There are few topics in life where we see a consensus across society, but wearing clothes is one of them. Whether it’s haute couture or a charity shop gem, clothing is a way of expressing yourself. But with an increased focus on sustainability in our society, is it time to question the impact of your favourite shirt?
‘Fast fashion’ lies at the heart of this conversation. It was first developed in the 1980s based on a product-driven manufacturing concept called ‘quick response’. The result is inexpensive clothing produced quickly in response to the latest market trends, Rothschild & Co reported.
Many brands have moved away from traditional production processes towards this fast fashion model, both on the high street and online. But with over 10% of global carbon emissions coming from the textile industry1 across the whole value chain, should we as society call time on this ‘more is more’ mindset?
Brands can make headlines in the right way by aligning sustainability with creativity. Over a five-year partnership with the Burberry Foundation, Elvis & Kresse, an eco-luxury brand, made use of its leather waste to create fashion products. The company donates 50% of its profits to charity.
In collaboration with Kresse Wesling CBE, the co-founder of Elvis & Kresse, Rothschild & Co hosted a roundtable discussion with industry experts to deliberate this ‘fast fashion faux pas’. This article outlines the key takeaways from our conversations.
The lack of accountability in fashion supply chains is a long-standing issue. The WWF released an article in 2011 which highlighted that one key detail missing from your t-shirt label is that it takes approximately 20,000 litres of water to produce it.2
With this in mind, a topic consistently trending across the evening was the continued demand for more stringent sustainability standards within companies. The key reasoning is that it would increase a brand’s supply chain traceability, particularly for large multinational fashion companies who source materials and collaborate with organisations from all over the globe. This level of traceability is currently hard to implement in highly commoditised markets such as cotton.
Clothing manufacturers have less strict rules than other industries, such as food production, when it comes to disclosing the origin of their product. However, there is a global movement towards garment tracing, which is intended to improve standards across the supply chain and enable carbon cost transparency. The EU has committed to introducing a ‘digital product passport’ for textiles by 2030, which requires brands to share data on a garment’s product lifecycle.
Another benefit of enhancing supply chain traceability would be to motivate consumers to demand higher quality materials, which often come with a ‘green premium’.3 Over time, the use of cheaper synthetic materials has become increasingly prevalent, but some luxury brands have been able to ‘afford the risk’ of experimenting with the use of innovative albeit more expensive textiles.
Price parity is a huge opportunity for the creation of new material, but attendees noted the importance of legislation and government subsidies to accelerate innovation. They also highlighted the need to ensure local communities were involved in the future of the industry.
Whilst plenty of innovative new materials are being developed, the biggest challenge is faced in surviving in competition with incumbent materials until you can scale.
Tech companies like LAYBL are said to be at the forefront of innovation in garment tracing helping brands increase their accountability for their products and clothing waste, and connecting the consumers with clothing care, repair, rent, resell, recycle and donation services. Jen Wagner, CEO of LAYBL, said: ‘It’s only by understanding what happens to clothes post-sale that we can start to reduce clothing waste and the impact on our natural environment.’
Large retailers have the power to demand higher standards within the supply chain, and the same power is also in the hands of consumers and other industry stakeholders.
For example, rather than fashion awards ceremonies having a sustainability-focused award, should they instead only allow companies to make a submission or be nominated if they have robust sustainability policies in place?
Moving focus to synthetic fibres means needing to improve recycling solutions for existing materials, those with expertise in the current methods warned. Many consumers are loyal to specific brands, and these companies could do more to repair clothing which is distressed, improving the longevity of materials.
Guests said if such models were established for luxury brands, smaller and mid-market brands would feel pressure to follow suit.
While we use fashion to express ourselves, the group asked how brands can encourage an enhanced value relationship between consumers and the clothes they wear.
Perhaps language is the answer? Large fashion houses need to ensure their marketing resonates with the consumer rather than use hackneyed terms like ‘sustainability’. Brands need to establish a narrative of repair or resell to make their higher quality materials more desirable and ultimately attract loyal customers.
Patrick McDowell runs an eponymous fashion brand and joined us for the discussion. He creates collections where each garment is produced in limited quantity and individually numbered. His company offers a complimentary refit to encourage items to be passed to loved ones. If other luxury brands were able to create a similar story of longevity with their clothing, luxury consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable clothes, he said.