000 to crisis support nonprofit The Trevor Project. And for its 2022 collection, Dr. Martens’ pledged more than £200,000 to LGBTQ+ charities like ​​the UK’s Albert Kennedy Trust, which helps homeless LGBTQ+ young people across Britain. Despite marketers going after the “pink dollar”, LGBTQ+ people continue to face higher rates of poverty as well as suicide, so these charities clearly do crucial work.

But with imprecise and vague statements, it’s challenging to determine exactly how these collections benefit queer communities. What percentage of profits from Pride merchandise actually goes to queer causes can remain a mystery, as brands are not often fully transparent. For example, when H&M announced its “Beyond the Rainbow” campaign last year, the company committed to donating more than £70,000 to the United Nations Free & Equal Campaign. Yet the press release was not clear on how much the company—which had 2021 profits of nearly £1.5 billion—would profit off of Pride-themed merchandise. And in prior years, H&M had donated a mere 10% of proceeds from its Pride collections, Vox reported in 2018.

For some of TikTok’s most popular brands such as SHEIN and Boohoo, the only thing the queer community gets is more inane slogan t-shirts—I found no trace of a penny going to LGBTQ+ creatives or charities.

What is ‘pinkwashing’? The opposite of empowerment

It can seem that the world’s most profitable brands only focus on LGBTQ+ people when Pride Month rolls around. After the collections end in July, you’ll not hear a peep for about 11 months. That’s what’s termed “rainbow washing” and “pinkwashing”.

On one level, pinkwashing happens when corporations aim to benefit from profit or positive press coverage because of LGBTQ+ initiatives that are inconsistent and centred around Pride festivities. But pinkwashing applies to more than merely shallow advertising campaigns. It often serves to distract from a brand’s more problematic business activities like not paying living wages. When you look closer, this is when Pride collections can seem more than a bit hypocritical.

How do you tell if a fashion brand is “pinkwashing”? One of the telltale signs is when the brand’s support for LGBTQ+ people almost exclusively revolves around marketing campaigns targeting more affluent consumers in a handful of wealthy countries. It’s pinkwashing when these brands fail to demonstrate their support for LGBTQ+ people extends beyond the point of sale.

Fast fashion brands, for example, typically produce garments in countries where queer and trans people face social and legal discrimination. Are these brands advocating for the rights of queer and trans workers across their supply chains? Do they have policies in place to support their LGBTQ+ employees not only in the corporate office, but in their factories and in their suppliers’ factories? Do they lobby politicians in the countries they operate in to make anti-discrimination laws a legislative prioroty? They’d surely tell you if they were.

I reviewed the ratings for 20 fast fashion brands, which have had Pride collections out in the past year, and 0 were found to be paying a living wage.

Here are the facts on fast fashion brands’ Pride capsule collections: they’re produced by garment workers who are too often exploited, underpaid, and toiling in factories that research increasingly shows the depth of trauma faced by the majority women of colour who work these precarious jobs.

The Good On You brand ratings data I dug into highlights the pinkwashing: I reviewed the ratings for 20 fast fashion brands, which have had Pride collections out in the past year, and 0 were found to be paying a living wage. Using our ratings system, I conducted a simple analysis of brands—selecting a sample of fast fashion labels including SHEIN, Boohoo, H&M, Forever 21, and over a dozen more. As suspected, these brands earn our lowest scores for their impacts on people.

Despite what the advertising campaigns might suggest, queer liberation is not only an issue in a handful of wealthy countries. LGBTQ+ people face violence, discrimination, and poverty around the world, including in many countries where Pride collections are produced. Ask yourself: how many garment workers are harmed to make a cheap rainbow t-shirt? How many of them are queer and trans, too?

There’s nothing empowering about Pride clothing that’s produced by brands that are exploiting and underpaying their workers, certainly including LGBTQ+ people in the supply chain.

Follow the rainbow straight to the landfills

The most depressing and ironic Pride collection I’ve seen this year comes from SHEIN, the ultra fast fashion brand that has taken trend churn to astronomical new levels.

SHEIN is, of course, the brand that takes so much of what’s bad about fast fashion and speeds it up—adding thousands of new styles to its website on a daily basis, according to reporting from Business of Fashion. It’s a brand famous for using massive amounts of user data to predict microtrends, for sparking billions of #haul views on TikTok, and for overworking and underpaying garment workers. For example, a 2021 report from the NGO Public Eye revealed SHEIN’s workers putting in as many as 75 hours a week with one day off a month.

SHEIN has 392 Pride products on its website, as of writing. That’s more than any other fast fashion brand’s Pride capsule collections. As a point of comparison, Forever 21—no friend to LGBTQ+ people—has only five styles in its Pride collection. In the process of writing this report, I refreshed my browser tab several times over the course of a few days and the number of pride items available on SHEIN ticked up each time.

Brands like SHEIN, H&M, Zara, Forever 21, and many others are largely responsible for driving the overproduction of clothing over the past few decades. This historically high consumption has pushed fashion’s waste crisis to new levels. “Around 85% of all textiles thrown away in the US—roughly 13 million tonnes in 2017—are either dumped into landfill or burned”, reported Abigail Beall for the BBC. Because these clothes aren’t dumped in the backyards of consumers in regions like North America and Europe means consumers in the Global North don’t experience firsthand the environmental catastrophe unfolding due to fast fashion waste—more often, it’s dumped in countries from Ghana to Chile.

SHEIN’s Pride collection amounts to hundreds of rainbow garments mostly made from virgin plastic, which can take centuries to decompose in landfills. When I browsed its hundreds of Pride styles, I came across items like its cami dress with a rainbow graphic reading simply “Pride”—retailing for a whopping £8.49. Dozens of other garments covered in rainbows retailed for less than a tenner. As with the cami dress, almost all of these garments are 95% polyester and 5% elastane. That means many of these Pride clothes are made out of petroleum, a non-renewable resource that’s the opposite of sustainable.

In this way, the production of these garments contributes directly to the climate crisis—an issue that’s intrinsically linked to LGBTQ+ justice. “I envision a world where everyone can have the freedom to be who they are,” upcycling designer MI Leggett told me in an interview about waste in fashion. “But that can’t really happen if we’re going to have a climate apocalypse.” Leggett bluntly noted the interconnectedness of these issues, saying that trans and queer liberation can’t happen “if we’re all on fire and don’t have any water to drink”.

Alternative idea: return to Pride’s radically creative roots

A friend recently texted me a screenshot of a product they saw on Amazon: “The first gay Pride was a riot” read the slogan on the £13.99 t-shirt. As ironic as it is, the shirt is correct. Bank of America wasn’t sponsoring the first Pride, and police weren’t marching, either. We celebrate Pride Month in June in commemoration of the Stonewall riots, in which New York City police officers raided an LGTBTQ+ bar and the fed-up patrons—led predominantly by queer and trans people of colour—fought back over four nights. That was 1969. The following year, a protest march marked the first Pride parade.

While this one event can sometimes seem over-mythologised in queer history, the point is clear: Pride was not founded as an opportunity for corporate sponsorship or a seasonal event to push products. It’s a deeply political protest to a world that perpetuates violence against trans and queer people.

“As with the Stonewall riots and the first Pride, the twin threats of violence and oppression toward the LGBTQ community underlined the ongoing necessity of Pride Month as a political act first, a party second”, wrote Alex Abad-Santos in 2018. And it’s equally true this year, when simply being queer remains illegal and punishable by death in many countries; when US states are trying to criminalise trans children, and when the UK’s media and political discourse remains deeply entrenched in transphobia. Last year, almost half of LGBTQ+ youth contemplated suicide.

I can’t think of a gayer way to celebrate Pride than rejecting oppressive systems that harm so many people in the process.

For many of these reasons, Reclaim Pride hosts New York City’s Queer Liberation March in protest of the corporatisation of Pride events.

Similarly, LGBTQ+ people and their allies can reject the fast fashion-ification of Pride by returning to its radical roots. As Andy Campbell highlights in his book Queer X Design, Pride traditions are deeply connected to grassroots creativity. The history of Pride is one of handmade posters and t-shirts, upcycling and repurposing, anti-capitalist design and alternative zines, and more.

Reignite that legacy. Avoiding that SHEIN rainbow dress won’t solve fashion’s problems—but it can give you extra cash to support queer people directly and inspiraiton to avoid buying anything new.

Instead, why not try:

• Upcycle garments in your own closet.
• Host a Pride clothing swap.
• Rewear the Pride gear from parades past.
• Support local LGBTQ+ artists, designers, and makers.

Fast fashion goods may be cheap, but they also drain demand for your neighbourhood queer artists and upcyclers. Many queer creatives make a lot of their income during Pride festivities, so seek out these makers to support and celebrate.

After all, I can’t think of a gayer way to celebrate Pride than rejecting oppressive systems that harm so many people in the process.

The post From SHEIN to Boohoo, Fast Fashion Profiting off Pride Is Peak Pinkwashing appeared first on Good On You.

What the ‘feminisation of labour’ means

The wellbeing of garment workers has never been a priority in the broader fashion industry’s supply chains. New research highlights just how harmful the industry is to underpaid and exploited garment workers, the majority of whom are women of colour.

In the fashion lexicon, “offshoring” is understood as the transfer of garment manufacturing from wealthier Western nations to low- and lower-middle income countries (LMIC) for the sake of profit. This practice began decades ago, with the fall of powerful labour unions in places like the US and the rise of globalisation. Consequently, women workers have entered the industrial workforces of production countries at ever higher rates.

Several studies have documented this phenomenon, termed the “feminisation of labour.” This term is not only used to define the sharp increase in women’s labour force participation in industrial sectors but also to underscore the deteriorating nature of such employment. For these women, work is increasingly precarious and unpredictable. This makes the links clear between the wellbeing of women and the impacts of globalisation, and underscores why we can’t address these problems only as structural or economic problems. Justice for garment workers means grappling with the patriarchy and post-colonial systems of power.

The 'feminisation of labour' defines the sharp increase in women’s labour force participation in industrial sectors and underscores the nature of employment as increasingly precarious and unpredictable.

In theory, this new manufacturing strategy promised opportunities for women in recently industrialised nations, including better wages, independence, and development. But power imbalances remained, and cheap labour became the name of the game, with wages and conditions continuously diminishing to meet demand in wealthy Western countries. It’s a system that repeats the same patterns of colonialism, with colonial powers in countries like Europe, America, and Australia profiting off the exploitation of colonised countries.

The reality is appalling. A Stitch in Time Saves None by the Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) explained earlier this year that while the global garment industry has promised to reduce poverty and uplift the status of women, in reality, it has delivered rock-bottom wages, extreme hours, and unsafe, often violent conditions to meet these pressures felt throughout the supply chain.

To make matters worse, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, global apparel brands cancelled billions of dollars worth of placed orders, refused to pay for completed goods, delayed payments for months, demanded deep discounts, and refused to contribute to outstanding wages and legally mandated compensation owed to workers. (Good On You updated our brand rating methodology in 2020 to incorporate wellbeing of workers and fair payment throughout the pandemic as components of our “people” score.)

How COVID-19 exacerbated current imbalances

Unsurprisingly, when COVID-19 hit, asymmetrical power relations between brands and suppliers enabled many brands to shirk accountability to workers in their supply chains. This led to widespread wage theft, informalisation, job insecurity, and work intensification, which became particularly pronounced during the pandemic-induced recession. This has had devastating impacts on women garment workers and their families.

The alarming report by AFWA directly links the rise in gender-based violence and harassment during the pandemic to the purchasing practices of international fashion brands.

The report by AFWA, which makes for alarming reading, directly links the rise in gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) during the pandemic to the purchasing practices of international fashion brands, including American Eagle, Bestseller, C&A, Inditex, Kohl’s, Levi’s, Marks & Spencer, Next, Nike, Target, Vans/VF Corporation, and Walmart. As a result, AFWA now terms the harm inflicted on garment workers the “garment industrial trauma complex.”

What is the garment industrial trauma complex?

According to AFWA, the garment industrial trauma complex is a type of economic harm that is fuelled by corporate greed and the feminisation of labour, which directly contributes to a complex web of trauma from verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. This intersects with heightened health-related anguish, and extreme economic-based anxiety that leads to embodied trauma.

AFWA highlights the significance of acknowledging women’s lived bodies as navigating power and systems of gender domination and bringing attention to violence against women.

Mental health and its relationship to working conditions has gained increased attention in recent years, such as the harmful impacts of demanding job requirements and low control over the work process, work intensification, heightened performance pressures, bullying and harassment, and the use of fragmented tasks and extractive work targets.

Taking inspiration from feminist literature, the sociological term stresses the importance of acknowledging the lived experiences of women facing violence as “embodied,” highlighting the significance of women’s material, lived bodies as navigating power and systems of gender domination and bringing attention to violence against women.

Getting involved and staying informed

Talking about gender-based violence can be triggering and heavy, but it must be brought to light. It’s an overwhelming and complex web of issues. If you’re wondering where you can get involved, we encourage you to start within your own communities and with your own skills. For example, if you’re interested in signing a petition, this #PayYourWorkers one helps support garment workers. If you’re more of a visual learner, check out this guide on 11 essential documentaries about the textile industry. And most importantly, we encourage you to feel empowered to reach out to your local legislators: call, email, and petition them to support fair wages and blocklist countries that don’t comply with basic labour standards.

The post Garment Workers Face Ongoing Trauma: New Research Underscores Why Justice Can’t Wait appeared first on Good On You.

The surging consumer demand for more ethical fashion

One of the major consumer trends over the last five years is the huge rise in shoppers searching for more sustainable options. Case in point: searches for “sustainable products” have surged by 71% since 2016, according to global research by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Sustainability is no longer a niche concern for a subset of the population. It’s become a mainstream focus for shoppers around the world.

But even as the demand for ethical fashion has rapidly grown, we’ve also seen an increase in greenwashing from major brands. Last year, a study by the European Union’s consumer protection authorities found that greenwashing is rife on e-commerce websites. The study deemed nearly 50% of claims false, misleading, or potentially illegal.

That’s the key problem consumers face. They’re demanding that brands take sustainability seriously. They’re scouring the web for more sustainable products. But it’s either too time-consuming, too confusing, or straight-up impossible for most average consumers to figure out what information they can trust.

Greenwashing is rife on e-commerce websites. Nearly 50% of claims are false, misleading, or potentially illegal.

Sustainability is undeniably complex. And most consumers aren’t sustainability experts. We simply can’t expect them to be.

This underscores why the latest news from Microsoft Bing is such a key milestone. It has become the first major search engine to incorporate fashion ethics ratings as a central feature of its shopping search experience. And it’s powered by Good On You’s credible and independent ratings.

Let’s take a look at how Microsoft Bing is helping everyday shoppers see through the greenwashing—and how these kinds of innovative actions can push the industry to do better.

Sustainability tech that’s empowering better choices

First, here’s why this matters. We all have a right to know how brands impact critical issues from climate change to workers’ rights. You shouldn’t need to be a supply chain consultant or climate scientist to verify if brands are telling the truth.

But before Good On You existed, there was no straightforward way to check brands’ track records on people, planet, and animals.

That’s why we launched our sustainability platform in 2015: to help transform fashion from the bottom up. And over the past several years, we’ve led a growing movement of consumers demanding just that. It’s a movement that now numbers into the tens of millions.

You shouldn’t need to be a supply chain consultant or climate scientist to verify if brands are telling the truth.

We’ve come a long way since our launch. Good On You is now widely regarded as the industry’s most trusted source for sustainability ratings and information. Our ratings system brings together the world’s most reliable public information on sustainability—tapping 500-plus data points across more than 100 key issues, indicators, and standards systems. We then present that in clear and accessible ratings. And we do it at a scale no one else has. So far, we’ve rated more than 3,500 brands, with thousands more on the way.

Microsoft Bing is making these user-friendly ratings more accessible than ever before.

How Microsoft Bing helps you see through the greenwashing

Now, let’s dive into the news. Good On You’s ratings are powering Microsoft Bing’s Ethical Shopping Hub, which first launched in the UK in late 2021. The Ethical Shopping Hub and search experience is now live in the United States and Canada, rolling out to more regions and languages soon.

How does it work? It’s simple—you’ll see it when you enter a relevant search query on Bing.com.

Within the shopping tab, you can select the Good On You filters to find products from brands that have been independently evaluated by our ratings system. Microsoft Bing users in the relevant regions are now able to filter fashion products based on Good On You brand ratings and values. When you hover over a listing, you’ll not only see the rating but also the criteria and values that the brand performs well on.

What’s so powerful is that these new features are central to how shopping experiences work on Microsoft Bing.

For many products that you’ll find using Microsoft Bing, Good On You has done the hard work for you. Using our proprietary tech, our analysts have evaluated each brand using our rigorous methodology, which we developed in collaboration with industry experts, academics, and organisations. Transparency and materiality are core to how the ratings system works. Learn more about how Good On You rates brands.

What’s so powerful is that these new features are central to how shopping experiences work on Microsoft Bing. They’re seamlessly integrated into the core search interface alongside filters for price range, size, colour, and so on.

We all have a role to play in shaping the future

This news sends a clear message to the wider world of tech and e-commerce: you also have a responsibility to act.

While sustainability conversations often centre on what brands themselves are doing, the power to transform the industry and our wider economy does not only lie with brands. Platforms like Microsoft Bing are in a unique position, as they sit between everyday shoppers and brands. That gives them many opportunities.

Pioneering retailers like FARFETCH already harness Good On You’s ratings to educate consumers and promote meaningful changes across the fashion industry. It’s clear how much potential there is for others to step up.

These platforms have the power to not only shift consumer demand, but to push brands to improve in ways governments have so far failed to mandate. The growing calls for government regulation of the fashion industry is, frankly, long overdue. But that does not absolve the rest of the industry from its responsibilities.

These platforms have the power to not only shift consumer demand, but to push brands to improve in ways governments have so far failed to mandate.

The industry urgently needs to take action for our planet, for the millions of garment workers who make our clothes, and for the communities affected across the supply chain.

That’s why it’s so crucial that everyone within the system recognises they have a role to play. We need individual action. We need government action. And we need the industry to take accountability for its impacts at all levels. The solution is truthfully all of the above. Microsoft is showing us how to start making strides in the right direction.

The post Microsoft Bing Is the First Major Search Engine to Incorporate Ethical Fashion Filters appeared first on Good On You.

The status quo is broken

Fashion is problematic, from the deep systemic supply chain issues to the surface-level advertising images we see every single day. Fixing it won’t be done with a new slogan, clever branding, or refreshed marketing. Instead, what is needed is a complete shift from the current, dominant way that clothing is produced and consumed—and circularity may hold the key.

RIght now, our clothes are produced and used in a damaging and outdated straight line, meaning we “take, make, and dispose”. It’s a pattern that has been increasing, with clothing production doubling over the past 15 years. On the consumption side, it is estimated that more than half of fast fashion produced is disposed of in under a year, with the average number of times a garment is worn decreasing by 36% in the last 15 years worldwide.

Producing and consuming clothing in this way directly impacts the long term health and viability of our planet and its people: garment workers suffer unlivable wages and conditions by the millions; excessive taking of raw materials increases water consumption and rates of biodiversity loss and results in carbon emissions; ill-considered making leads to water contamination, soil degradation, and yet more carbon emissions; and wilful disposal results in further biodiversity loss, impacted local clothing markets, and, you guessed it, more carbon emissions. On a planet where we need to do all we can now to limit our environmental and human impacts, it is not hard to see that fashion needs to change.

What changes with circularity

A circular fashion system disrupts the linear system completely. Instead of a defined beginning and end, characterised by the take, make, and dispose model, clothing exists within a perpetual loop where there are almost limitless possibilities. Take, make, and dispose become transformed:

• Take: As opposed to endless and excessive taking, regenerative materials are used for our clothing
• Make: Clothing is made in a renewable manner, waste is designed out, durable and recyclable design is in
• Dispose: Maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and responsible recycling are in and there is no longer any “away”

Shifting to circular

Shifting to circular requires multiple changes to the system. Due to both the complexity and scale of changes required, it is daunting to know how and where to begin. Where do you find information? What changes do you make first? What responsibility do you have as a designer, a retailer, a recycler, a consumer, or a government regulator?

Recognising the lack of practical advice on how to go circular for the fashion ecosystem, a collective of Australian designers, distributors, reusers, recyclers, and researchers, convened by the Monash Sustainable Development Institute along with fashion brands A.BCH, Seljak, and Kloke, combined their expertise and in 2021 designed and published a guide on fashion and circularity.

The guide, “A Better T-shirt for today and tomorrow. Circular Stories. Volume 1“, takes the ubiquitous t-shirt and, through the eyes of the t-shirt itself (which was affectionately named CIRC-T), decodes exactly how a t-shirt can be produced and consumed in a circular fashion. Given that an estimated 15 billion t-shirts are produced worldwide every year, and every second the equivalent of a rubbish truck load of clothes is burnt or buried in landfill—of which you can imagine t-shirts make up a significant part—tackling t-shirts seems like a very useful place to start.

How to find a CIRC-T: for the buyer

So how can the t-shirt buyer/purchaser make circular fashion decisions?

Using CIRC-T as the muse, the reader is taken on a journey of discovery and is asked to consider a series of questions categorised around four circular principles: Reduce, Revalue, Regenerate, and Respect.

Savvy questions for shoppers to consider, as suggested by CIRC-T itself, include:

• Have I been chosen carefully—am I something that you really need and that you will really love? (Reduce)
• Can you lend me to a friend or borrow me from a friend? (Reduce)
• Is it clear how I can be remade/turned into something else? (Revalue)
• Did you ask if I can be repaired easily? (Revalue)
• Can I be renewed into either a new garment or remade into something new entirely? (Regenerate)
• Can I be taken to an op shop, charity store, or social enterprise? (Regenerate)
• Is the seller providing a back to point-of-sale service (a take back scheme) for when I am no longer wanted? (Regenerate)
• Will you respect me once you have bought me? (Respect)
• Will you treat me with care, wash me according to the instructions, and understand what to do with me at the end of life? (Respect)

Change is happening, despite the challenges

Shifting to a circular mindset for the purchase does require thought upfront. You do need to choose your t-shirt—like all your garments—carefully, use your t-shirt well and, at the end of life, responsibly dispose of the t-shirt. However, as the guide acknowledges, it is not as easy today as we would like it to be. Access to recyclable and renewable materials is difficult and the infrastructure for recycling t-shirts—no matter what they are made from—is limited.

But change is underway. More and more businesses are realising that business as usual is not a feasible option and we are becoming all too aware that the textiles that make up our t-shirts are valuable—too valuable for take, make, and dispose to continue to dominate the methods of production and consumption.

For this to continue—and to take place at both scale and speed—businesses need access to information about what is the “right” material to buy as well as access to that material. Events like RawAssembly are critical to addressing both of these gaps.

In partnership with T: The New York Times Style Magazine and BETA by STH BNK at Hanover House in Melbourne, RawAssembly is exactly the type of event we need more of, providing the space for conversation, exhibition, and importantly action—showing what is possible now through a series of impact stories.

Over three industry days and five public days from May 24th, RawAssembly is bringing together solution providers with activators. In so doing, the event is creating and fostering the development of  new partnerships that we need if we are to transform the industry.

Start your circular journey today by pledging for a better tomorrow

There is one thing we can all do now that will assist with speeding up the transition to a circular system: let’s start to really love our t-shirts and all of the processes and the people power that have gone into making the t-shirt in the first place. This principle of respect is of central importance in the guide: we all need to respect where our clothes have come from, how they are made, and who made them. As CIRC-T says: “I really, really want you to love me. Like forever!”

Take the pledge

For all of us, perhaps one way to begin the journey is to commit to a more sustainable future today by creating our own CIRC-Ts. Download the guide and sign the pledge for a more sustainable fashion industry for today and tomorrow.

Discover fashion brands leading the circular economy

The post What a T-Shirt Can Teach Us About Circularity in Action appeared first on Good On You.

Meet Orsola de Castro, Co-Founder of Fashion Revolution

Each April, Fashion Revolution Week brings together activists, organisers, citizens, and policy makers around the world for urgent conversations on transforming the industry from the bottom up. But the theme for 2022 seemed a particularly significant reflection on the state of fashion.

This year, the movement went back to its roots with the theme “Money, Fashion, Power”. It’s the same theme as Fashion Revolution’s first zine, which it published nearly a decade ago. It’s a telling sign of how little has changed and how urgent these issues are for our collective future.

We recently sat down with Orsola de Castro, co-founder and creative director of Fashion Revolution, to reflect on where the organisation has been and where we need to go from here.

De Castro is an internationally recognised leader in this space. Her career started as a designer with the pioneering upcycling label From Somewhere, which she launched in 1997 and ran until 2014. In 2013, she and Carry Somers founded Fashion Revolution with the vision of shaping a global fashion industry that conserves and restores the environment and values people over growth and profit. Today, Fashion Revolution is a decentralised network of over 90 chapters, which organise and mobilise around key fashion issues at the local level.

Throughout our conversation, de Castro brings to light the sweeping changes needed to move fashion forward; the institutions of power monopolising wealth in the hands of a few billionaires; and how there currently is no such thing as “sustainable fashion”. This may sound overwhelming, which it is—but de Castro offers us some tangible ways to reshape how we view our own position within this exploitative system.

8 Q&As on Fashion Revolution Week 2022 and beyond

Q: What was the significance of Fashion Revolution choosing this theme for 2022?

A: We started Fashion Revolution Week because we realised the importance of a living, dignified pay for the entirety of our network and the fact that the whole of our network responds and identifies with this topic.

The theme this year is significant because “Money, Fashion, Power” was actually the title of our first zine, which we published in 2016. We think it’s important for people to understand that this topic is really our foundation.

In a way, we want to show our network how advanced we were then and continue to be. Since the beginning, we’ve been tackling these conversations before they were discussed openly by the media.

Since the beginning, we’ve been tackling these conversations before they were discussed openly by the media.

Q: Can you discuss how Fashion Revolution makes sense of the institutions that perpetuate the power and wealth imbalances within the fashion industry? Why they are so difficult to dismantle?

A: We have several approaches to the industry in the sense that we say we challenge the mainstream, but we champion the radicals. There are many young brands that we have supported, for example, with our Fashion Open Studio, which is now going to become a fully open source for the benefit of the global network.

However, when it comes to the mainstream industry, obviously our main instrument of change is via the Fashion Transparency Index, which we utilise as a tool to scrutinise brands and what they are and are not disclosing.

As Fashion Revolution, we have always been very forthright in championing transparency and acknowledging that it is not the end, but the beginning; it is not an end solution, but the very start of a new culture of scrutiny and accountability in the fashion industry.

For us, the real strength of the organisation is that we are not a centralised team. In fact, we are a global team of 90+ local chapters that are looking at fashion from their respective countries. That’s what makes us different. The power of Fashion Revolution is that we listen to not only the requirements of individuals, but also the industry on a global scale.

Ultimately, there’s no presumption that we know what needs to be done, but instead an assumption that we need to listen to the experts in those fields that know what they need in order to thrive.

Q: Sometimes it feels like things are only getting worse in the industry. Are there any examples of success you can point to with your work as a sign of progress? 

A: Absolutely. Our team in India, for example, was instrumental recently in a battle for artisans to be paid, unfortunately in this case, only a minimum wage. Despite this, it was a huge increase on what garment workers there were previously making.

On a more macro-scale, some of our teams are very effective when it comes to education and others at political communication.

As I mentioned before, there really is no centralised character in Fashion Revolution, but now an overarching identity of the country coordinators that create little wins for our combined big wins.

There is too much to tackle as individuals. We can only do this collectively.

Q: As you know, Good On You is in the business of accountability, access to information, and consumer empowerment. Are there certain actors or institutions that have been enabling the fashion industry in its opaqueness? Who else needs to be brought into the conversation and held accountable?

A: It’s a really difficult question to answer because really everything needs to change and no one is really doing enough, including us and every other activist on the planet. There is too much to tackle as individuals. We can only do this collectively.

It’s only the power of this collective that’s going to change things because the entirety of this culture is built on the opposite of the collective—the power and wealth of a few individuals at the top. It is the entire system that is based on principles that are wrong: we do not treat each other as equals in society.

The actors that are missing from this conversation are those that were never respected in the first place: folks working on the ground, the supply chain workers, and the individuals being affected socially and environmentally by the impact of this industry. In the end, the industry and mainstream has spoken way too much and delivered far too little. We need transparency to be mandatory and for the fashion industry to be 100% regulated.

Q: What does Fashion Revolution think about “sustainable fashion?” What are some ways consumers can be part of the solution rather than the problem? 

A: Really there is no “sustainable fashion.” It is either unsustainable fashion or fashion. We need to stop talking about “sustainable fashion” and start inverting the concept because a large percentage of what we buy is unsustainable. Period.

The industry and mainstream has spoken way too much and delivered far too little. We need transparency to be mandatory and for the fashion industry to be 100% regulated.

Q: Recently, there have been important conversations centred around “degrowth.” What is it, why is it important, and what are some tangible steps that move us in this direction?

A: Degrowth really talks about balance and common sense. We’ve made too much and we frankly don’t need it so let’s stop producing so much—that’s degrowth. Obviously, in practice, it’s far more complicated, but really that’s the essence of it.

In the realm of the fashion industry, it’s about producing less because the majority of what we produce is unnecessary. Speed has killed skills, so we need to bring back those skills in order to create balance.

Ultimately, no one should or can sustainably produce with the kind of pressure we are currently placing on supply chain workers and the planet. It is unsustainable. We need to redistribute prosperity throughout the supply chain rather than growing at the top.

Fashion is not frivolous. It’s a multibillion dollar industry that employs millions and destroys resources.

Q: Many people often feel disempowered to participate in these conversations because they don’t think they can make a difference, especially when power is concentrated in the hands of a few. How can people get involved and feel empowered?

A: The easiest thing in the world is to start with your wardrobe. Fashion is not frivolous, but a multibillion dollar industry that employs millions and destroys resources. So, it has a massive impact on Earth, people, and livelihoods.

Everything that anyone can do is about agency as fashion is profoundly individual. So, while something works for me, it may not work for you, but everyone can start with caring for their wardrobe. We need to start thinking about the clothes that we own in a different way.

For more specific examples, I’d recommend starting with my book, Loved Clothes Last, as it has plenty of ideas on how to do this for all kinds of people. You may not be interested in fashion, but ultimately you have to get dressed, right? Those clothes can be the beginning of your change in an informed way.

It’s not about going on a sort of “crash diet”, but making lasting, behavioural changes that can be carried on throughout your entire life.

Q: How can we begin to move beyond the overconsuming, throw-away culture that fast fashion has normalised?

A: I’d say remain a clothes keeper. Truly, the only antidote to a throw-away society is to keep. The only way we can respect the people who have made our clothes is to honour the clothes they’ve made, even if it is fast fashion.

In other words, your SHEIN top still warrants repair even if it is SHEIN. Repair everything because repairs are the first step towards reparations and healing our society.

The only way we can respect the people who have made our clothes is to honour the clothes they’ve made, even if it is fast fashion.

The post We Need a Fashion Revolution Now More Than Ever: Orsola de Castro on Money and Power appeared first on Good On You.

TikTok is a boon for ultra fast fashion

With over 1 billion users, catchy visuals and sounds, and a viral platform where virtually anyone can get famous (@ Charlie D’Amelio), TikTok has revolutionised the way we consume media and fashion. As fun as the platform can be for its many memes, the track records for the brands we see aren’t always so cute.

In this fast-paced digital age, it seems as though the “old-school fast fashion” brands like H&M and Zara are Y2K relics of the past, heavily surpassed in both production and follower count by global monsters like SHEIN and Boohoo. These ultra fast fashion labels have cunningly mastered the art of digital consumption, luring in young consumers with #hauls and #giveaways by utilising data in revolutionary ways.

But as ubiquitous as these brands are on TikTok, it can be hard to find out their true impacts. Well, we’re here to help you peel back the industry’s lack of transparency and see what’s really happening with the brands populating your feed. Here’s what we found: many of these fast fashion brands are exacerbating inequality, exploiting workers, and producing plastic garments that will ultimately end up in landfills.

You ask: “How do the top TikTok brands rate?” Scroll on for answers.

The post How Ethical Are the Most Popular TikTok Clothing Brands? We Rated 26 to Find Out appeared first on Good On You.

An inherently unsustainable system

It’s no secret that the fashion industry produces way more than we’ll ever need. Fashion Revolution revealed that the number of garments produced annually has doubled since 2000 and exceeded 100 billion for the first time in 2014.

Why is that? With the advent of fast fashion, retailers started producing clothes at breakneck speed to get the newest styles on the market as fast as possible. The recent example of SHEIN, which may have added up to 314,877 new items to its US website since the beginning of the year, is the most poignant.

Sadly, every season about 30% of the clothes produced are never sold. So to make space for shinier items, that unsold stock has to go somewhere. But where?

Going up in flames

In 2017, it was revealed that H&M had been burning 12 tons of unsold clothing every year since 2013.

H&M isn’t the only culprit, and stories like this have revealed destroying—and especially burning—unsold stock is common practice in the fashion industry. Years before this story, the New York Times revealed it had found bags of H&M and Walmart clothing that had been slashed through, possibly to prevent them from being resold or returned for cash.

Where there is smoke, there is fire, and unfortunately, even luxury brands have been found guilty of destroying goods. In July 2018, Burberry reportedly burned unsold stock worth millions of dollars. In its annual report, the brand acknowledged that it had destroyed unsold goods worth up to £28.6 million, or US$37 million. Louis Vuitton, Coach, Michael Kors, and Juicy Couture have also been tied to this practice.

Burning stock is said to be the most cost-effective way for luxury brands to protect exclusivity and avoid devaluing their image. Luxury fashion is a status symbol, so burning excess inventory—as opposed to selling it at a discount—maintains the brand’s value and sense of exclusivity.

Sadly, every season about 30% of the clothes produced are never sold. So to make space for shinier items, that unsold stock has to go somewhere.

Many brands are also afraid of the “grey market” where genuine designer goods are bought cheaply and resold by others. In one case, Richemont, the parent company of fine watch brands such as Cartier and Montblanc, was caught up in controversy after it destroyed more than £400 million worth of designer timepieces in a bid to stop them from being sold by unauthorised vendors.

Luxury brands may also have a financial incentive to destroy unsold stock. For example, brands have to pay all sorts of taxes and charges to import goods into the USA. But if the goods are unsold, and the brand exports them again or destroys them under US customs supervision, they can recover up to 99% of the taxes and charges they paid in a process known as “drawback”. In the end, it can be cheaper (and entirely legal) for brands to destroy excess products rather than spend resources finding ways to repurpose or recycle them.

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, every second, the equivalent of a rubbish truckload of clothes is burnt or buried in landfill. But it’s hard to know exactly how much of it is unsold stock.

What’s the environmental impact of destroying stock?

When brands are accused of burning unsold stock, they often highlight that the energy generated from burning these products was captured, making it “environmentally friendly”. Really?

According to a report on sustainability and the fashion industry from the UK Parliament in February 2019, while burning unsold inventory might help recover some energy, it multiplies the actual climate impact of the products. When burning clothes, carbon dioxide and other gases are released into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and harming our health. The truth is, the energy recouped by burning goods is often nearly not enough to balance the energy required to produce the garments in the first place.

The energy recouped by burning goods is often nearly not enough to balance the energy required to produce the garments in the first place.

Plus, a lot of clothing these days is made of plastic, and the incineration of these clothes may release plastic microfibres into the atmosphere. Even if clothes aren’t burned and are “simply” dumped in landfills, they take years to decompose.  And landfills are said to be the third-largest source of methane emissions in the US.

“But why don’t they recycle the clothes?” you might ask. Well, contrary to popular belief, many of our clothes aren’t recyclable. The issue often stems from the fact that most of our clothing is made from a blend of natural and synthetic fibres that are difficult to separate. This, combined with the lack of reliable, large-scale fabric recycling technology means that disposed clothes often end up in landfills. In the US, only 13.6% of clothes and shoes thrown away are recycled, and just 12% of the material used for clothing ends up being recycled. This 12% will likely be shredded and used as furniture stuffing or made into insulation or cleaning cloths, as shown in the short documentary “Unravel: The final resting place of your cast-off clothing“. Less than 1% of what is collected will be used to make new clothing.

Will brands ever stop burning unsold clothes?

Stories like Burberry’s and H&M’s have shocked shoppers around the globe, and the idea of a big pile of perfectly good items going up in flames left all of us stunned.

As a result, some brands have taken measures to reduce waste and have pledged to stop destroying unsaleable goods. But this is not enough.

Even with new groundbreaking legislation, as long as big fashion brands keep producing at a dangerously fast rate, we're in big trouble.

The issue comes from the traditional linear, take-make-waste model, where there’s only one way out for the tons of clothes produced each year. And even with new groundbreaking legislation, such as France’s law prohibiting the destruction of unsold goods, as long as big fashion brands keep producing at a dangerously fast rate, we’re in big trouble. There needs to be a shift to a more circular system that gives value to recycled and reclaimed goods where the focus is on the longevity and life cycle of our possessions.

Luckily, we’re seeing more and more sustainable brands moving towards circularity and implementing solutions to reuse waste, such as using deadstock fabric. But the burden of change can’t fall solely on small sustainable labels. Change needs to be systemic, and it needs to happen at every stage of a garment’s lifecycle—starting with major fashion players producing less.

What can we do to help?

Consumers also play a key role in reducing waste in the fashion industry. Here are some key actions you can take to align with circular fashion and reduce waste in the industry:

• Know about the brands you buy by using resources such as Good On You
• Support sustainable and ethical fashion
• Live by the five R’s of fashion
• Shop second hand where possible, or consider renting for your next event
• Host and attend clothes swaps
• Ask “What are the alternatives?” before throwing away used clothing

The post Why Do Some Fashion Brands Destroy and Burn Unsold Clothes? appeared first on Good On You.

Fashion’s negative impacts are getting worse

How do you solve a problem like fashion? The industry is only getting bigger and its sustainability performance is not catching up with the pace of growth.

Set to a backdrop this stark, it’s no surprise that an emerging number of super-engaged, eco-critical academics, activists, designers, and advocates are turning towards the ultimate alternative: rejecting mainstream economics in favour of something hopeful, complex, and to some, delusional.

The banner they fly is “degrowth”—a fascinating word, as it refers to a process, a calling, a framework, and a lifestyle all wrapped up into one.

For the diverse movement of people calling for degrowth, the motivation is simple: rich countries must balance their economies with planetary boundaries.

For many in the growth-focused fashion industry, the term creates discomfort by challenging establishment thinking. So much so, it might be hard to imagine the fashion industry choosing this route.

But as grassroots movements have shown us throughout history, degrowth could be our future if we choose it. And for the diverse movement of people calling for degrowth, the motivation is simple: rich countries must balance their economies with planetary boundaries. The survival of many people around the world already depends on it. And what fashion industry is there without people?

As an emerging sustainability topic for fashion, degrowth can feel like a heady concept rather than a feasible model. Few corporate-level case studies exist. So what does degrowth really mean? What could it look like? For answers, let’s take a look at the ideals behind degrowth and some of the glimmers of progress pushing for change in the industry.

What is degrowth all about? Transforming an unjust system

At a high level, degrowth refers to a voluntary reduction of growth in a democratic society. And degrowth is not specific to fashion alone.

This transformative process doesn’t come from an “outside” force like, for example, a recession. A recession isn’t degrowth because it’s a reactive contraction, rather than proactive, controlled shrinking.

In fashion, degrowth starts with a rejection of the fast fashion business model. That looks like decoupling the production of cheap garments from profitability. That looks like producing fewer garments that we keep for longer and repair instead of throwing them away.

That’s where you can begin to understand why degrowth sounds so radical and controversial: it calls for a full-scale reimagining of our economic system.

Degrowth isn’t new: the movement’s roots go deep

At its core, the ideas behind degrowth call for new strategies: degrowth is a framework that’s about transformation. It builds on the work of ecological and anti-colonial theorists. In this way, the concept of degrowth is closely linked with climate justice, Indigenous rights, and reparations for fashion’s extractive and neo-colonial production models.

As a movement, degrowth is often said to have emerged in France in the 1970s. But that’s not the full story. Non-Eurocentric communities around the world have operated according to degrowth’s ambitions for millennia—proving that our minds create our worlds, not our markets.

Communities around the world have operated according to degrowth’s ambitions for millennia.

Degrowth addresses the contradictions at play within “sustainable fashion”. From our values-based shopping choices through to our brand alignments, it is both compelling and painful to address this industry’s deeply exploitative history.

“Current environmental crises are a result of the societal crisis of inequality” argues Marula Tsagkari, Degrowth PhD candidate at The Autonomous University of Barcelona. She’s also a member of Research & Degrowth, an academic collective dedicated to research and awareness-raising.

New data underscores the urgent need to act now

The global context and system that fashion’s production and consumption operate in make degrowth a radical framework for transformation. One of the movement’s key calls is for rich countries to stop focusing on GDP (gross domestic product) growth as a primary objective and to organise their economies instead around supporting human wellbeing and reducing inequality.

Ground-breaking new data is beginning to reveal the extent of this unequal exchange, highlighting the ecological debt of rich nations in the so-called “Global North” and what they owe the rest of the world.

We have mishandled our relationship with nature because only a small percentage of the population decides on how we deal with it.

The evidence-based research, led by Prof Jason Hickel of the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA-UAB), assigns responsibility for damage caused by 160 countries in the past 50 years, demonstrating which regions are behind the vast majority of global ecological damage. It finds that the US is the biggest culprit, accounting for 27% of the world’s excess material use, followed by the EU at 25% (which included the UK during the analysis period).

While this research is not specific to fashion, it’s poignant to see that these polluting regions house the headquarters of many of the world’s powerful global fashion brands. Aside from ecological impact, the social struggles of workers in fashion’s commodity chain expose the inequity driving commercial success for corporations.

Don’t let the terminology distract you from the problem

Like any alternative argument, degrowth is regularly met with mainstream resistance. Despite the tremors of excitement around degrowth among advocates for sustainability, big brands haven’t been great at giving us examples of it in action.

Why, when degrowth offers so much opportunity to resolve climate and human justice issues at scale, is the topic so rarely addressed?

Immediately, we can reference the economic system that fashion operates in that prioritises the accumulation of capital over the wellbeing of people. Market logic is currently at odds with degrowth theory. However, the terminology used is another barrier set in the way between theory and practical adoption.

To engage with degrowth, a high level of political literacy is required. That’s something that turns off many individuals and fashion brands alike. Yes, degrowth—like the problems it aims to solve—is an inherently complex model for the future. It can be time-consuming to understand and apply.

Why is that, when degrowth offers so much opportunity to resolve climate and human justice issues at scale, is the topic so rarely addressed?

Some of the tangible, interdisciplinary actions that take place in degrowth strategies include economic modelling, civic scenario planning, environmental justice lobbying, teaching and communications, care work, industry-level systems design, grassroots activism and so much more—all contributing to and occurring under new policy conditions.

In addition, the language of degrowth is subject to interpretation and not always that accessible. When we hear the word “growth”, many of us have been conditioned to immediately associate it with goodness. That poses messaging challenges for the degrowth movement, as we make the case for moving to economic models that respect planetary boundaries.

When the movement was emerging, “degrowth” was chosen intentionally and provocatively as a “missile word” (when used, it creates disruption and reaction) to foster debate. Some thought leaders, including the esteemed economist Kate Raworth, author of “Donut Economics”, argue that the missile tends to backfire: “throw it into a conversation and it causes widespread confusion and mistaken assumptions”.

Degrowth ideas sometimes go by other names, too. “Post-growth”, “Altgrowth”, “Donut Economics”, “the Wellbeing Economy”—there are a constellation of terms and intersectional approaches, which could be why this topic is so vulnerable to its language being co-opted.

Degrowth calls for creativity and collective imagination

Despite these challenges, seeds of degrowth are quietly being planted. An invigorating mass of small and independent brands, which aren’t constrained by public ownership, are rejecting corporate operations in favour of slower, localised, and intentional fashion production. They’re reconfiguring what is meant by the word “success” as they go. There’s so much creative potential when the pressure to exponentially expand as a company isn’t central. That can look like working on small-scale, custom tailoring; upcycle-only operations; renewal and repair offerings, as well as simply limiting the range of available products to prioritise more modular/capsule dressing systems.

In addition to the degrowth values of designers and brands, new services are emerging across the market to support degrowth’s focus on less. In the UK, The Restory is an aftercare service that’s gained a massive social media following for its luxury repair videos. Meanwhile, in the US, newcomer Lotte offers a remote sustainability styling service focused on your relationship with the clothes you already own.

These attitudes are showing up in high-level industry guidance, too. In an effort to shift the narrative, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) created a high-level commitment included in the renewed Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action—sharing recommendations for fashion communicators to align with the Paris Agreement goals.

There’s so much creative potential when the pressure to exponentially expand isn’t central.

It’s a necessary tactic for progress, when, according to Good On You, only 6% of large brands have a science-based greenhouse gas emissions target. Promoting lifestyle changes that help limit global temperature rise is central within the UNEP recommendation, ranging from “spotlighting new role models and notions of aspiration or success” right through to “celebrating the ecological, cultural, and social values of the industry”. Such recommendations align closely with degrowth strategy frameworks and could be integrated into policy that supports wellbeing over wealth.

Elsewhere, fashion is betting on the impact of circular business models as a way to decouple revenue streams from production and resource use. According to the Ellen McArthur Foundation, clothing production doubled between 2000 and 2015 while during the same period, utilisation of those clothes decreased by 36%.

We’re creating more clothes and wearing them less, underscoring the simple call to make less stuff.

In 2021, the British Fashion Council’s Institute of Positive Fashion addressed the impact of the fashion industry. Their top key target outcome? Reduce the volume of new physical clothing.

Encouraging fashion brand stakeholders to reduce consumer demand for new physical goods doesn’t make sense within the current market logic. Yet here we are. Degrowth may be complex, but it’s far from illogical.

The future of fashion can’t centre on consumption

Tackling the dominance of growth is a profound economic question that cuts to the very core of our planetary crisis.

“We don’t want a world where fashion does not exist at all. We want a world where fashion is not overconsumption but freedom of expression”, Tsagkari says. “Imagining this new idea of fashion as something creative but also simple and accessible to everyone can be a great challenge.”

But it can also be fun.

We don’t want a world where fashion does not exist at all. We want a world where fashion is not overconsumption but freedom of expression.

The best way to understand degrowth theory is to try and live out some of the movement’s values. After all, degrowth isn’t just about the economy. It’s about culture. For example, you might try swapping or trading your future fashion rather than focusing on its currency cost. You’ll notice how such small shifts can change your own experiences with clothes.

If our personal values systems are capable of shifting, then maybe our market is, too.

Owing to fashion’s unmatched ability to reflect and influence culture at large, perhaps this industry is well-positioned to move society towards degrowth. It could be the future we choose.

The post Degrowth: The Future Fashion Could Choose appeared first on Good On You.

Fashion Revolution Week 2022: Money Fashion Power

Fashion Revolution Week came about after the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh on 24 April 2013, which killed 1,138 people and injured another 2,500. Over the years since the tragedy, Fashion Revolution has become a global movement calling for the fashion industry to value people and planet over growth and profit..

The fashion industry is built on the exploitation of labour and natural resources, resulting in money and power being concentrated in the hands of a few. Because profit is prioritised over everything else, fashion brands are in a hectic race to produce more, more quickly, pushing us to buy more, more often. Those at the top of the supply chain keep cashing bigger cheques, while the people who make our clothes are still underpaid and unable to meet their basic needs. We talk a lot about how brands can protect the Earth and be more sustainable, but the truth is, there’s no sustainability without fair pay and safe working conditions.

That’s why Fashion Revolution Week 2022 focuses on the theme “Money Fashion Power“.

There is no sustainable fashion without fair pay. We are calling for new laws that require businesses to conduct due diligence on living wages. This will transform the lives and livelihoods of the people that make our clothes, and help redistribute money and power in the global fashion industry.

Fashion Revolution

This year again, ethical fashion lovers all over the world will be asking their favourite brands questions like #WhoMadeMyFabric? on social media. Throughout Fashion Revolution Week, Fashion Revolution will educate and inspire us on the real value of what we buy and wear.

During the week, you’ll be able to attend many digital and a few physical events, conferences, exhibitions, workshops, and even online public demonstrations—all spreading the word about building a more ethical and sustainable fashion industry.

Want to participate and make your voice heard? Here’s how you can join the Fashion Revolution online and offline this year.

Attend Fashion Revolution Week events and workshops

Fashion Revolution has planned an epic lineup of online events that will be streaming from all around the world.  Here are some of our favourites.

FOS x FRW 2022: Samiul Alam – Fashion: The Other Side

Join Bangladeshi designer Samiul Alam for an exhibition and video presentation of his collection: “Blood, Sweat & Tears”. Following the exhibition, Samiul will host an online discussion, including influential panellists, to be announced soon.

The Secret Life of Your Closet

We highly recommend joining this online masterclass if you’re interested in how to declutter, style, and safe keep your closet.

Fashion Beyond the Shopping Cart

A talk about fashion-related products that don’t involve buying an item: post-sales services, repair, personalisation, the rental market, the fashion experience, and digital fashion.

Fashion’s Obsession with Wealth

Join this panel discussion about how the younger generations are obsessed with status and luxury brands and try to mimic it through fast fashion (hauls).

Indigenous Fashion Panel

In this online panel discussion hosted by Fashion Revolution Canada, two clothing designers, a fashion researcher, and an artist who teaches traditional moosehide tanning will discuss the past, present, and future of Indigenous fashion.

Find more Fashion Revolution Week events

Post a selfie on your favourite social media platforms, tagging the brand you’re wearing and asking them #WhoMadeMyClothes? and #WhatsInMyClothes?

This is one of the easiest ways you can get involved in Fashion Revolution Week this year—and every year. If the brand doesn’t respond, keep asking. And don’t forget to tag Fashion Revolution @fash_rev so they can stay up to date with if and how brands respond.

Write an email to your favourite brand asking them #WhoMadeMyClothes?

Fashion Revolution has made this super easy to do for you by providing an amazing template, and a list of brands’ email addresses you can contact.

On the Good On You app, you can also send a message directly to a brand, urging them to do better or asking a question—you can also give positive feedback to brands you feel are doing great. To send your message, simply go to the “Your Voice” section at the end of each brand’s listing on the app.

The post How to Get Involved in Fashion Revolution Week 2022 appeared first on Good On You.

We’re taught that rewearing is a fashion faux pas

In a culture shaped by fast fashion, one of the biggest modern-day sins you can commit is to wear the same outfit on TikTok or Instagram more than once. Whilst you’d have thought that clothes were purchased to be worn again and again, in the world of online content creation, your wardrobe’s purpose is to warrant a break in scrolling and incite the all-important “like” from a follower. Even sustainable and slow fashion influencers rarely rewear their looks in their quest for constantly updated content.

The stigma around rewearing clothes is deeply ingrained. Research shows that 61% of Brits wouldn’t rewear their Christmas party outfit 12 months later, and a survey of 2,700 people saw 49% of respondents report that they have felt self-conscious about repeating outfits at work. In 2019, the Business of Fashion reported that one in three British women consider garments to be old when they have been worn just once or twice.

When did this stigma around rewearing clothes become so prevalent? News sources have long been gleefully reporting whenever they have “caught” celebrities including Helen Mirren, Mindy Kaling, or Kate Middleton repeating their outfits. And with our own fashion choices regularly showcased online in recent years, it’s unsurprising that the desire for ever-updated looks has translated into our wardrobes.

When we succumb to this pressure to maintain a constantly updated wardrobe, the fashion industry achieves its aim of selling us more products and making a greater profit. On average, items of clothing are worn just seven times before they’re discarded. Embracing outfit repeating is a great way to resist the capitalist ideology that new is always better.

Outfit repeating is caring—here’s why

How can we challenge the idea that rewearing your clothes is a fashion faux pas? We might start by noting that rewearing and outfit repeating does not mean you have to look the same every single day, though that could be a cool minimalist flex if you do it right.

Being confident in your repetitive outfits when everyone around you is desperately trying to switch up their clothes at the cost of the planet is one small action you can take to counter the tides of fast fashion.

Here are five tips to reframe how you think about your wardrobe and outfit repeat endlessly without sacrificing your love of clothes.

Use accessories to your advantage

No outfit truly is the same when you bring accessories into the mix. Changing up the details can bring new energy to what you wore yesterday and maybe the day before.

Firstly, try mixing up the jewellery you style your outfit with—earrings, rings, bracelets, and necklaces can all make a statement or add a subtle sheen to your look. When it comes to your hair, using a scrunchie or silk scarf to accessorise can add drama. The add ons that make you excited about that same jumper-and-jeans combination could be a stylish belt or patterned socks.

Consider where the focus of your outfit is—maybe your scene-stealing oversized hoops are hogging the limelight today. Next week, it could be a silk scarf worn as a necktie. The key here is to focus on what accessories you already have in your wardrobe: let them do the talking while you reach for base layers time and time again.

 

Voir cette publication sur Instagram

 

Une publication partagée par SLOW LIFESTYLE MOODBOARD (@project.catherine)

Reject the notion that clothes only have one purpose

The fashion industry thrives off the categorisation of clothes, but a lot of it is fiction to simply sell you more clothes. By telling us that these are work trousers and those are casual pants, they double their profits.  One way to challenge that late capitalist lie is by rejecting those boundaries. If you overlook these often-redundant categories, you’ll discover endless opportunities for rewearing the same items without getting bored.

For a day at the office, you could reach for a velvet shirt but layer it over a polo neck—or choose a summer vest underneath an unbuttoned blouse. You could even try a night-out silk slip dress worn over a long-sleeved t-shirt. When it comes to party outfits, your everyday wardrobe can work wonders if you reconsider its uses. Bralettes may be just as skin-covering as your regular going-out tops, so why not wear lingerie to the club with some high waisted jeans? If you’re going for a fancy dinner date, your silk pyjama top may not look out of place as your outfit’s main course.

Catherine Jia is a slow fashion influencer whose page @project.catherine promotes rewearing your favourite clothes. She recommends disregarding the season when creating your next look.

“Try to style clothing pieces that are specifically intended for the opposite season you’re currently in,” she says. “You could wear a bikini top underneath a coat to spice up your outfits in winter or try knee-high boots with a pair of shorts in summer.” Jia recommends learning different ways to tie a t-shirt as an easy starting point to come up with fresh and versatile looks with one basic piece. Here’s ten different ways to wear one top.

Discover the lost art of sewing your own clothes

Sewing your own clothes is a time-consuming process—but investing hours into creating an item guarantees you’ll have far more of a connection with it. When I go on a night out, I often wear the same white velvet top I sewed myself because I created it with parties in mind. My friends may have seen the same look multiple times, but they’ll indulge me with compliments over and over again.

Miranda Griffith is a blogger who shares her sewing projects, tips, and inspiration on @mirry_maker, also discussing why rewearing her home-sewn garments brings her so much joy. Her dungarees have become staples.”I sewed them a few years ago, and I’ve only had to make one minor repair so far,” she says. “Best believe I’ll wear these until they are threadbare or can no longer be mended.”

The skills you learn sewing your own outfits means you’ll be able to make quick repairs, too. Miranda believes that “the care and time spent sewing a timeless piece of clothing plus being able to repair it when needed means that your handmade wardrobe could last decades.”

Build a long-term relationship with your closet and you won’t want to break up

Victoria Frausin, a coordinator at Sewing Café Lancaster and a textile activist, advises us to “notice, connect, and appreciate what you have in your wardrobe. How did that yellow top get there in the first place? Was it a present from someone you love? When was the last time you wore it? Maybe for that scary exam where you ended up doing so well?”

When it comes to our clothes wearing away, Victoria advises finding beauty in the rips in our favourite items: “Mending is a way of documenting as well. A hole in a pair of trousers that was made when hiking with friends on a glorious sunny day—or a mismatched button that had to be replaced because the original one got lost at a festival.”

Loving your clothes deeply is a great way to inspire yourself to wear them to literal pieces. Maybe you inherited an item from a friend or family member, and it holds special meaning. If you buy less often and wear more regularly, you’ll find yourself developing relationships that go beyond seven wears. Paying gratitude to the journeys our clothes have been on with us (or maybe even their previous lives in the case of pre-loved fashion) helps foster that connection and makes rewearing a no-brainer.

Think of the future of your clothes

When you’re tempted to throw away or donate an item of clothing you’re getting bored with, consider where it will actually end up. It may be popular belief that charity shop donations will quickly find a new home, but most donations end up in the trash, too. About 85% of unwanted textiles in North America end up in landfills. The problem, of course, is not thrift stores, which are the most sustainable way to shop. The issue is when fast fashion brands sell us on this idea that donating or reselling our clothes is an excuse to buy more. No amount of purchasing and donating can ever solve our fashion crisis.

We must transform our relationship with our clothes for the planet to survive. Amidst a sea of constantly updated fast fashion, rewearing the same items time and time again is one of the most revolutionary actions you can take.

Discover The Five R’s of Fashion: Reduce, Rewear, Recycle, Repair, Resell

The post Why Outfit Repeating Is the Coolest Thing You Can Do for the Planet appeared first on Good On You.

What are science based targets?

If you’re the sort of person who scours brands’ websites for environmental commitments or reads annual sustainability reports, there’s a good chance you’ve come across the term science based targets (SBTs) lately. While “science based” sounds great—science!—you might have some questions.

It’s understandable if you’re a little sceptical about sustainability buzzwords these days. And on first glance, SBTs may seem like one more addition to fashion’s alphabet soup of sustainability jargon and buzzwords.

Are SBTs really that different from the vague targets brands often set? Let’s investigate.

The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), which defines and facilitates SBTs, describes them as providing “companies with a clearly-defined path to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals.” It’s a description that answers some questions but poses many more.

Answering those questions might help us, as consumers and citizens, hold brands to their commitments and inform our climate activism. That’s a good reason to dig into the specifics.

Paris: fashion capital, climate capital

Understanding SBTs starts with understanding the Paris Agreement. The legally binding agreement was adopted at COP21 in Paris in 2015. It sets a goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels”. (“Pre-industrial” is a loosely defined term that bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, class as around 1850-1900).

The agreement came into effect when at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions had joined, and the goal was to achieve a “climate neutral world by mid-century”. It was up to different countries to decide how they would work towards the goal, but it could include a host of actions and measures such as investing in renewable energy, taxing polluters, and improving “green” public transport.

Because of Paris’ symbolic meaning in both the climate justice movement and within fashion, protestors have increasingly staged demonstrations at fashion week events—including the famous scene of an activist crashing a runway in 2021—to make statements about fashion’s impact on the planet. This highlights the increasing concern many people have regarding the fashion industry’s links to climate change and the inaction from the biggest brands.

Protester disrupting tonight’s Louis Vuitton show pic.twitter.com/hP8dry4kkz

— jessica testa (@jtes) October 5, 2021

What do science based targets have to do with fashion?

A global goal needs global collaboration, and if private companies like fashion brands decide to carry on as normal, they derail other efforts.

To create the clothes we wear, the fashion industry consistently engages in actions that have an adverse effect on our environment. Shipping, farming, plastic production, coal-fuelled factories, livestock, logging, synthetic textile production, dyeing, mining, and landfilling all sit within fashion’s remit, each with its own impact.

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the fashion industry needs to reduce its GHG emissions.

Such resource use, production, and waste take their toll. And there are many estimates about what the industry’s impact is. Consulting firm McKinsey estimated that the fashion industry was responsible for 2.1 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2018. That’s 4% of the global total and the equivalent to the emissions of France, Germany, and the UK combined. The UN has previously estimated that fashion is responsible for 8-10% of GHG emissions. Whatever the precise number, it’s a significant one.

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees, the fashion industry needs to reduce its GHG emissions. But how do brands know they’re reducing them enough to keep us within that safe level? And how do we know that brands are making meaningful environmental promises? That’s where SBTs come in.

How are science based targets different?

There are tonnes of sustainability targets flying around, you can’t miss them, and they’re often fodder for greenwashing: internally set, unverified, and vague. Are SBTs different?

For a target to be considered science based it must be in line with the goal of limiting warming to well below 2 degrees, with efforts shown to limit it to 1.5. A brand must register with the SBTi, develop a target, and then submit it so the SBTi can validate whether it is in fact science based.

SBTi represents the “current gold standard” in this space, says Kristian Hardiman, Good On You’s head of ratings. It’s because of this specificity, scientific grounding, and validation that Good On You rewards a “higher proportion of points to brands setting SBTs when analysing GHG emissions,” Hardiman says of Good On You’s brand rating methodology.

Many activists, academics, organisers, and researchers agree that SBTs represent the best standard we currently have. It’s what all brands should be targeting, regardless of their size.

“It’s really important that we try to align all business—and life in general on our planet—with the 1.5 degree pathway,” says Rebecca Coughlan, transparency manager at non-profit advocacy organisation Remake.

Why? Because according to an alarming IPCC report released in February 2022, “any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”.

IPCC followed this with a report in April 2022 that The Guardian described as “what is in effect their final warning”. The co-chair of the working group behind the report is quoted as saying “it’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”

Unfortunately, fashion brands are not doing enough. Around COP26, I worked with Good On You analysts to produce this deep-dive survey on what actions brands are taking for the climate. Based on newly released data on 2,500 brands’ environmental track records, the report found that brands aren’t doing enough to address their impacts on the climate emergency. For example, only 10% of brands analysed earned Good On You’s top score for the environment. And where the biggest and wealthiest brands have GHG targets, 69% of them are not disclosing whether they are even on track to meet them.

This all imbues the conversation about SBTs with a heightened sense of urgency. “SBTs show companies how much they need to reduce [their emissions] by and give them a good timeline to be able to align with that pathway so we can hopefully avoid the worst effects of climate change,” says Coughlan. At the very least, that’s where brands need to start if the fashion industry is to mitigate its role in the climate emergency.

How can brands reduce their emissions?

Allbirds—a footwear brand currently scoring “It’s a Start” in Good On You’s rating system—made 10 commitments when introducing its SBT “Flight Plan” in 2021, says Hana Kajimura, head of sustainability. (There are a variety of factors that explain Allbird’s score beyond its GHG targets.)

These commitments include 100% of wool coming from regenerative sources, sourcing 100% renewable energy for facilities that are owned and operated by the brand, reducing the use of raw materials by 25%, and doubling the lifetime of footwear and apparel products. Each commitment is to be achieved by 2025 to help accelerate a longer-term target to be as close to zero emissions as possible by 2030.

Other emissions-reducing activities that brands can undertake include things like moving away from fabrics derived from fossil fuels, installing solar panels on factory rooftops, producing fewer products, and reselling existing products.

What are scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions?

One key problem with many fashion brands’ targets is that they don’t account for the full impact of the supply chain. Often, brands might focus on reducing emissions in one area of their operation, which can verge into greenwashing territory if they’re only focused on the parts of their operations that already have the least impact.

This is where it’s helpful to understand what scopes mean. “Scopes are a way to delineate between direct and indirect emissions,” Hardiman explains. In other words, it’s about how a company goes about accounting for its greenhouse gas impacts. “You calculate your emissions and then within each scope, you determine the best way to reduce emissions.”

There are three types of scopes. And while they cover the complexity of the supply chain, their definitions are quite straightforward: scope 1 emissions come from sources owned or controlled by the brand—think retail shops and corporate headquarters. Scope 2 emissions come from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling, for a brand’s own use. And scope 3 emissions come from other sources that are not technically controlled by a brand such as transportation, extraction of materials, non-owned supplier factories, employee travel, and the use of products that have already been sold.

When it comes to where the biggest impacts lie, it’s different scopes for different industries. “For most fashion companies, scope 3 is usually huge whilst scope 1 and scope 2 are relatively small,” Hardiman says. “But for some companies outside fashion, such as airlines, their scope 1—their direct operation—will be enormous.”

Absolute v intensity targets—what’s the gist?

Along with the different scopes, there are different types of reduction targets, too: absolute and intensity. With absolute reduction targets, brands are targeting an overall reduction of emissions compared to a certain point in time. So, a brand may say, “We’ll reduce our emissions by 35% by 2035 compared to 2005 levels”. An intensity reduction is when a brand targets reducing emissions per unit. And intensity targets can be both physical (ie per garment made) or economic (ie in relation to profit).

Where does the SBTi stand on these details? Although, as Coughlin notes, scope 3 is where the majority of fashion’s impact lies, the SBTi only requires scope 3 targets if the associated emissions are “40% or more of total scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions”.

In terms of reductions, brands can choose between absolute and intensity reduction targets. However, it is worth noting that there are currently no approved examples of physical intensity targets, ie a brand saying it will reduce emissions by 20% per garment made.

Better targets aren’t a substitute for regulation

Of course, not all experts agree with the current framework set out for SBTs, such as allowing intensity reductions. “[Physical intensity reductions are] hugely problematic because the climate doesn’t care if you have more efficient production if you increase volumes overall,” says Nusa Urbancic, campaigns director at Changing Markets Foundation, which recently launched a campaign against greenwashing in fashion.

Ultimately, this all points to the urgent need for legislation—for governments to mandate the actions the industry won’t take on its own.

“[The SBTi] needs to strengthen transparency, how much it covers supply chain emissions, and what’s in scope,” says Urbancic. “They also need to do really rigorous reporting every year or two years on where these companies are with regards to achieving their targets. It’s currently enough for brands to say, ‘oh sorry, we didn’t manage it’. So, then what? Nothing. There are no consequences.”

Ultimately, this all points to the urgent need for legislation—for governments to mandate the actions the industry won’t take on its own. Most experts agree that it’s long overdue for governments to step in and mandate things like greenhouse gas emissions reporting. And most experts agree that we need regulation to achieve the kind of systems-level change that needs to happen to address the fashion industry’s impacts.

The pros in an unregulated industry

Today, in an unregulated industry that largely plays by its own rules, SBTs provide brands with a firm roadmap for “how much and how quickly they need to reduce their GHG emissions”. Verified and climate-focused, SBTs are focused on creating a safe, liveable future while other targets may sound impressive but could have little to no impact overall.

A late 2021 report by Good On You found that only 6% of large brands have science based GHG emissions targets. But if SBTs become an industry standard, we could see a shift towards more meaningful, measured climate action.

There are undoubtedly many areas for improvement regarding reporting, incentives, and penalties but perhaps Kajimura puts it best: “Given the current trajectory, we simply don’t have time to wait for perfect solutions. Instead, we have an opportunity to innovate.”

The post Can Science Based Targets Help Tackle Greenwashing? We Investigate appeared first on Good On You.

Minimalism: rejecting the chaos of fast fashion

The perils of fast fashion are well known. Widespread water pollution through the use of cheap and toxic dyes, mountains of textile waste, the ubiquitous use of fossil fuel-based materials such as polyester, the pressure on cotton farmers… the list goes on. Out of this chaos, a trend is emerging that rejects all that—minimalism. It’s time to ask: is a minimalist wardrobe the key to a happier and more sustainable life?

It’s not just fashion that’s gotten out of hand. The ills of fast fashion really just mirror the global thirst for more stuff at cheaper and cheaper prices. This is fuelled by advertisers pushing consumerism at every opportunity, which research suggests can increase levels of anxiety—think FOMO and “keeping up with the Joneses”.

If you are sitting there feeling overwhelmed by the pressure of keeping up with technology, cars, or fashion, and don’t know what to do about it, stay tuned. There is a growing trend in opposition to consumerism and fast fashion, which touts benefits such as more time, decreased stress, as well as better financial health and sustainability. And the best part is, we can all do something right now that will impact our overall happiness and footprint on the planet.

What is minimalist fashion?

If you’ve heard of Marie Kondo, then you might already have an idea of what minimalism is. Minimalism is about stripping back the unnecessary, leaving only the things that provide you with real value and joy. Minimalist fashion means having a minimal amount of clothes in your wardrobe that feel right for you and bring joy.

Minimalism is the antithesis of the modern consumerist narrative—and for good reason. In a global marketplace that wants you to consume more and more, minimalism says “Hey! Have you ever thought about intentionally having less?” Less debt, less clutter, less stress, less stuff. The upshot? Less debt and stress for you, and less valuable resources being extracted for stuff you don’t really need. How to get involved, you ask? Start with your clothes.

Slowing down fashion and keeping a minimalist wardrobe

Slow fashion is the fashion industry’s niche minimalist subculture. Instead of shopping vigorously to keep up with weekly trends and disposing of clothes after one wear on a Saturday night aka financially exhausting and extraordinarily wasteful, the ethos is “buy less, choose well, make it last”.

My entry point to minimalism and slow fashion was through my wardrobe. Back when I first started my minimalist journey some 4 years ago, I went through each and every item of clothing I had and either donated, threw away, or kept them. I offloaded about 80% of what I owned and it felt liberating (and that was just the first time). This process literally re-wired the way I think about buying things and the stress associated with consumerism. I now seek quality sustainable items or thrifted items over sheer quantity. If I don’t see the shops for months on end, who cares?

If I am going to bring something new into my life I have to love it. To this day I have not missed one single item I have given up, because the lightness that comes with purging excess clutter is simply life changing. I invite you to try it… like, now. Follow my process to get you started. Keep only the items that make you feel amazing when you wear them. But before you go and get started, here are some tips.

How to start your minimalist wardrobe

If you are looking for one of the best internet resources out there to help you on your minimalist fashion journey, look no further than The Minimalist Wardrobe. This group of fashion bloggers has all the tips and information you need to inspire you on your journey. Check out their articles for step-by-step guides to creating your minimalist wardrobe. But before you jump up in, keep these five tips in mind:

• There is no magic number of clothing items (or any items for that matter) to achieve a minimalist wardrobe
• Minimalism is about fine-tuning your own personal style and the only rule is to rid yourself of excess
• Minimalism doesn’t have to be monotone. Keep it colourful and versatile
• Don’t just send your unwanted stuff to landfill. Thoughtfully donate, sell, or gift it first
• Bask in the empty space and gratitude that flows into your mind and spirit…seriously

 

Voir cette publication sur Instagram

 

Une publication partagée par The Minimalist Wardrobe (@theminimalistwardrobe)

Minimalist blogs we love

If the idea of owning less gets your juices flowing, you may find these three blogs of value (there are hundreds out there but these are the ones I read in the beginning): The Minimalists, Becoming Minimalist, Be More with Less. Alternatively you can try the 30 day minimalism game and get minimal with a friend for some friendly competition, or for those still more interested in the fashion side of things, check out Project 333.

Some staple minimalist fashion brands

These brands implement fair practices for their environmental, ethical, and animal impacts, and are great starting points if you are looking for some minimalist staples to round out your existing pieces and thrifted pieces.

The post What Is Minimalist Fashion? And Is It the Key to a Happier and More Sustainable Lifestyle? appeared first on Good On You.

The courage of Ukraine’s creatives

The story of Ukraine’s burgeoning fashion scene is closely linked with the nation’s struggle for independence and freedom. I’ve seen that first-hand.

One decade ago, I launched my agency for designers from emerging Europe. And in the years since, Ukraine has become my personal favourite.

In February 2014, I’d made plans to attend Ukrainian Fashion Week for the first time. But The Revolution of Dignity had other plans. Often known as the Maidan Revolution, it resulted in deadly clashes between protesters and the security forces—ultimately leading to the overthrow of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government. It prevented me from going to Ukrainian Fashion Week that year, but my admiration for Ukrainian fashion talent didn’t vanish. I have visited Kyiv and Dnipro since and have met many Ukrainian designers and other creatives.

Maidan brought international light to the Ukrainian fashion industry back then, helping the industry gain an international profile in the following years.

But as Russia’s unprovoked war rages on and the world watches in horror, the Ukrainian fashion industry faces a struggle it hasn’t seen in modern times.

My heart aches to hear the personal stories of distress, loss, desperation, pain, and courage—definitely courage—that designers have shared with me since Russia launched its unjustified invasion.

When designer Anna October called at the start of the war, I picked up with fear and anxiousness. I knew she had fled from Kyiv and was hiding in the woods with only a backpack. What was she going to tell me?

She called me to ask for help. She was already in Europe—safe—but most of her designer friends were still stuck in Ukraine, trying to flee the country.

The last time I saw October was March 2019. I’d invited her to come to Vilnius as a guest speaker at a fashion business conference. She was there to share her success story with upcoming fashion brands from the post-Soviet bloc.

But those were different times. She called me now to ask for help. She was already in Europe—safe—but most of her designer friends were still stuck in Ukraine, trying to flee the country.

These designers were leaving all their life work behind—their studios, production facilities (many Ukrainian brands produce in-house), team members, unshipped stock (that international stockists can’t receive), and all their current and future revenues.

Anna was already on a mission to somehow mobilise the lost souls and save the burgeoning Ukrainian fashion industry.

A few looks from Ukrainian designer Ksenia Schnaider’s latest collaboration. (Credit: Courtesy of Ksenia Schnaider)

Designers band together in the midst of war

When I talked to October a month ago, she only wanted to save the collection of her friend, the designer Julie Paskal. But a week later, together with another friend—the well-known fashion art director Julie Pelipas—October had started developing a platform to help Ukrainian professionals from the creative industries.

As a former fashion director at Vogue Ukraine, Pelipas was mobilising the creative industry—from photographers to stylists and graphic designers—while October was creating a database for fashion brands. The database resulted in the community.bettter.us website, which profiles the professionals looking for work, financing, and much-needed industry support.

“Having been a part of the global fashion community for the last ten years, I feel responsible for my colleagues and talents from Ukraine who are now fighting for their lives and sustaining their brands. I can’t save the world, but I can support my community”, October wrote in an email.

It is hard to plan anything for the future and business as this terrible war is still ongoing.

Ksenia Schnaider – Fashion designer

Community.bettter.us highlights Ukraine’s talented creatives, including their current business needs, contact details, and present location. Among them is Ksenia Schnaider, who I like to call my long-term “upcycling crush”. Schnaider is currently based in Germany with her daughter.

“I was forced to leave my hometown at the beginning of the war. Since then, my daughter and I have changed a lot of places and cities. Now we are in Germany. A few days ago, I went back to Kyiv by car to pack all our collections and to meet with some of my team who are still there,” Schnaider tells me. “Luckily, we moved our stock to western Ukraine and soon will reopen our consumer sales.”

“It is hard to plan anything for the future and business as this terrible war is still ongoing.”

How to support the community

Like many of the designers on community.bettter.us, Schnaider is now looking for financial support to help the team members who stayed behind in Ukraine. She is currently selling ”Support Cards” that she promises to match with a gift certificate of the same value to redeem in their online store once their operations fully resume. Many designers, including October, are slowly resuming online sales.

For someone like me, who is always on the lookout for locally made and conscious labels to support, the Ukrainian fashion industry is the source.

Designers like cruelty-free Olenich (currently in Greece), vegan slow fashion queen Dzhus (presently in Poland), and provocative ready-to-wear Frolov (still in Ukraine) show that the spirit of the country’s creative community cannot be stifled.

Now more than ever, they need our support. And community.bettter.us gives us a direct line to do just that.

The post Ukraine’s Fashion Designers Are Fighting to Survive—Here’s How We Can Help appeared first on Good On You.

A tragic reality check for fashion

Clothes shopping used to be an occasional event—something that happened a few times a year when the seasons changed or when we outgrew what we had. But about 20 years ago, something changed. Clothes became cheaper, trend cycles sped up, and shopping became a hobby. Enter fast fashion and the global chains that now dominate our high streets and online shopping. But what is fast fashion? Why is fast fashion so bad? And how exactly does it impact people, the planet, and animals?

It was all too good to be true in the oughties. All these stores selling cool, trendy clothing you could buy with your loose change, wear a handful of times, and then throw away. Suddenly everyone could afford to dress like their favourite celebrity or wear the latest trends fresh from the catwalk.

Then in 2013, the world had a reality check when the Rana Plaza clothing manufacturing complex in Bangladesh collapsed, killing over 1,000 workers. That’s when consumers really started questioning fast fashion and wondering at the true cost of those $5 t-shirts. If you’re reading this article, you might already be aware of fast fashion’s dark side, but it’s worth exploring how the industry got to this point—and how we can help to change it.

What is fast fashion?

Fast fashion can be defined as cheap, trendy clothing that samples ideas from the catwalk or celebrity culture and turns them into garments in high street stores at breakneck speed to meet consumer demand. The idea is to get the newest styles on the market as fast as possible, so shoppers can snap them up while they are still at the height of their popularity and then, sadly, discard them after a few wears. It plays into the idea that outfit repeating is a fashion faux pas and that if you want to stay relevant, you have to sport the latest looks as they happen. It forms a key part of the toxic system of overproduction and consumption that has made fashion one of the world’s largest polluters. Before we can go about changing it, let’s take a look at the history.

How did fast fashion happen?

To understand how fast fashion came to be, we need to rewind a bit. Before the 1800s, fashion was slow. You had to source your own materials like wool or leather, prepare them, weave them, and then make the clothes.

The Industrial Revolution introduced new technology—like the sewing machine. Clothes became easier, quicker, and cheaper to make. Dressmaking shops emerged to cater to the middle classes.

Many of these dressmaking shops used teams of garment workers or home workers. Around this time, sweatshops emerged, along with some familiar safety issues. The first significant garment factory disaster was when a fire broke out in New York’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in 1911. It claimed the lives of 146 garment workers, many of whom were young female immigrants.

By the 1960s and 70s, young people were creating new trends, and clothing became a form of personal expression, but there was still a distinction between high fashion and high street.

In the late 1990s and 2000s, low-cost fashion reached a peak. Online shopping took off, and fast-fashion retailers like H&M, Zara, and Topshop took over the high street. These brands took the looks and design elements from the top fashion houses and reproduced them quickly and cheaply. With everyone now able to shop for on-trend clothes whenever they wanted, it’s easy to understand how the phenomenon caught on.

How to spot a fast fashion brand

Some key factors are common to fast fashion brands:

• Thousands of styles, which touch on all the latest trends.
• Extremely short turnaround time between when a trend or garment is seen on the catwalk or in celebrity media and when it hits the shelves.
• Offshore manufacturing where labour is the cheapest, with the use of workers on low wages without adequate rights or safety and complex supply chains with poor visibility beyond the first tier.
• A limited quantity of a particular garment—this is an idea pioneered by Zara. With new stock arriving in store every few days, shoppers know if they don’t buy something they like, they’ll probably miss their chance.
• Cheap, low quality materials like polyester, causing clothes to degrade after just a few wears and get thrown away—not to mention the microfibre shedding issue.

Why is fast fashion bad? 

Polluting our planet

Fast fashion’s impact on the planet is immense. The pressure to reduce costs and speed up production time means environmental corners are more likely to be cut. Fast fashion’s negative impact includes its use of cheap, toxic textile dyes—making the fashion industry the one of the largest polluters of clean water globally, right up there with agriculture. That’s why Greenpeace has been pressuring brands to remove dangerous chemicals from their supply chains through its detoxing fashion campaigns through the years.

Cheap textiles also increase fast fashion’s impact. Polyester is one of the most popular fabrics. It is derived from fossil fuels, contributes to global warming, and can shed microfibres that add to the increasing levels of plastic in our oceans when washed. But even “natural” fabrics can be a problem at the scale fast fashion demands. Conventional cotton requires enormous quantities of water and pesticides in developing countries. This results in drought risks and creates extreme stress on water basins and competition for resources between companies and local communities.

The constant speed and demand mean increased stress on other environmental areas such as land clearing, biodiversity, and soil quality. The processing of leather also impacts the environment, with 300kg of chemicals added to every 900kg of animal hides tanned.

The speed at which garments are produced also means that more and more clothes are disposed of by consumers, creating massive textile waste. According to some statistics, in Australia alone, more than 500 million kilos of unwanted clothing ends up in landfill every year.

Exploiting workers

As well as the environmental cost of fast fashion, there’s a human cost.

Fast fashion impacts garment workers who work in dangerous environments, for low wages, and without fundamental human rights. Further down the supply chain, the farmers may work with toxic chemicals and brutal practices that can have devastating impacts on their physical and mental health, a plight highlighted by the documentary “The True Cost“.

Harming animals

Animals are also impacted by fast fashion. In the wild, the toxic dyes and microfibres released in waterways are ingested by land and marine life alike through the food chain to devastating effect. And when animal products such as leather, fur, and even wool are used in fashion directly, animal welfare is put at risk. As an example, numerous scandals reveal that real fur, including cat and dog fur, is often being passed off as faux fur to unknowing shoppers. The truth is that there is so much real fur being produced under terrible conditions in fur farms that it’s become cheaper to produce and buy than faux fur.

Coercing consumers

Finally, fast fashion can impact consumers themselves, encouraging a “throw-away” culture because of both the built-in obsolescence of the products and the speed at which trends emerge. Fast fashion makes us believe we need to shop more and more to stay on top of trends, creating a constant sense of need and ultimate dissatisfaction. The trend has also been criticised on intellectual property grounds, with some designers alleging that retailers have illegally mass-produced their designs.

Who are the big players?

Many retailers we know today as the fast fashion big players, like Zara or H&M, started as smaller shops in Europe around the 1950s. Technically, H&M is the oldest of the fast fashion giants, having opened as Hennes in Sweden in 1947, expanding to London in 1976, and before long, reaching the States in 2000.

Zara follows, which opened its first store in Northern Spain in 1975. When Zara landed in New York at the beginning of the 1990s, people first heard the term ‘fast fashion’. It was coined by the New York Times to describe Zara’s mission to take only 15 days for a garment to go from the design stage to being sold in stores.

Other big names in fast fashion today include UNIQLO, GAP, Primark, and TopShop. While these brands were once seen as radically cheap disruptors, there are now even cheaper and faster alternatives like SHEIN, Missguided, Forever 21, Zaful, Boohoo, and Fashion Nova. These brands are known as ultra fast fashion, a recent phenomenon which is as bad as it sounds.

Is fast fashion going green?

As an increasing number of consumers call out the true cost of the fashion industry, and especially fast fashion, we’ve seen a growing number of retailers introduce so-called sustainable and ethical fashion initiatives such as in-store recycling schemes. These schemes allow customers to drop off unwanted items in “bins” in the brands’ stores. But it’s been highlighted that only 0.1% of all clothing collected by charities and take-back programs is recycled into new textile fibre.

The underlying issue with fast fashion is the speed at which it is produced, putting massive pressure on people and the environment. Recycling and small eco or vegan clothing ranges—when they are not only for greenwashing—are not enough to counter the throw-away culture, the waste, the strain on natural resources, and the myriad of other issues created by fast fashion. The whole system needs to be changed.

Is fast fashion in decline?

We are starting to see some changes in the fashion industry. The anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse is now Fashion Revolution Week, where people all over the world ask questions like, “Who made my clothes?” and “What’s in my clothes?” Fashion Revolution declares that “we don’t want our clothes to exploit people or destroy our planet”.

Millennials and Gen Zers—the drivers of the future economy—may not have caught the fast fashion bug. Some have argued that this generation has “grown too clever for mindless consumerism, forcing producers to become more ethical, more inclusive, and more liberal”. However, ultra fast fashion brands like SHEIN are selling more than ever, and these young shoppers are their target market.

There is also a growing interest in moving towards a more circular textile production model, reusing materials wherever and whenever possible. In 2018, both Vogue Australia and Elle UK dedicated entire magazine issues to sustainable fashion, a trend being taken up each year by more and more big names.

What can we do?

At Good On You, we love this quote by British designer Vivienne Westwood, “buy less, choose well, make it last.”

Buying Less is the first step—try to fall back in love with the clothes you already own by styling them differently or even “flipping” them. Why not turn those old jeans into some trendy unhemmed shorts, or give that baggy old jumper new life by turning it into a crop? Creating a capsule wardrobe is also worth considering on your ethical fashion journey.

Choose Well is the second step, and choosing a high-quality garment made of eco-friendly fabric is essential here. There are pros and cons to all fibre types, as seen in our ultimate guide to clothing materials, but there is a helpful chart at the end to refer to when purchasing. Choosing well could also mean committing to shopping your closet first, only shopping second hand, or supporting more sustainable brands like those below.

Finally, we should Make It Last and look after our clothes by following the care instructions, wearing them until they are worn out, mending them wherever possible, then responsibly recycling them at the very end of their life.

Learn about fast fashion’s sustainable alternative, slow fashion

Here are some of our favourite brands giving fast fashion the flick and embodying a slow, circular,  more sustainable way of wearing:

The post What Is Fast Fashion and Why Is It So Bad? appeared first on Good On You.

Carbon emissions: a core issue in climate change

If you’re reading this, chances are you care about the environment enough to take some simple steps to reduce your impact on the planet. You might also be wondering about what fashion’s carbon impact really is. Here we’re going to introduce the most reliable research on fashion’s greenhouse gas emissions and lead you through ten steps you can take to make your closet a little more climate-conscious. Because yes, we need systemic change, and as Liv Simpliciano of Fashion Revolution says, “If many individuals change their habits, that becomes a collective.”

Hang on, are we talking about our ‘carbon footprint’?

Not necessarily. The term you’ve likely seen splashed across news headlines in the last 20 years is “carbon footprint”, but where did it come from, and is it the most helpful term for fashion?

A carbon footprint is “the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions.” It may sound all well and good, but in reality, multinational oil and gas company BP originally coined the term in a clever marketing campaign to shift the responsibility of cutting emissions from businesses to consumers. Today it is routinely applied, for example, in the context of quantifying the impact of organisations or products, often done so without knowledge of the term’s more questionable origins. As Mark Kaufmen put it in Mashable’s deep dive into the carbon footprint, “there’s now powerful, plain evidence that the term ‘carbon footprint’ was always a sham, and should be considered in a new light.”

We simply can’t place the responsibility for mass emissions on the shoulders of individuals when legislative change is needed.

However, if “carbon footprint” is a term you’ve been using to think about improving your own actions—that’s not inherently a bad thing. Our day-to-day choices can help improve our carbon impact on a micro-scale and influence those who hold sway on a macro one to shift “business as usual” in the right direction. That’s especially true when we see both individuals taking action collectively and movements of citizens working toward larger systems change.

A good place to start for the average consumer? Learning how to minimise your fashion choices’ significant climate impact.

So what is fashion’s carbon impact, anyway?

Here’s the thing: it’s hard to pinpoint the precise carbon impact of the fashion industry because fashion has a bit of a misinformation problem. But while exact numbers may waiver between sources, one thing we do know is that the industry has a major impact. Here are the latest, most reliable estimates, bearing in mind this is merely an introduction to a complex topic entrenched in the murky and misleading world of global supply chains.

According to the 2020 McKinsey Fashion On Climate report, “research shows that the global fashion industry produced around 2.1 billion tonnes of GHG emissions in 2018, equalling 4% of the global total. This is equivalent to the combined annual GHG emissions of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Around 70% of the fashion industry’s emissions came from upstream activities such as materials production, preparation, and processing. The remaining 30% were associated with downstream retail operations, the use-phase, and end-of-use activities.” On the upper end of the estimates, the UN places fashion’s greenhouse gas emissions at 8-10% of the global total. But whether we’re looking at 4% or 10%, there’s no denying the massive scope of fashion’s carbon impact.

We’re not going to pretend that climate change can be solved if you buy a pair of carbon-neutral sneakers. But considering the clothing industry’s significant carbon impact, the choices we make when we shop—coupled with how we look after our clothes—can make a real difference to the environment. It isn’t going to change the world overnight, but collectively, our individual habits change lives and change the planet for the better. When we recognise our power as both consumers and citizens, our choices and activism can help us all in the fight for systemic change crucial for a healthier planet.

And what do our brand ratings have to say about it?

In our COP26 report on fashion’s role in the climate emergency, we reviewed the actions (or lack thereof) of the thousands of rated brands in our directory. “As an industry that spans the globe, with single garments often traversing between countless countries including China, the US, the UK, Vietnam, India, Ghana, and Bangladesh within their lifecycle, fashion has a major stake in the future of our climate. But fashion seriously lacks a sense of urgency.”

Basically, most brands are not doing enough to mitigate their impact on the climate. And even of the 6% of brands that do set science-based targets for reducing their GHG emissions, a whopping 69% do not state whether they are on track to meet them. Hello, greenwashing.

First steps: care for the clothes you have

According to research by Fashion Revolution, about half of the CO2 emissions that make up fashion’s carbon impact come from the electricity usage associated with washing, tumble-drying, and ironing. Often that electricity is generated by coal-fired power stations and other fossil fuel sources. When it comes to the clothes you already own, there are still ways to go green without putting in too much extra effort.

1. Wear what you have

Simply putting your clothes to use more often rather than throwing them away means that you’re reducing your emissions-per-wear—not to mention cost-per-wear. It’s time to fall back in love with your wardrobe. Style your existing pieces with different accessories, reinvent them with a DIY project, or try combining that top with a different skirt. Find the hero items that always make you look and feel great and wear those babies as much as you can.

2. Embrace the air dry

A crucial step is to ease your reliance on your dryer. Hang your clothes out to dry and let the sun and the wind do their natural thing. Dry delicates flat, and turn colourful items inside-out to prevent fading.

3. Choose the cold cycle

Pay attention to the washing instructions. Read the label—you’ll be surprised how many items can and should be washed in cold water. This step not only saves on heating but will, for the most part, increase the longevity of your clothes. If your machine has an “eco” setting, use it to save water and power.

4. Judge when it needs washing

Don’t wash your clothes too often if you can help it. You probably know that denim jeans don’t need regular washing (apparently, the brand director for Levi’s washes his jeans every six months), but neither do most pants or outerwear. And it’s so much more energy efficient to attempt to spot clean an area before you throw the whole garment in the wash. This handy guide recommends washing your undies, socks, and stockings after one wear, but that shirt you wore out to dinner for three hours? Back in the cupboard—it won’t need washing yet unless you spilled food on it. Some people may wash their bras after one wear, but also get away with wearing leggings a few times before they go in the laundry basket. Adjust for your preferences and lifestyle.

5. Say goodbye responsibly

Once your clothes have well and truly reached the end of their life, it’s time to think about where they’ll go next—and landfill should be your last resort. If your garment is in good condition—say, you’ve grown out of it—then your options are to sell, swap, or correctly donate it.

If you find that your clothes are too worn to sell or donate, don’t fret—they may still have potential in another form. Can that t-shirt be turned into a cleaning cloth? Can that jumper be re-knitted into a tea cosy? Can those socks become a quirky art project? (Yes, yes, and yes). There are also recycling options. You can contact your nearest charity store to find out if they accept damaged clothes—many stores can donate your worn garments to be made into industrial rags. PlanetArk has some details on the best clothing types for rags. They also suggest that natural fibres might be helpful for your local community garden.

Next steps: rethink your shopping habits

6. Buy less, buy better

When you consume, be conscious and intentional about what you are adding to your wardrobe. Start by asking yourself these three questions: “How much will I wear it? How much do I already own? How long will it last?” Resisting the impulse to buy vast numbers of cheap items in favour of investing in quality pieces makes your look more streamlined and reduces the amount you consume and spend overall.

Imagine opening your wardrobe every morning to find that every item is your favourite; everything fits you properly and is comfortable and won’t fall apart after a few wears. Wouldn’t that be amazing? It may take some thought, but the result will be so worth it.

7. Buy second hand

Of course, you don’t have to buy brand new at all. Why not visit a local charity op shop, buy second hand online, or raid your friend’s wardrobe? Thrift shops are a treasure trove for bargain-hunting fashion lovers who value beautifully crafted vintage pieces and unique pre-loved items. According to resale platform thredUP, “if everyone bought one item used instead of new this year, it would save 5.7B lbs of CO2e.”

8. Look for certified organic fabrics

The types of fabrics you decide to buy both new and second hand are significant. Take cotton, for example. While it is a plant based fibre, conventional cotton production is very carbon-intensive and requires the heavy use of pesticides and fertilisers. If you’re concerned about these impacts on the world’s climate and ecosystems, then one more sustainable option is to purchase items made from certified organic cotton—especially GOTS cotton. Certified organic cotton is grown without harmful pesticides, requires less energy and water, and uses more sustainable fertilising practices. You can also find GOTS certification for other more sustainable fabrics like linen.

9. Purchase locally made fashion

Buying from local producers is a way to cut down on the distance your clothing has to travel and help avoid unnecessary carbon emissions. Plus, it can be fun to support local designers and makers. Just keep in mind that international shipping can be done responsibly, and if that means supporting “Good” or “Great” brands from overseas, then chances are the footprint is still less than a fast fashion shop from the local mall.

10. Support climate-conscious brands

Finally, one way to reduce the carbon impact of your closet when buying new is to support brands with a circular or zero-waste ethos. This means they have a production line with low embedded emissions and drastically reduce waste throughout the supply chain. In other words, they provide garments with the lowest carbon impact of any brand.

Ideally, look for brands that use renewable energy in their supply chain. In a world rife with greenwashing, it can be easy to see the phrase “carbon offsetting” or “we use renewable energy in our head office and storefronts” and think the brand is making good progress. Don’t be fooled by these low-touch efforts that often mask the continued use of damaging energy sources in production. What matters more is that brands are making progress on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions throughout their supply chains, as exemplified by the brands below:

The post What Is Fashion’s Carbon Impact? 10 Steps You Can Take to Make Your Closet More Climate-Conscious appeared first on Good On You.

SHEIN’s icky reputation precedes it

There’s a corner of the internet where second hand shopping is cool, anti-waste is a buzzword, and ultra fast fashion brands inspire almost instant rage. Yes, that’s the “sustainable fashion community”, and you find it most actively on Instagram and TikTok.

At the best of times, it’s one of the few encouraging places on social media, where the majority of people seem to genuinely care about where their garments come from and how the workers are treated. It’s the type of online community where you feel like your choices might make a difference.

But here’s a thing that activists and “sustainable fashion influencers” know: If you really want to drive up your engagement numbers, you only need to mention one word. And that word is SHEIN. Here’s why.

The biggest, baddest ultra fast fashion brand

The world’s most profitable ultra fast fashion brand, SHEIN has become a catchcry for all things alarming about the current state of the fashion industry. In Hollywood terms, SHEIN is the stalk villain in a B movie. It’s widely known as the antithesis of conscious, sustainable, and ethical fashion.

As the prototypical purveyor of and poster child of ultra fast fashion, SHEIN lives mostly online. It has no permanent brick and mortar stores. It has few employees in contrast to the vast network of stores that Zara and H&M maintain. Instead, SHEIN lures its prey on fast-paced social media sites like TikTok and Instagram—on the former, #SHEIN boasts 22 billion views and counting. Viral videos flood the page, from unboxing hauls to complaints about its ill-fitting garments—quality comes second when prices are dirt cheap.

SHEIN lives mostly online. (...) It lures its prey on fast-paced social media sites like TikTok and Instagram.

There’s no middle ground when it comes to SHEIN, which for the record is pronounced “she-in”. You either love SHEIN for its chic looks and dirt cheap prices, or you hate SHEIN for, well, everything else.

Like its ultra fast fashion peers, SHEIN receives Good On You’s lowest rating, “We Avoid”, for its track records on labour rights and the environment. (You can dive deeper into SHEIN’s rating here.) But the story embedded in the rating is a total lack of transparency. SHEIN seems to disclose absolutely nothing about its impacts.

This lack of transparency and controversial reputation raises a big question: How much do we really know about this polyester powerhouse? I spoke to several experts on the brand and its supply chain to dive deep into the truth about SHEIN’s dark side. Is it as dark as you think? It might be worse.

SHEIN’s alarming ‘real time fashion’ model

SHEIN was founded in 2008 and is, to this day, a notoriously private company. “SHEIN represents the worst of the worst for large fashion brands on almost every front,” says Kristian Hardiman, Good On You’s head of ratings. Largely because of its total lack of transparency.

“Ultra fast fashion” is the label given to brands who operate at even faster rates than fast fashion labels—that’s to say that their manufacturing processes and the number of styles they produce is exponentially quicker and higher. Apart from SHEIN, Fashion Nova, Boohoo, PrettyLittleThing, and Cider are other brands in this category.

“In the simplest sense, ultra fast fashion retailers take everything bad about fast fashion and speed it up. That means faster production cycles, faster trend churn, and faster to the landfills,” journalist JD Shadel recently wrote in a deep dive into what actually qualifies as ultra fast fashion. And their reporting found SHEIN to be the most talked about on TikTok, the most profitable, and the most alarming.

SHEIN puts (new products) online instantly, and then blasts it over social media. And because it's just online, they're also able to collect feedback very quickly.

Rita Liao – Tech Crunch reporter and editor of Attention Factory

In fact, SHEIN’s business model is so much faster and more nimble than many of its closest peers that it could even be classified on a level of its own. Coined by Matthew Brennan, author of “Attention Factory”, “real-time fashion” refers to a retail model that almost acts as a mirror to current social media trends. Rather than the once-groundbreaking two weeks that it took Zara to take clothes from design to delivery, SHEIN has reduced this process to as little as three days.

“SHEIN puts [new products] online instantly, and then blasts it over social media. And because it’s just online, they’re also able to collect feedback very quickly,” says Rita Liao, Tech Crunch reporter and editor of “Attention Factory”. Because SHEIN is so digitally versed in data, it can pre-empt what will sell before a product is even made.

Voir cette publication sur Instagram

Une publication partagée par The Business of Fashion (@bof)

Does SHEIN use child labour?

There are many unanswered question marks floating around SHEIN. For instance, while its site says that it “believe[s] that people deserve a living wage”, it importantly doesn’t say it pays a living wage. The story is similar with one of the most asked questions about SHEIN: Does it use child or forced labour? Again, its website says it “never ever engage[s] in child or forced labour”. But again, SHEIN has not provided a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

There are many allegations of SHEIN's labour practices suggesting the brand is likely to be contracting with manufacturers that may be grossly exploiting, overworking, and underpaying their garment workers.

Kristian Hardiman – Good On You’s head of ratings

“There are many allegations of SHEIN’s labour practices suggesting the brand is likely to be contracting with manufacturers that may be grossly exploiting, overworking, and underpaying their garment workers,” Hardiman says. In 2021, a report from the NGO Public Eye revealed SHEIN’s workers putting in as many as 75 hours a week, receiving only one day off per month, and being paid per item of clothing. That’s all in gross violation of labour laws.

“A lack of visibility of supply chains can allow exploitative, unsafe working conditions and environmental damage to thrive while obscuring who has the responsibility and power to redress these issues,” agrees Ruth MacGilp, Fashion Revolution’s Communications Manager, who also points at how SHEIN scored a zero for its supply chain traceability and governance in last year’s Fashion Transparency Index (FTI). SHEIN’s extraordinarily low FTI score is one of the many public data sources that feed into its “We Avoid” rating on Good On You.

A look into SHEIN’s factories and suppliers

Instead of traditional large factories, SHEIN operates through contracting thousands of small, family-owned workshops in China’s urban villages in Guangzhou. “They are very, very responsive and a lot more flexible when it comes to their schedule,” Liao says, who has walked by these shops herself. “A lot of [SHEIN’s] suppliers are maybe the size of a big bedroom, with a few sewing machines and one or two workers.”

The narrative about SHEIN is not all bad. Liao acknowledges that SHEIN has a reputation for paying suppliers on time—a critical plus in the regional manufacturing sector. The large volume of stock that SHEIN orders from these small businesses creates stability and trust, a dependable yet arguably toxic two-way relationship.

Responding to the research from Public Eye around the 12 hour days many workers put in, Liao says that these might not be explicitly forced hours. “If there’s any exploitation going on, it’s not coming from SHEIN—it’s SHEIN’s demand. It’s very strict, the schedule is very strict.”

You might argue that what SHEIN engages in is an implicit form of forced labour, where these strict deadlines and ever-changing production plans create mayhem for garment workers.

The take-home pay for a garment worker relies upon her speed of production—the more pieces she sews, the more money she makes. The opposite is also true, which means in many cases, workers are earning less than the legal minimum wage.

Ruth MacGilp – Fashion Revolution’s Communications Manager

Another finding is that SHEIN uses a piece rate system of payment, meaning workers are paid per piece they are involved in the making of. Liao notes that this is a very common practice in the clothing manufacturing industry. But commonplace doesn’t mean appropriate. In fact, pay-per-item rates are in violation of local labour laws. This mode of payment is one of the reasons that workers must put in such long hours.

Fashion Revolution’s MacGilp points to the dangers of this exploitative model that encourages extended, overtime hours. “The take-home pay for a garment worker relies upon her speed of production—the more pieces she sews, the more money she makes. The opposite is also true, which means in many cases, workers are earning less than the legal minimum wage.”

As we speak, SHEIN has planned to invest 15 billion yuan ($2.37 billion USD) into a Guangzhou supply chain centre. Money is flowing, but into whose hands? Based on its record profits and the abysmal wages paid to garment workers, it seems clear that the money is going only to the wealthy executives at the top.

With all the bad headlines, why is SHEIN still so popular?

SHEIN has proven that it’s unlike any other fashion shopping platform out there—and its growth speaks for itself. For the past eight years, it has grown over 100% year on year. In 2020, it was reported to be the most talked about brand on social media. In the same year, it was estimated that SHEIN made $10 billion USD in revenue.

These eye-watering figures reflect the overwhelming stock that floods its online store. “While others go big, we go small. That means we only produce 50-100 pieces per new product,” SHEIN proclaims. In a flashy pop-up, it proudly says that 1,000 new styles are added daily (though that number may actually be between 2,000 and 10,000). At its best? SHEIN is producing 5,000 new items per day. At its worst? A million.

SHEIN ramps up our already-rapid trend cycle to the point of breaking. SHEIN is there to fulfil every minuscule desire we have, and then some.

SHEIN feeds the worst side of ourselves. The sides that are obsessed with appearances and newness, no matter the impact. The sides that are okay with heavy data surveillance, and don’t mind big businesses stealing off young designers. SHEIN ramps up our already-rapid trend cycle to the point of breaking. SHEIN is there to fulfil every minuscule desire we have, and then some.

SHEIN, while its methods are cunning, is not alone in driving the fashion industry to ultra lows. It’s one of many companies that shamelessly sell the false promises of fast fashion, inevitably leaving people wanting more and more. SHEIN is today’s big bad wolf of the fashion industry—but wolves run in packs.

The post SHEIN Is Infamously Exploitative—and It Might Be Worse Than You Think appeared first on Good On You.

What is traceability, and why does it matter?

Ever tried to separate a pile of tangled necklaces? It’s nobody’s idea of a good time. Now imagine trying to untangle a pile of necklaces in the dark while the only person with a torch refuses to switch it on. That’s kind of what the challenge of traceability looks like in clothing manufacturing.

Perhaps it’s a chaotic analogy, but then so are fashion supply chains—famously knotty and frustratingly opaque, tying up countless people in the global pass-the-parcel of textile production. For years now, a “Made in…” label is the closest we’ve gotten to understanding the story of who made our clothes. But that’s barely even an introduction.

Enter: traceability. Like transparency, traceability is one of many buzzwords currently being flung around sustainable fashion conversations and peppered through Corporate Social Responsibility statements. At a high level, traceability means knowing where and how every single part of a garment was made. It’s the tool with which we both untangle those supply chains and shine a light on their problems.

But as with many jargony words in the fashion industry, the language of traceability can be too easily co-opted by big brands with less noble intentions. And this is far more than semantics. Without precision in defining what “traceability” means, it’s too easy for brands to claim they’re being sustainable without fundamentally addressing their impacts. That’s why it’s important to untangle traceability from the latest trends in corporate greenwashing.

Is traceability the same as transparency? Not quite

“Traceability is related [to transparency] but different,” explains Ciara Barry, Policy and Research Coordinator at Fashion Revolution, the organisation whose #WhoMadeMyClothes and #WhoMadeMyFabric campaigns have been pushing for answers since 2013. “In theory, a brand could have full supply chain traceability (because they have visibility on every stage where their product is made) yet have no transparency of this information if they withhold it from the public.”

In theory, a brand could have full supply chain traceability (because they have visibility on every stage where their product is made) yet have no transparency of this information if they withhold it from the public.

Ciara Barry – Policy and Research Coordinator at Fashion Revolution

Likewise, we often see brands claiming to use “sustainable” fabrics, “eco-friendly” production, or unnamed suppliers who are “like family to us!” as the marketing copy often goes, without providing any actual details to prove it. So if transparency equals telling us where their clothes are made, then traceability means showing the receipts.

Or to misquote an immortal “Friends” episode, it’s not enough for us to know they know. We need to know everything they know—and what they don’t know, too.

Fashion still gets away with not revealing its sources

Too often, sustainability claims focus only on “first-tier” factories—where the cutting, sewing, and trimming occurs. But that isn’t the whole story of a garment any more than a McDonald’s kitchen is the whole story of a burger. What about the trims themselves; the threads, the buttons and zips? What about the raw materials spun into that fabric—where are they grown, and by whom? Every cotton boll picked, every chemical poured, every blob of metal melted down and turned into a fastening that involves human hands and planetary costs.

It’s a lot, and very few brands are giving us the whole picture. Last year’s Fashion Transparency Index revealed that 47% of surveyed brands published a list of their first-tier manufacturers, only 27% published info on factories beyond the first tier, and a paltry 11% of brands published anything about who is supplying their raw materials at all.

Unlike the food industry, which is often subject to stringent regulation and dedicated government departments, fashion brands can still get away with not revealing their sources. Yet raw materials are the ingredients that go into our clothes, and their ethical cost can be the highest of all.

“At the lowest levels of the supply chain, there is the least transparency and the most risks socially and environmentally,” notes Barry. Think about it this way: if a Michelin-starred chef prepared you a Pot Noodle, would that make it a Michelin starred meal?

Last year’s Fashion Transparency Index revealed that 47% of surveyed brands published a list of their first-tier manufacturers.

One brand that isn’t afraid to show its workings is the Swedish brand ASKET (not to be confused with Arket), which has made full traceability—“from farm to finish line”—its mission since 2018 and currently claims to be 93% traceable overall.

Even with a modest collection of fewer than 40 products, ASKET still has more than 600 processes and global locations to account for. So when you consider that SHEIN, at the time of writing, features 458,706 products in its womenswear section alone, the maths becomes mind-boggling.

Identifying every link in every supply chain for an ultra fast fashion brand would be like counting grains of sand on a beach. No wonder they’re reluctant.

Watch out for greenwashing brands claiming “traceability”

What’s more, there’s the danger that traceability could be used as its own kind of greenwashing; brands flaunting the information they do have to distract us from all the blanks yet to be filled.

Case in point: Boohoo, which proudly announced in September 2021 that it was publishing its Global Supply Chain, a list of around 1,100 factories across 30 countries. It’s a huge document but far from complete, featuring no second-tier manufacturers, fabric mills, or other raw material info. Funnily, they didn’t mention that in the press release.

“Many fashion companies are claiming to be transparent, and some publish lengthy reports in a bid to support these claims. However, despite such reports sometimes comprising hundreds of pages, they often contain surprisingly little meaningful information relating to supply chain traceability and monitoring,” says Kate Hobson, ratings analyst at Good On You. “Providing incomplete information in the name of transparency is, without doubt, greenwashing.”

“While it’s good to see brands tracing the final stages and cut-and-sew operations of their supply chains, it’s important to remember that supply chains do, in fact, expand far beyond this stage and implicate thousands more workers,” she says. “Public disclosure of supplier names is of limited use without brands providing evidence of good environmental and social practices at these facilities.”

Providing incomplete information in the name of transparency is, without doubt, greenwashing.

Kate Hobson – Ratings analyst at Good On You

It’s important to remember that—same as transparency—traceability doesn’t necessarily guarantee sustainability. Rather, it’s a means to an end, shining that torchlight into the murky world of fashion manufacturing so we can see what’s up.

“Transparency promotes accountability, but transparency must be complete and consistent. Brands have a responsibility to both disclose supplier information throughout their supply chains, and to provide evidence which proves that the practices of suppliers are being monitored,” Hobson says. “When you’re only sharing the kinds of information you want to, or that benefits you as a brand, that’s not full transparency. That’s confusing to consumers and does not lead to meaningful progress.”

Why fast fashion supply chains are so hard to trace

Fast fashion and the newish wave of ultra fast fashion brands will never truly be sustainable while producing the volume of clothes they do at the breakneck speed they do. Not just because fast fashion eats up too many resources at one end and creates too much waste at the other, but also because, as Ciara Barry explains, “high turnover of stock or product ranges means a brand’s supply chain is in constant flux.”

New suppliers are more likely to conceal problems from potential clients, while chasing microtrends means brands should, in theory, start mapping their supply chains all over again every season.

Meanwhile, the relentless churn and impossible turnaround times have made it common for garment factories to outsource work to other factories (or countless informal homeworkers) while brands turn a blind eye. When familiar labels emerged from the rubble of the Rana Plaza disaster, the most common defence was “we didn’t know.”

Traceability info needs to be accessible to consumers

If tracing supply chains is tricky for brands, then it can be next to impossible for consumers to get to the truth. Often we’re relying on deeply buried web pages, outdated PDFs, and other formats open to human error and human laziness—not to mention human lies. In February, the New York Times reported that much of the cotton currently being sold as “organic” could be faking its credentials, thanks to “an opaque certification system rife with opportunities for fraud”.

This is where tech could help. Innovations like smart clothes tags and FiberTrace have been hyped as the future of a traceable industry for a while now, while public tools like the Open Apparel Registry are already simplifying the process. And another favourite buzzword, blockchain, could play a vital role in mapping supply chains and tracking products through their whole lifecycle, keeping information up to date and safe from tampering.

Ultimately, traceability needs to be easy for the average shopper to access and understand, or else we’re back at the knotty necklaces again.

Ultimately, traceability needs to be easy for the average shopper to access and understand, or else we’re back at the knotty necklaces again. But until the fancy tech arrives, it’s crucial that brands roll up their sleeves and do the work in the present.

“We do not want brands to wait for the new technology solutions to start mapping their supply chain,” says Barry. “It is possible for them to establish full supply chain traceability and disclose this information already.”

A glimmer of good news is that more brands are taking steps in that direction, even if the numbers aren’t all that inspiring. Fashion Revolution’s Transparency Index found overall traceability scores are up from a dismal 8% in 2017 to a better-than-nothing 19% in 2021. But there’s a long way to go before every person and every process in every supply chain is accounted for.

Most experts will attest that we need tighter regulation and comprehensive government legislation to make “we don’t know” a crime, not a valid excuse. At the time of writing, the 2022 Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act being considered in New York is one such example.

Until then, it’s down to shoppers—citizens—to check brands’ track records, keep demanding more detail and banging the drum for answers. Knowledge is power, after all.

The post Fashion Traceability Is Confusing—Here’s What You Need to Know appeared first on Good On You.

The age of transparency

At Good On You, we firmly believe in transparency. We think it is the first step towards accountability and making the fashion industry more ethical and sustainable.

But how did we come to this current state where we know nothing to very little about how our clothes are made? When fast fashion as we know it today started developing around the 1990s, the pressure for retailers to cut down prices for consumers and costs for the brands grew tremendously. Companies relocated their once-local factories abroad in search of lower labour costs, and cut corners to source and produce raw materials cheaply. This lead to vast, complex, and opaque supply chains.

But this is the age of the internet, of the metaverse, of information. People are demanding more transparency from fashion brands, and new technologies and tools—like the Good On You app and directory—are helping people know more about how their clothes were made and which brands are ethical or not.

The technology that has been on everyone’s lips for the past few years is blockchain. You’ve no doubt heard of NFTs or Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but blockchain has many other uses—and its applications within the fashion industry are only starting to be researched.

So today we give you the lowdown about this mysterious technology.

First things first, what is blockchain technology?

Imagine a Google spreadsheet set on “view only”: it’s digital, it has information on it, it’s shared on different computers, everyone can access it, but no one can edit it. That’s blockchain.

The digital information is the “block”, the spreadsheet is the “chain”. When a piece of new information is added, it becomes linked to previous information, it becomes part of the chain, and every spreadsheet everywhere is updated. This system is what makes blockchain secure and transparent.

Blockchain is a digital decentralised, distributed, and public ledger. This is a very condensed summary of how blockchain works, but if you’re interested, we recommend this fun video by WIRED.

Now you might be thinking “hold on, how does it help the fashion industry be more transparent?”

Blockchain can be used to record different types of data: from transactions (which is useful for cryptocurrencies) to events (the execution of “smart” contracts, for example) and information, without relying on a middleman or having to interact with other users. That data can be anything: products, materials, suppliers. This means that blockchain can help track any items throughout their lifecycles. When paired with tracking tags, the blockchain can also trace products through the entire supply chain, from the raw material to the factory and even to the consumer and beyond. It is an excellent tool for supply chain and inventory management, especially since the blockchain (so the record of all the information collected throughout an item’s journey) cannot be modified. This means it can improve traceability and transparency.

Fashion brands have started experimenting with blockchain technology, such as Martine Jarlgaard, who produced a collection with smart labels in 2017, in collaboration with the blockchain company Provenance. When people scanned the tag, they were able to see every step in the production process in details: time stamps, the location of the factory, and so on. The same year, BabyGhost partnered with VeChain and Martina Spetlova teamed up with Provenance to offer the same experience to their clients. In December 2018, the agricultural blockchain startup Bext360 partnered with the C&A Foundation, Fashion for Good, and the Organic Cotton Accelerator to experiment with a pilot that uses blockchain to trace organic cotton.

By shining the light on the story of our clothes and bringing more transparency to the fashion supply chain, blockchain can help move away from the fast fashion trend we've sadly fallen into, and bring more love to these beautiful creations that are clothes.

But that’s not all: blockchain can also help designers protect their intellectual property. Because products can be traced, it becomes easy for consumers and retailers to verify their authenticity, reducing the risk of counterfeiting. In 2021, a blockchain consortium called Aura was launched, signing up leading labels such as Prada, Louis Vuitton, and Cartier. The Aura Blockchain Consortium allows consumers to access product history and proof of authenticity of luxury goods—from sourcing to sales, all the way to second hand markets.

Blockchain also improves brand’s storytelling: like Martine Jarlgaard, BabyGhost, and Martina Spetlova did. Brands using blockchain are be able to tell the story of their collections, documenting every step of the design process. As a result, consumers can know (and trust) where their clothes come from, make sure the ethical and sustainable standards (if there are any) set by the brand are met, and see the real value in the clothes they buy.

Blockchain can also improve the work of organisations like Good On You. Paired with our robust rating methodology, blockchain could allow us to have access to more detailed, precise, and trustworthy information about fashion brands so we can give you better ratings and more beautiful stories about the ethical fashion brands we love and trust.

By shining a light on the darkest parts of the fashion supply chain, blockchain can potentially help change the way fashion is sometimes perceived: as something cheap, manufactured far away, that is worn a handful of times, and thrown away in a place even farther away, somewhere we don’t know.

There are still some obstacles

Blockchain is a promising technology, which could help improve the authenticity and traceability of products, as well as the transparency of the whole fashion supply chain. But it’s important to remember that blockchain is a relatively new technology. It is still largely unregulated, and no standards or certifications have been set to structure the development of blockchain solutions. The technology is also costly for now which makes it inaccessible to smaller labels and retailers.

Blockchain is also said to consume a lot of energy (it’s said that cryptocurrencies use more electricity than Egypt, which has 102 million people), which could make the whole process not exactly sustainable in the long-run.

There clearly are some changes to be made, and the adoption of blockchain by fashion industry players is predicted to be slow, but this new technology does have an exciting potential that cannot be ignored.

At Good On You, we look forward to seeing how blockchain develops and discovering innovative ways new technologies can help change the fashion industry for the better.

The post Can Blockchain Technology Make Fashion More Transparent? appeared first on Good On You.