Driving Sustainable Change in the Fashion Industry

Long Island University Long Island University

Digital Commons @ LIU Digital Commons @ LIU

Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016- LIU Post

2021

Driving Sustainable Change in the Fashion Industry Driving Sustainable Change in the Fashion Industry

Christina Pasqualicchio

christina.pasqualicchio@my.liu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses

Part of the Fashion Business Commons, and the Sales and Merchandising Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Pasqualicchio, Christina, "Driving Sustainable Change in the Fashion Industry" (2021).

Undergraduate

Honors College Theses 2016-

. 78.

https://digitalcommons.liu.edu/post_honors_theses/78

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the LIU Post at Digital Commons @ LIU. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors College Theses 2016- by an authorized administrator of Digital

Commons @ LIU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Driving Sustainable Change in the Fashion Industry

An Honors College Thesis

Christina Pasqualicchio

Spring, 2021

Fashion Merchandising

Abstract

Climate change is a threat to global sustainable development and the fashion industry is

one of the largest polluters in the world. This thesis explores how fast fashion and

consumerism have contributed to an overabundance of clothing, an increase in greenhouse gases,

fibers and fabrics that don’t disintegrate properly, and water pollution; all of which create

negative environmental and social issues. Through detailing each of these problems, it can be

seen that there needs to be internal changes within the fashion industry and external changes

made by consumers. In order to create these changes, the fashion industry needs to adjust the

current fashion model by reshaping how fashion is made through slowing down production and

manufacturing and focusing on the lifespan of a more circular economy through methods such as

rental, resale and repurposing of garments. This will pave the way for less pollution and waste,

more transparency, the creation and utilization of sustainable textiles, and educating consumers

to buy more mindfully. Tools and resources, such as new durable textiles and environmental

impact tools, have been helpful innovations so far, but they are not yet ubiquitous. There are

additional solutions that can be utilized or carried out on a larger scale in order to make a

difference. Finally, there is a discussion on the future of fashion and moving forward after

COVID-19, which has had a large impact on the industry. The overall goal is to bring awareness

to the issues the fashion industry creates and show how the global fashion community can come

together to build a more sustainable fashion industry.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Issues the Industry Has Caused 4

Overabundance of Clothing 4

An Increase in Greenhouse Gases 8

Fibers and Fabrics that Don’t Disintegrate Properly 10

Water Consumption and Pollution 13

Lack of Transparency 16

Bad Working Conditions 17

Transforming the Fashion Industry 22

Adjusting the Current Fashion Model 22

Decreasing Pollution and Waste 29

Increasing Transparency 35

Creation and Utilization of Sustainable Textiles 41

Educating Consumers to Buy More Mindfully 44

Conclusion: Moving Forward From COVID-19 and the Future of Fashion 47

Introduction

Plagued by the negative impacts of fast fashion and consumerism, the fashion industry is

now one of the largest polluters in the world. Contributions to this problem include an

overabundance of clothing, an increase in greenhouse gases, fibers and fabrics that don’t

disintegrate properly, and water pollution. It is not only important to educate consumers on these

detrimental impacts that fashion has on the world’s environment and people, but essential to

change how fashion is made and bought. The fashion industry can catalyze change in the global

community by adjusting the current fashion model which will pave the way for less pollution and

waste, more transparency, the creation and utilization of sustainable textiles, and educating

consumers to buy more mindfully.

The fashion industry is connected to the consumer beyond just clothing. Fashion is a

uniting force across the world that engages different cultures and identities. It is something we

will always need and have in our lives. Our style choices are implemented into our daily

decision-making and help to communicate who we are to others. Fashion also is a reflection of

what is going on around us in everyday life. Ben and Jerry’s collaborated with Nike to create a

sneaker while a new Oreo cookie was created in collaboration with Supreme. The video game

Animal Crossing featured pieces to dress characters from designers like Marc Jacobs and Anna

Sui in its own virtual fashion show (Harwood). Fashion is relevant in politics and television as

well, often because of what the clothing can symbolize. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris wore

a white suit, a color associated with the women’s suffrage movement, when she gave her

acceptance speech. When it comes to television, we are shown the zeitgeist or spirit/mood of the

times based on what characters are wearing, which allows us to tap into trends. Fashion is

evidently an important part of our society that is ingrained in our culture and means a lot to

people. Financially, it is a $2.5 trillion global industry and is only projected to grow (“The State

of Fashion”), although the industry is now at a point where a lot of waste has been created from

production and consumption. Cultivating a more sustainable industry is vital to not only the

consumer but also to the environment.

“Fast fashion, which references apparel with short product life cycles, has emerged as a

potent competitive force. Fast fashion brands introduce new styles at more frequent intervals,

focusing less on durable quality, and more on low costs and up to the minute designs''

(Mukherjee 22). As a result of fast fashion and increased consumption, a pollution footprint has

been left behind. The fashion supply chain, which includes designing, harvesting raw material,

spinning, yarn production, dyeing, weaving, cutting, stitching and final garment construction, has

a large environmental impact in each one of these phases. This is due to the large amount of

products used and discarded throughout every phase of the product life cycle (Mukherjee 22).

Fast fashion is on a two-to-three-week delivery cycle, sending out new collections at a

faster speed than ever before. This has placed the rest of the fashion world spinning on its axis,

trying to deliver clothing faster and cheaper just to keep up. The desire from consumers for the

industry to create new and trendy items is part of the reason why there is so much waste. Over

time, there has been a shift from designers and celebrities driving the industry, to mostly

consumers embracing disposable fashion and driving it based on their wants. The fashion market

is now filled with an abundance of clothing that is often either really expensive or really cheap

and mass-produced. Mass production enabled this “democratization of fashion,” (Idacavage)

where everyone, regardless of social and economic backgrounds, could be seen wearing fast

fashion and communicating through their clothing.

Today, buying affordable clothing that is easily disposable is common, but getting to this

point did not happen overnight. During the Industrial Revolution, garment factories proliferated

and technology expanded, so people were able to receive news faster and pay attention to what

everyone was wearing around them. Women were making most of their clothing at home at the

beginning of the 20th century, but an increase in mass production and ready-made apparel was

becoming widely available. New textile machines and factories allowed clothing to be readily

accessible in larger orders rather than being made to order (Stone 5). After World War II there

was a boom in the economy and birth rates and standardized production increased, which led to

middle-class consumers being more open to mass-produced clothing (Idacavage). There were

also new consumer goods in homes, more people focused on family life, and casual clothing for

all members of families increased with the invention of wash-and-wear fabrics such as acrylic

and Orlon (Stone 15).

“More than in any other decade, the 1960s produced styles that demanded niche

marketing to specific customers. More mature adults gravitated toward more tailored looks,

while the fashionable youth crowd browsed trendy boutiques” (Stone 16). In other words,

fashion really started to speed up in the 1960s and many young people began to buy cheap

clothing and follow trends. In response, fashion brands had to keep up with this increasing

demand for trendy, affordable clothing, which led to large textile mills opening across the

developing world. This allowed U.S. and European companies to save millions of dollars by

outsourcing labor to make clothing (Idacavage).

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, it became more acceptable and desirable to show off

the love for low-cost fashion and to mix high and low fashion. Fast fashion retailers who are

considered leaders in the industry today include Zara and H&M, which both started in Europe.

Zara came to New York at the beginning of 1990 and H&M arrived in the U.S. in 2000. The New

York Times used the term "fast fashion" to describe Zara’s mission and discussed how quickly

the store could get a garment on the racks only a few weeks after being seen on a designer

runway. It was “chic to pay less” (Idacavage) when H&M arrived.

Bridging a gap between brands and consumers, “see now, buy now” gave consumers the

ability to buy a designer's clothing right after a runway show via shoppable channels such as

websites and social media platforms. The first brand to adopt this model was Burberry in

September 2016, giving consumers instant access to buy the collection shown (Haschka). This

change is a part of the reason that companies like Zara were able to easily take designs from the

runway and sell them for a much lower price in their stores. The general public was given the

opportunity to purchase designs similar to those they saw on the runway in a shorter time and at

a significantly lower price. Fashion retail saw this as an opportunity, and so began the race

between different brands to take designs from the runway and produce them at an accelerated

speed with the lowest price possible (Idacavage).

Issues the Industry Has Caused

The fashion industry has left behind many environmental footprints. This includes an

overabundance of clothing, an increase in greenhouse gases, fibers and fabrics that don’t

disintegrate properly, water consumption and pollution, a lack of transparency, and bad working

conditions.

Overabundance of Clothing

Fast fashion production is a linear system of “take, make, dispose,” which has led to an

overabundance of clothing and an increase in textile waste. Many brands have started to strive

toward changing their product life cycles since this linear model is wasteful and polluting, but its

complexity has slowed down this movement toward circularity. Currently, it is estimated that by

2030, the world population will exceed 8.5 billion people, and garment production will increase

by 81% globally. This means more clothing will end up in landfills, which is a problem since

73% of the world’s clothing already lands there (Global Fashion Agenda). Transforming the

fashion industry to a circular system has never been more important as the finite resources on our

planet are in jeopardy along with the industry itself.

As a result of fast fashion, consumers have access to an increasing number of styles and

collections each year at low, enticing prices. This clothing is not designed with durability or

recyclability in mind, leading to an overabundance of waste when consumers decide they no

longer want their items. Apparel production is almost double the amount today and the number

of times consumers actually wear that apparel has dropped by a third since the start of the

century. Still, clothing sales are expected to rise to 160 million tonnes in 2050 (Global Fashion

Agenda).

Global consumption of this apparel has now reached around 62 million tonnes per year

and is projected to reach around 102 million tonnes by 2030 (Niinimäki). In terms of fast

fashion, it has been estimated that more than half of production is disposed of in under a year.

This disposed of clothing is often sent to a landfill or is incinerated, which means that not only

are we seeing an increase in non-biodegradable waste, but the large number of nonrenewable

resources that are used to produce it are unnecessarily wasted (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 3).

Less than 15% of clothing is collected for recycling and less than 1% of the material that is used

for production is recycled into new clothing. That 1% of material is a loss of around 100 billion

in U.S. dollars each year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 91).

Across the industry in general, only 13% of the total material is in some way recycled

after it is used in clothing (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 37), and it usually goes to other

industries to be used for insulation material or mattress stuffing, which is most likely the final

use. If the collection rates of textiles were tripled by 2030, it could be worth around 5 billion

USD for the world economy. Additionally, if the industry could collect and recycle all fibers, the

value could be around 95 billion USD. Even though an overabundance of clothing is a problem

in itself, if clothing was disposed of and reused properly, a lot of money could be saved (Global

Fashion Agenda).

In many countries, the already low rates of clothing utilization continue to drop. By

throwing away clothing that could continue to be worn, consumers lose 460 billion USD each

year. Some of these garments are estimated to be thrown out after only just seven to ten wears.

Many people have admitted to knowing that they own more clothing than they actually need, but

it is a part of consumer culture. Many continue to not dispose of it properly either. Rather than

recycling or donating, people choose a much easier route and throw their unwanted clothing in

the trash. Even if people do recycle and a country has high collection rates for reusing and

recycling textiles, the textiles are not always handled properly anyway. Many western countries

end up exporting their clothing to developing countries that do not have the same collection

infrastructure. While this may help increase clothing utilization, it has started to become a

problem (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 38). Many of the developing countries have started to ban

the import of textile waste because their markets become oversaturated by second-hand clothing

and they want to protect their own local production (Niinimäki).

In order to examine the entire problem, it must be traced back to the very beginning of

the design and manufacturing process. Pre-consumer waste, or production waste, is created

during the manufacturing of textiles and garments (which includes fiber, yarn, and fabric waste).

“One study estimated that 15% of fabric used in garment manufacturing is wasted; in other

studies, the figure is ~10% for pants and jeans and >10% for blouses, jackets, and underwear,

and some estimates even place textile waste during garment manufacturing at 25–30%”

(Niinimäki). During production, the more accurate the cuts to the fabric are, the less that goes to

waste. Unfortunately, many mistakes are made during the process, but if the accuracy between

design and manufacturing is more precise, it would help. Deadstock, or old fabric that has not

been able to sell or even be used as scraps, has also become a problem. Luxury brand Burberry

has reported burning around £90 million (around $124 million) worth of unsold inventory over

five years as of June 2018. The brand admitted that £28.6 million (about $39 million) worth was

incinerated in 2017 alone. Although the incineration of deadstock “recovers” some energy from

the products, it also generates more emissions and air pollutants than reuse or recycling

(Niinimäki).

The waste that consumers throw away is called post-production waste. In 2012, almost

60% of around 150 billion garments produced globally were discarded several years after

production. Also, the average life of a garment from consumption to post-production waste is

very quick. Averaged between China, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the USA, three

different types of garments (t-shirts, knit collared shirts, and woven pants) averaged around 3.1

to 3.5 years per garment to go from consumption to waste. Furthermore, textiles account for up

to 22% of mixed waste worldwide. In the USA and UK, there is an average of 30 kg of textiles

that goes to waste per person each year. In 2015, the post-consumer textile waste collected for

recycling purposes was only 15%. Overall, “to close the material loop and create an effective

recycling system for all textile waste, not only must garment recycling become more widely

adopted, but the production and consumption of garments must be slowed” (Niinimäki).

An Increase in Greenhouse Gases

Throughout the value chain, from agriculture, manufacturing, and production to the use

and disposal of textiles, greenhouse gases are released. Although there is a range of estimates,

the industry has been said to produce around 8-10% of global CO2 emissions annually (4-5

billion tonnes annually) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the

textile industry causes 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Niinimäki). The fragmentation

of clothing manufacturing has made it hard to accurately assess environmental impacts due to

raw-material sourcing and processing happening in different places around the world.

Environmental consequences are uneven as well since developing countries, where most of the

production happens, deal with more negative impacts than the developed countries who are the

consumers of the products that are made. Also, most of our clothing is produced in countries

mainly powered by coal, a large contributor to increased carbon emissions.

Climate change is a threat to sustainable development globally, causing wildfires,

droughts, flooding, hurricanes, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and the melting of

permafrost. The fashion industry is one of the many contributors to climate change due to

greenhouse gas emissions. A lack of recycling and the tons of discarded clothing that ends up in

a landfill are only some of the ways the industry adds to this global problem. When organic

materials decompose in landfills, they release gas naturally. Around 50% of it is methane and the

other half is carbon dioxide (CO2). There is also a small amount of non-methane organic

compounds released. Methane and CO2 are both greenhouse gases that trap heat in the

atmosphere and contribute to climate change, although, methane is 28 to 36 times more effective

than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period, according to the latest

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report (“Basic Information

about Landfill Gas.”).

Cultivating cotton, which is largely used, emits CO2 as well. Even though regular cotton

emits 3.5 times more CO2 than organic cotton cultivation, the growth of organic cotton utilizes

more water, making people use it less. Negative impacts can still occur during production with

these natural fibers because of high energy requirements for washing, drying, and ironing. Based

on 50 washes, an estimation of the lifecycle of a cotton t-shirt shows that 35% of CO2 emissions

are due to textile manufacturing and 52% is produced when the product is actually used

(Niinimäki).

Climate change negatively impacts the industry itself, because hurricanes and floods can

affect production. Decreased biodiversity, endangered ecosystems, and destruction of oceans and

forests (both important for absorbing carbon emissions) are also negative results of climate

change. Natural resources and the industry are easily depleted because of this. Today,

greenhouse gas emissions from apparel production are around 1.2 billion tonnes annually. This is

more than international flights and maritime shipping combined (Global Fashion Agenda).

Furthermore, CO2 emissions and energy use are highest during initial fiber extraction, especially

for synthetic fibers such as acrylic because they come from fossil fuels. High energy use, which

is also influenced by the source of energy that is used, is a main reason that the fashion industry

has such a large carbon footprint. China, for example, depends on coal-based energy, which

results in a 40% larger carbon footprint than textiles made in Europe (Niinimäki). Experts have

said that if the industry stays on the same path, emissions from production will rise by more than

60% by 2030.

Even though the industry has been trying to reduce emissions through different programs

and using renewable energy sources, progress is too slow. Global emissions are still set to rise

and are not going to reach the targets of the Paris Agreement. In order to keep the temperature

below the Paris Agreement’s goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse gas emissions need to be

cut by 45% by 2030. Still, current models are not enough to meet goals or recognize the impacts

of the fashion industry. Fashion brands and manufacturers need to work together to accelerate

their efforts to reduce their impact on the planet and reverse climate change (Global Fashion

Agenda).

Fibers and Fabrics that Don’t Disintegrate Properly

The mix of materials that a fashion brand uses in its products often causes a large

environmental footprint. This mix can determine the amount of water, energy, and land that it

uses up and the amount of air emissions and waste it creates. Research says that cotton

production by itself is at fault for a quarter of insecticides and herbicides that are used globally.

Replacing conventional cotton with organic has been estimated to save 62% of the energy

needed. “For polyester, estimates suggest that substituting one metric ton of virgin polyester with

its recyclable counterpart can reduce toxic substances by up to 90%, energy consumption by

60% and emissions by up to 40%” (Global Fashion Agenda).

Natural plant fibers, like cotton, are renewable and biodegradable. Even though this is

good for the environment, the problem is that cotton is one of the largest water consumers in the

supply chain. Natural animal fibers like wool, leather, down, and silk are biodegradable as well,

but their production can lead to unethical sourcing practices such as forced feeding, live-

plucking, and corrupt slaughtering practices. Land use and climate effects of animal farming also

have a high environmental impact and manufacturing leather uses heavy chemicals for tanning.

When producing natural fibers like cotton, viscose, and leather, there can be a negative impact on

biodiversity if it is done unsustainably, so even though these are materials that can biodegrade,

there are still negative impacts associated with them. Other negative effects can include soil

depletion, deforestation, and diminished wildlife populations (Global Fashion Agenda).

The fashion industry mostly relies on non-renewable resources. Measuring up to around

98 million tonnes in total per year, this includes oil to produce synthetic fibers, fertilizers to grow

cotton, and chemicals to produce, dye, and finish fibers and textiles. With low levels of recycling

and the current wasteful, linear system, there is a large pressure on resources (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 20). Also, man-made fibers usually require less water than natural fibers, and are

highly durable. However, many of these synthetic fibers are not biodegradable and rely on

chemicals and fossil fuels when they are being produced. They shed microfibers, which make up

35% of microplastic pollution in the oceans. Cellulosic fibers present an opportunity to be a

useful part of a sustainable material mix as an alternative to synthetics, but only if the impact on

deforestation and land degradation can be lowered (Global Fashion Agenda). Even though

synthetics, like acrylic, polyester and nylon, are cheap to use, they create more pollution because

they are harder to recycle and disintegrate slowly. For example, nylon takes 30 to 40 years to

decompose (Mukherjee 25). In 2018, the fibers used in production for the fashion industry

included polyester at 51% (54 million tonnes) followed by cotton at 25% (25 million tonnes).

Since polyester is cost-efficient and performs well, it is used often and is projected to increase

(Niinimäki). This is a problem because it can take 20 to 200 years to decompose (“Material

Guide: How Sustainable Is Polyester?”).

Many fabrics are blended and therefore have combined properties of their component

fibers. This often improves appearance, performance, comfort, and ease of care of a garment, but

can lead to difficulties in decomposition and the ability to biodegrade. More complex blends are

known to be three materials or more. When these complex blends are used, cheaper fibers are

often blended with more expensive ones, which lowers the cost. One example of this is a

polyester and cotton blend, called polycotton. It has higher durability, crease resistance and a

lower cost than pure cotton and still has the same feel. Also, acrylic is often blended with wool

fibers to lower the cost. Even if clothing is labeled as 100% of a certain material, it can still have

a small number of other materials, especially in the label or sewing threads (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 94). Polyester threads are usually used for stitching because of their strength and

durability. When biodegradable fibers, like cotton, cellulose-based fibers, or wool are mixed with

non-biodegradable fibers like polyester, acrylic, nylon, or elastane, this creates a problem--the

mix is no longer biodegradable, and these blended materials are hard to recycle. The blends can

be processed in mechanical fiber recycling, but it is difficult to control the separate yarns. There

is also chemical polymer recycling where technology can separate blends, but this is only good

for materials that are used in large portions in the input material. So, if a small amount of a

material was used, it will not come out properly to be recycled. Most recycling processes do not

filter out dyes and contaminants either. Therefore, even though there are ways to recycle and

breakdown fibers again, different problems arise that cause the process to not be that efficient

(Ellen MacArthur Foundation 94).

Cellulose-based fibers are naturally biodegradable. However, even these types of

garments usually contain other materials in their stitching, labels or buttons. Dyes contained in

clothing are also not particularly safe if they end up in the environment and they usually contain

residue of other chemicals that are used in fiber production and textile processing. These

substances can affect possible composting use as well from contamination. Garments would need

to have compostable attachments in order for it to be an easier process. A company called C&A

created a t-shirt that is biodegradable and non-toxic, and a company called Freitag created jeans

that can remove non-biodegradable parts easily by hand, for example. Even though companies

are creating positive solutions, a large amount of value is lost when clothing is composted rather

than recycled, so the industry needs to do more (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 51).

Rayon is often thought of as a synthetic, but it actually comes from trees. When trees are

cut down, they are turned into pulp and are spun to form fibers. Unfortunately, “more than 150

million trees are logged every year and turned into cellulosic fabric – if placed end to end those

trees would circle the earth 7 times” (Leibowitz 94). Also, the dissolving pulp used for rayon

wastes around 70 percent of a tree and uses a lot of chemicals. This is leading to deforestation in

Rainforests like the Amazon. Bamboo also seems like a sustainable choice to use since it does

not use a lot of water or chemicals to grow, but toxic chemicals are used to break it down.

Turning trees into pulp can be done in a non-toxic way with the use of better solvents or

mechanical breakdown, but even mechanical breakdown can use up a lot of energy (Leibowitz

92). In reality, these processes are not as sustainable as they may seem.

Water Consumption and Pollution

One cotton t-shirt takes around 2,720 liters of water to make. This is as much water as

one person would drink in three years. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, textile

production uses about 93 billion cubic meters of water each year. This is equal to 37 million

Olympic swimming pools (Chan). Not only does the industry use a lot of water but dyeing and

finishing of textiles makes up 17-20% of all industrial water pollution. The industry is also a

major contributor to plastic entering the ocean. Around half a million tonnes of plastic

microfibers have been estimated to end up in the ocean annually. This happens when plastic-

based textiles such as polyester, nylon, and acrylic are washed (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 21).

Cotton is one of the most water-intensive crops. It takes about 347 gallons of water to

grow one pound of cotton. More than half of the cotton fields in the world require irrigation and

these crops are usually in regions where water is already scarce. These cotton fields produce

more than 70 percent of all of the cotton grown in the world (Mukherjee 25). A lot of water use

is also from bleaching, dyeing, wet processing, printing and finishing of textiles, which heavily

involves chemicals as well. Many chemicals used during manufacturing are toxic and this

wastewater can degrade the ecosystem when it enters local groundwater. For example, in

Cambodia as of 2008, the fashion industry caused an estimated 60% of water pollution and 34%

of chemical pollution. The variety of chemicals that the textile industry uses during

manufacturing can enter soil where they can cause a decrease in soil biodiversity and fertility.

They also can cause cancers and respiratory diseases and premature death among farmers

(Niinimäki).

During the dyeing process of textiles, not all of the dye gets absorbed. When the textiles

are washed, a large amount of the water, which includes toxic chemicals from the dye, gets

released into bodies of water. Each year, the global textile industry releases 40,000-50,000 tons

of dye into rivers and streams. In Europe, 1 million tons of salt is released in order to even out

the color of the water each year. In order to make the water safe, wastewater can be treated to

remove dye, salt, and other toxic chemicals, like heavy metal, but this process is expensive and

does not always happen. Even if the water does end up getting treated, the temperature can be a

problem. The water used for dyeing is heated, which makes the wastewater hot. When this gets

discharged into river systems, it can negatively impact and harm the fish and ecosystem

(Mukherjee 27).

Over 2 billion pairs of jeans are made each year and around 1,800 gallons of water are

used in the process to make one pair (Farra, “These Are the 10”). Cotton, which is used to make

jeans, uses a lot of water and chemicals. When jeans are made, they require the use of synthetic

dyes, which require a lot of water use from washing and rinsing cycles and more chemicals for

finishing. Workers are also exploited to make as many pairs of jeans as possible. When it comes

to the process of finishing each pair of jeans, they have to create holes or patches by hand and

often without wearing a face covering for protection. Also, 99.9% of jeans are dyed with

synthetic indigo, which includes cyanide and formaldehyde that are potentially harmful

substances to human health. Washing the chemicals out makes them safer, but this wastes water

and leads to chemical runoff into rivers (Fullerton). Therefore, jeans, a very popular and

commonly used apparel item, present a large environmental impact all on their own.

When washed, synthetic clothing, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon, releases tiny

plastic particles into the ocean, which eventually end up in our environment and even in our

food. These materials represent around 60% of clothing around the world. Also, these plastic

particles, which do not biodegrade and end up in smaller pieces called microfibers, are smaller

than 5mm and are not visible to the naked eye. There are a large number of microfibers entering

the ocean especially because washing machine filters do not have the technology to catch a

particle that small. Every time we do our laundry, about 9 million microfibers are released into

wastewater treatment plants, so they end up in the ocean. This contributes to 35% of the

microplastics polluting our oceans. Wearing synthetic pieces of clothing alone releases plastic

fibers into the air as well. People breathe in at least 13,000 to 68,000 plastic microfibers from our

clothing, carpets, curtains and other textiles each year. Inhaling plastic microfibers can result in

lung inflammation and possibly cause other health problems. Research has shown that these

microplastics are also found in seafood. So not only are they polluting oceans and marine life,

but they are affecting human health as well (“What Is Microfibers Pollution and Why Is It

Bad?”).

Fortunately, the industry has the opportunity to use water and energy more efficiently. It

has been shown that the industry can cut water use by 11% and energy use by 7% all while

having a return on investment. The industry needs to enhance water and energy efficiency and

reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in textile and leather processing. This will improve the

health of workers and reduce the impact on the environment. Luckily, there are plans to help

improve all of this by 2030 (Global Fashion Agenda).

Lack of Transparency

The fashion supply chain involves millions of people and resources. The first stage of this

process is designing. This is where fabrics, silhouettes, trims and finishes are set. Next is

material production, which involves growing raw textile material, spinning the fibers, weaving

them into fabric, dyeing and finishing. This is where a lot of pollution occurs due to the water

and chemicals that are used. The next step is producing the clothing, which involves cutting,

sewing and finishing a garment. After that is distribution, which involves separating the clothing

to its designated location. It then gets transported to retailers where it is ready to move on to the

last stage, the consumer phase. This is when consumers have access to purchasing the garment.

Throughout each of these stages, there are many environmental and social impacts. There is also

an increased demand for speed, volume and cheap consumption. Garments get moved around a

lot as well and go through different processes in different locations all around the world.

Therefore, due to its complexity, it is very easy for there to be a lack of transparency within the

fashion supply chain (Zoltkowski).

Due to the lack of transparency that occurs as a result of the complexity of the fashion

supply chain, it is hard not only for consumers to understand what has happened to their apparel,

but difficult for manufacturers and brands to trace the process. When textile and garment

production shifted to countries where labor costs are low, there was a decline of production in

developed countries. Over time, it has become increasingly harder for manufacturers to pinpoint

where their raw materials come from, especially because there are a lot of steps a garment goes

through, so information can easily get lost (Niinimäki). The fragmentation of the fashion supply

chain makes it difficult for fashion brands to have full traceability and visibility to track their

products, too.

Transparency is important in the fashion industry for many reasons, among them showing

that employee health is being protected, hazardous waste is handled properly or being avoided,

and measures are being taken to protect the environment. Currently, there is a lack of

transparency on wage data for workers and very low transparency on the chemicals used in the

fashion industry. This makes the scale of pollution difficult to measure across economic,

environmental, and societal impacts. Thankfully, there are many opportunities to improve

transparency as concerns continue to grow from NGOs, the public and policymakers (Ellen

MacArthur Foundation 53).

Bad Working Conditions

The fashion industry employs more than 300 million people globally. When it comes to

producing cotton, it accounts for almost 7% of employment in some low-income countries. The

unsafe methods and hazardous substances used in the production process have negative effects

on farmers and factory workers, who suffer poor working conditions, long hours, low pay, and in

some instances, modern slavery and child labor. Local communities suffer from poor

environmental practices such as the flow of untreated production wastewater back into their

water supply. This pollutes local rivers used for fishing, drinking, or bathing (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 21).

Many factories fail to comply with minimum wage laws and even if they do, wages are

still too low to meet the basic needs of workers. This often is linked to other issues such as a lack

of governance or institutional support. While there have been improvements in recent years,

more needs to be done. Fashion brands need to make sure that manufacturers are following laws

and paying workers fair wages without any unlawful loopholes. It is necessary for brands to

support manufacturers in order for there to be a safer work environment for employees. It is not

only ethically important for this to be ensured, but is also expected by consumers. Ethical work

environments can bring higher productivity, fewer sick days, less errors, and a shorter turnaround

time. Unfortunately, many workers are still exposed to factory fires or hazardous chemicals.

Each year, on average, one in twenty fashion industry workers suffers an injury. Many women

are subject to these problems since two thirds of the global garment workforce are female.

Human rights violations have been noted at each step of the production process, but governments

and companies have been trying to get more equality in the workplace with regulations and

policies (Global Fashion Agenda).

Dyeing and cutting of fabric are repetitive and dangerous tasks that workers are required

to perform. Manufacturing polyester (which is made from petroleum and is the most widely used

manufactured fiber) and other synthetic fabrics requires a lot of energy and the use of a large

amount of crude oil. This releases many acid gases, like hydrogen chloride, which can cause or

worsen respiratory diseases (Mukherjee 25). In a study of women garment workers in

Bangladesh, it was found that workers do not get enough sleep and are victims of diseases and

illnesses. As a result, they end up not even working that long because the conditions are so bad.

Factory buildings were found to be overcrowded and poorly ventilated. Workers were exposed to

toxic substances and dust. They also had a lack of clean water and waste bins (Absar 460). In

the Los Angeles garment industry, where the lowest-paid workers are women, a large percentage

of Latinas could “be found in sweat shops (small investment operations that work outside of the

industry's structure of regulations)” (Soldatenko 321). Contractors would pay these apparel

workers less than minimum wage, would cheat them of some of their wages, and would pressure

them to work long hours. The working conditions in these sweatshops are unhealthy as well.

There are fire hazards, no ventilation, and an infestation of rats and cockroaches. The bathrooms

are filthy, and garbage is not disposed of properly. The dyes and materials could cause allergic

reactions because the workers were always exposed to them and emergencies were not always

prepared for (Soldatenko 321).

Even though production in developing countries creates jobs for people in poverty, wages

are still low and working conditions are still not the best. As stated previously, there are

significantly more women who work in the garment industry, which makes them

disproportionately affected. It has been said that they have less bargaining power, are more

docile and generally hold positions of less power than men. They also often have a lack of

knowledge of rights or are prevented from joining trade unions. If workers decide to go on strike

or speak up, they are often punished. Women are exposed to sexual harassment, physical torture,

a poor working environment, low wages and long working hours as well. These workshops have

less strict restrictions in developing countries than developed ones. The workers suffer health

problems like asthma, fatigue, miscarriages or other injuries (Mukherjee 31).

Fast-fashion workers who are paid a low wage are frequently exploited by the rich who

are benefitting from their work. For example, a worker in Bangladesh, where about 80% of

garment workers are women, discussed how she works 12-hour days, often has to skip meals due

to a lack of money, and only makes around $900 a year to sew clothes. Meanwhile, the chairman

of H&M earned around $809 million in one year (Bain). It is possible to pay garment workers a

living wage, but brands are keeping their profits high and costs low by cutting back on paying

workers a sufficient wage and even safety improvements.

A few years ago, there was an incident where Zara shoppers discovered tags attached or

tucked into garments with messages written from factory workers. One tag said, "I made this

item you are going to buy, but I didn't get paid for it" (Peoples). The notes were meant to show

shoppers how a company that makes so much money does not pay their factory workers

properly. “The tags reportedly state that the workers are employed by Bravo Tekstil, one of

Zara's factories based in Istanbul” (Peoples). This is not the first time Zara has been targeted by

their unhappy Turkish employees and it shows that workers are not being treated fairly by large

apparel companies.

Safety problems have been shown in many cases, such as the 2013 Rana Plaza factory

collapse in Bangladesh that killed around 1,100 people (Bain). Even though there were cracks

down the walls of the eight-story factory complex, managers hit workers with sticks to force

them into the factory that day. This incident, which is one of the largest industrial accidents in

history, ignited protests and attracted international attention. Workers at Rana Plaza were

working for long hours, unfair wages, and in unsafe conditions. After this tragedy, a new legal

agreement, called the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, was signed by more

than 200 global firms. This agreement required these firms to source from factories in

Bangladesh that met basic safety standards. “The accord implemented a massive safety

inspection and remediation program, covering factories where more than 2.5 million workers are

employed. More than 1,000 of the factories covered by the agreement have sufficiently

addressed 90 percent or more of the safety issues raised in their places of work” (Jacoby). As the

time to renew the commitment nears, some firms are hesitant to renew, which is a concern. Also,

a law increased the minimum wage to $65 a month after most workers earned an average of $50,

but inflation wiped out any gains. So even though there were advances in helping building

safety, not everything is as good as it should be (Jacoby).

On March 25, 1911, a fire in New York’s Triangle Shirtwaist Factory killed 146 garment

workers, many of them young female immigrants. So many died because doors in the factory

were locked (History.com Editors) to prevent workers from leaving on unauthorized breaks. This

led to the development of laws and regulations to globally protect the safety of workers.

Unfortunately, these rules were not enforced globally because on November 24, 2012, a fire

broke out in the Tazreen Fashions garment factory in Bangladesh. Workers were trapped inside

the building since exits to the outside were locked. The only way to leave was through windows

on the upper floors. Sadly, over a hundred workers were injured from jumping out of the

windows and at least 112 died. Many families of those injured or killed had to fight for

compensation for their loved ones for multiple years (“Tazreen Fire: Fight for Compensation.”).

Overall, fashion companies look to save production costs by manufacturing their products

in locations where it is cheap. Even though fashion brands do not set the wage of a production

worker, they can support the conversation between manufacturers, local governments and

employee representatives to improve wage practices. Improvements in wage systems for garment

workers would help better the lives of workers and their families through health, safety and

education. This would also help increase productivity and quality of employee work. It is hopeful

that companies will continue to make the efforts needed for progress to be made (Global Fashion

Agenda).

Transforming the Fashion Industry

Leading up to today, the fashion community has started to create sustainable solutions

toward eliminating the issues that are a result of the process of apparel production. It has not

been uncommon in recent years for designers to move away from trends and add timeless pieces

to their collections. As conscious consumption becomes more important, there has been a shift

from quantity to quality. Seasonless collections increase longevity of apparel and consumers are

responding by seeking these pieces that will last in their wardrobes for many seasons. This

change is more sustainable than designing to keep up with trends (Klerk). Companies have also

come up with other numerous tools and resources in order to ensure a more sustainable industry,

such as new durable textiles and environmental impact measurement tools. While these solutions

are helping, they are not yet ubiquitous. There is more that can and needs to be done to create a

better system. In order for this to happen, there needs to be internal changes within the fashion

industry and external changes made by consumers. Adjusting the current fashion model will help

the industry pave the way for less pollution and waste, more transparency, the creation and

utilization of sustainable textiles, and educating consumers to buy more mindfully.

Adjusting the Current Fashion Model

Fast production and consumption are defining characteristics of today’s fashion industry.

A sample or sketch can be turned into a product in as little as 12 days. Exploitation of labor and

natural resources makes short lead times and cheap clothing possible. Designing a different

system that still generates money, but respects workers and the environment, is important.

Creating apparel with longevity, quality, fair wages, a lower carbon footprint, and zero waste can

help the fashion industry create stability in clothing and a more sustainable supply chain

(Fletcher).

Slow fashion is about designing, producing and consuming in a better way. It yields

quality clothing and makes designers, buyers, retailers, and consumers aware and responsible for

understanding the impacts that apparel has on workers, communities and ecosystems. This is not

meant to take away from what fashion is now. Slow fashion is still about choice, identity, and

balance, but rather than producing cheaply made, disposable products, it requires durability and

long-lasting, quality products. Shifting from quantity to quality will give suppliers more time to

plan orders and predict the number of workers needed for the job. It will invest in the long term

and workers will not need to work overtime and can have regular hours. Quality does cost more,

but the idea is to buy more mindfully. Even though workers will spend more time on each piece,

everyone can work closely together for a more transparent supply chain, which in turn can create

a more sustainable fashion industry (Fletcher).

The more a piece of clothing can be worn, the less pressure on the environment, people

and natural resources. Each year, by throwing away clothing that could still be worn, consumers

are losing 460 billion USD. If the number of times a garment is worn was doubled on average,

greenhouse gas emission could be lowered by 44% (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 73). The

current relationship that society has with buying clothing is complex. Other than purchasing

clothing as a basic necessity, people buy to fulfill emotional and societal desires (like expressing

their identity and showing their values). The experience of buying clothing can also be known as

“retail therapy.” In order for a slower fashion system to work, there needs to be a shift in the

consumer point of view from seeing clothing as disposable to seeing it as something that should

be high quality and long-lasting. Any model that differs from the current linear one will have to

appeal to a variety of consumers as well, since different regions can have specific needs.

Circularity, otherwise known as the Cradle to Cradle approach, “is the idea that products

not only cause no harm, but actually benefit people and the environment along the entire

product’s life cycle. Cradle to Cradle proposes a future ‘where design is a positive, regenerative

force, producing effects that we want to expand rather than shrink.’ In addition to having positive

impact, products create no waste -- all materials are either infinitely recyclable or biodegradable”

(Leibowitz 54). Creating a circular business model that allows for the creation of durable items

that can be recycled and broken down with more ease will help the fashion industry. Leaders

should be encouraged to train their design and product development teams to understand the

impact of production. Increasing efforts to collect unwanted, used garments and encouraging

consumers to engage in circular initiatives is important too. Leaders need to collaborate in order

to understand any challenges and solutions involved in this circular system. Engaging with

policymakers to ensure that circular fashion systems are widespread on a global scale is vital.

Continuing to invest in innovative technologies to turn textile waste into high-quality fibers and

tools at each step of the supply chain can help the industry to maximize its goals to become

circular (Global Fashion Agenda). There are also possibilities for clothing to be designed as

multi-purpose, adaptable and upgradable, which can lower the amount of clothing that

consumers need to buy. Some options to lengthen the life of a garment would be to create

apparel that can be worn inside out, has a fixed base, or has removable sections, like a collar,

which can be added as a decorative attachment (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 86).

On-demand manufacturing is another model the fashion industry can utilize. It is a

process where apparel is produced only when wanted and in the quantities that are needed.

Traditionally, large quantities are made and then stored and sold when ready. On-demand

manufacturing eliminates the need to hold this inventory. This avoids wasted product and the

need for markdowns. It gives brands more time to focus on designing their products, quality

control and creating long lasting items that produce less waste (Damen).

There are other current models that are becoming increasingly popular that can assist in

replacing the current linear model of fashion, which is leading to lower clothing utilization rates

and increased excessive shopping in many areas of the world. Clothing rental models are focused

on fast-changing needs and styles. Clothing resale or repair service models help with offering

high-quality items and extending a garment’s life cycle. These models are thriving already, but in

order to get rid of throwaway culture for clothing, there needs to be a larger shift in using these

models in the industry.

Both rental and resale offer consumers many different options and the ability to make

their clothing last longer. Renting helps meet short-term needs and allows consumers to access

trends without having to buy and own the clothing. This is especially ideal for one-off occasions

and clothing where the sizes change, such as baby and children’s clothing and maternity

clothing. Rather than wearing an item once or a few times and then throwing it away, consumers

can just rent it. Subscription models can even be used to allow consumers to have a fixed number

of garments out at once, which is cost-effective for the customer. In the U.S., subscription

services have been known to use bloggers and influencers to their advantage as well, which

attracts consumers (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 86).

Even though everyone is not open to these models, the U.S. currently suggests that just

over 40% of customers could “imagine using fashion rental” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 80).

Brands will therefore need to continue to make this an appealing option in order for it to become

more widely used. This can be done by putting the customer experience first and making both

resale and rental convenient and accessible. Quality and hygiene of these products needs to be

proven, as well as giving consumers the digital technology through AI to incorporate their

existing wardrobe into the equation to assess their clothing needs. In other sectors, such as in

hotels, focusing on quality and customer experience created a shift that could be done similarly

for fashion. For example, sleeping in hotels where bed sheets are washed and reused has become

acceptable (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 86) as well as, giving the hotel guest a personal

experience each and every time they visit, which translates well to bespoke fashion -- a personal

experience for each and every customer.

Introducing rental and resale models gives an incentive to brands to design for durability

because lower rental prices and higher margins can be achieved through circularity. As the

average quality and durability of clothing increases, so will its value through rental and

resale. Rent the Runway is one successful model that expanded to a monthly rental subscription

in 2016 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 79). In the U.S., they rented more than 800 million USD

worth of retail value in clothing in 2014 (when their model revolved just around occasion wear)

(Ellen MacArthur Foundation 80). If durability of garments increases, so could rental and resale

services because an increased demand for them would be an increased economic benefit.

Teaching people to fix their clothing at home could help as well. Retailers could provide these

services to teach or partner with other providers in order to get this information to consumers.

Many brands, such as Jack Wolfskin and Patagonia already offer repair services for their

products. For example, Patagonia, which operates the largest repair facility in North America,

repairs around 50,000 garments each year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 88).

Improving durability has many advantages for brands, such as reducing the number of

returned garments, improving competitiveness, and increasing customer satisfaction and brand

loyalty. Patagonia, Eileen Fisher, and Levi’s are all brands that have adopted a strategy for

durable, high-quality clothing that have all seen a growth in market share and profitability. For

example, Patagonia’s sales revenue saw an annual growth with gross profits of 600 million USD

in 2015 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 84). Retailers can also make resale markets mainstream by

selling used clothing along with their new clothing. This is an appealing and convenient option

for consumers. Patagonia had a Worn Wear initiative where they benefited from this setup by

using their platform to sell previously used clothing from their brand. They are not only making

resale a norm but are increasing visibility of their brand. Luxury brand Stella McCartney has also

partnered with The RealReal to encourage their consumers to sell their items once they do not

need them anymore (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 87). Furthermore, in order to extend the life

cycle of its products, Eileen Fisher created EILEEN FISHER Renew. The brand’s consumers are

able to return (in person or by shipping) their clothing that they no longer want and get $5 in

rewards no matter what condition the item is in. Once items are received, the brand’s specialists

sort through them. If it is in great condition, it gets resold. Everything else is recycled or created

into a unique work of art. To clean each item, Eileen Fisher collaborates with Tersus Solutions.

They wash the apparel in a closed-loop system that preserves water and electricity and captures

microfibers. This apparel can be found online and in some select store locations (EILEEN

FISHER Renew). Secondhand clothing is evidently a market that is increasingly growing in

revenue and is an option that is not only better for the environment, but for the fashion industry

itself.

Labeling for durability allows consumers to judge the value of their purchases. Even

though durable products cost more to produce and purchase, quality assurance shows the

consumer the value of buying longer-lasting items. Quality labeling would need to be consistent

throughout the industry to be trusted. A standard for it between brands, producers and retailers

will be helpful to build that trust. While more research may be needed on the criteria for this, it

could include the number of washes an item can withstand or the minimum times it can be worn

without showing wear and tear. Better maintenance information on clothing labels with repair

and washing instructions can help reduce water and energy use by encouraging best practices

such as using lower temperatures and avoiding tumble dryers. Offering warranties to repair or

replace any product can also help and can strengthen customer loyalty (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 84). Additionally, smart labeling solutions offer a way to give this information

without a physical label. For example, Khongboon Activewear has a microchip in each garment

that provides this information that can be accessed with a phone (Ellen MacArthur Foundation

88).

Overall, brands need to continue to create tools and strategies in order to make their

clothing last longer. Using durable materials, strong seams, lasting dyes and prints that can

withstand multiple-use cycles are important. Enhanced knowledge, transparency and

accountability needs to be implemented throughout the supply chain to ensure better quality.

Sourcing materials and fabrics, testing garment durability during washing and use phases, setting

goals for clothing to last, and communicating with consumers is important too. Moving away

from cheaper production that results in a loss in quality and increasing durability should be a

continued goal, which is possible at minimal costs and can be profitable (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 89). Achieving these goals for more durable, sustainable items will not only create a

better fashion system, but will prepare garments to enter resale and rental markets to have an

even longer life-cycle, which is better for the environment.

Decreasing Pollution and Waste

Circularity is becoming popular among brands, regulators, investors, consumers and

industry initiatives. In just three years, the second-hand market for fashion has grown 21 times

faster than the retail apparel market and more companies have shown an interest in resale and

aftercare for clothing. Collaborating across the industry through policy and more post-consumer

textile recycling have been shown more recently as well (Global Fashion Agenda). The

initiatives and goals that the fashion industry and its leaders have set are leading to a contribution

of less pollution and waste, but more work needs to be done. Even though some tools exist, many

designers do not fully understand how to design for circularity and a majority of textiles are still

ending up in landfills. Many solutions can be encouraging, but more collaborations will have to

be carried out in order to keep creating results.

The United Nations (UN) has a 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that keeps in

mind peace and prosperity for people and the planet, in the present and future. There are 17

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are a call for action by all countries. Preserving our

environment and improving the health of people and the environment are among the many goals

of this global partnership. The UN believes that fast fashion is responsible for many of the

negative social, economic and environmental impacts, so it is important that clothing gets

produced responsibly and ethically. The UN Conference on Trade and Development considers

the fashion industry to be the second most polluting industry in the world as well. If things

continue the way they are, greenhouse gas emissions can rise by about 50% by 2030, but the UN

is hopeful that as the industry makes changes and as consumers become more conscious and

aware of the amount of fashion that is consumed, the days where they buy a lot just because it is

trendy may dwindle down and less waste can be created (“UN Launches Drive to Highlight

Environmental…”).

REGENERATE, a sustainable fashion consultancy, partnered with the UN in 2018 for an

initiative called “Partnerships for SDGs.” This commitment seeks to connect the 17 goals to the

global fashion industry by providing solutions to address the environmental and social impacts of

fashion production and consumption. Some of the solutions they endorse are sustainable design

strategies, using sustainable technology and resource management in the textile supply chain,

and engaging with consumers for better consumption habits. They engage with companies and

consumers and educate organizations and students to deliver information about the SDGs and

how they can be implemented (REGENERATE Fashion, LLC 10-11).

An increase in recycling is an opportunity for the fashion industry to decrease negative

impacts of disposal and get back the 100 billion USD worth of materials that are lost each year.

Developing new materials for production, efficient recycling processes, an increased demand for

recycled materials, and more clothing collection locations where they do not exist, are all

important factors. Having a more efficient production process that requires less use of fossil fuels

and chemicals and can run on renewable energy could reduce pollution (Ellen MacArthur

Foundation 25). Additionally, regenerative agricultural methods could be applied to the

production of cotton and other renewable materials that are used in production of textiles. This

could increase land productivity, return nutrients to soil and increase organic matter.

Increasing the circularity of garments would reduce the quantity of textiles that are sent to a

landfill or burned, which both cause pollution. This would reduce the amount of water needed

for production as well, and would benefit the environment and people, especially where water is

scarce (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 47).

Green buildings are a solution that offer benefits to our climate and natural environment

by using less water, energy, and natural resources. They often can even have a positive impact on

the environment by creating energy or increasing biodiversity. Green buildings offer economic

and financial benefits with cost savings on utility bills through energy and water efficiency.

There is also a lot of potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The possible emissions

savings can be as much as 84 gigatonnes of CO2 by 2050 through energy efficiency, fuel

switching, and the use of renewable energy in buildings. The building sector can make energy

savings of 50% or more in 2050 and can limit global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius

(above pre-industrial levels) as well (Leibowitz 147).

Using low-water appliances such as low-flow toilets, washing machines, dishwashers,

faucets, and any other water-using appliance in buildings can help lower the impact on the

environment. Companies can get an ENERGY STAR® seal too, which means they are buying an

appliance that uses 10-50% less energy and water. Using less energy by turning off lights and

using natural light, turning off computers, printers, and copiers when they are not being used are

among other solutions. Furthermore, switching to LED light bulbs can not only reduce an electric

bill by up to 75%, but can last 25 times as long as traditional incandescent bulbs and do not have

any potentially harmful toxins like mercury (Leibowitz 151).

Reducing waste by using biodegradable items, less paper by going digital, having

recycling bins, and shredding paper for packing material or composting it, can reduce waste in

offices. Using real dishes, reusable water bottles (avoiding single-use plastics) and utensils rather

than disposable ones make less of an impact with washing them rather than throwing disposable

alternatives away. Eileen Fisher is one brand that has taken on many green initiatives. The brand

has a skylight-lit office space and glassed-in meeting areas surrounded by an outdoor area with

beautiful river views. This open floor plan is energy efficient, reduces lighting costs and has

increased employee satisfaction. Using reclaimed wood floors, recycled rugs, kitchens with

silverware to eliminate waste and Green Guard certified filing cabinets are some of the other

ways the brand reduces its impact on the environment (Leibowitz 158). Stella McCartney has

also taken on many green initiatives. The brand’s 23 Old Bond Street location in London

installed air filter technology that removes 95% of air pollutants and other harmful gases, like

nitrogen dioxide. Mannequins made from a bioplastic material that is biodegradable are also in

the store (Newbold).

A large amount of global pollution comes from packaging, which is usually single use.

The plastic that washes up on ocean shores is a visible result of this, while airborne microplastics

are not visible in our everyday lives. Most of the packaging used by fashion companies and

brands does not get recycled even if it is recyclable. This is detrimental to our environment

because it ends up in a landfill and therefore wastes the natural resources that were used to make

it. While plastic and paper are common materials used for packaging, biodegradable bioplastic is

a more environmentally friendly option. Reducing the amount of packaging used and making it

more compact would help too since less money would need to be spent on packaging materials

(Leibowitz 161).

A company called Botanical Paperworks makes zero-waste packaging that contains post-

consumer materials and is embedded with seeds. Once planted, it can grow flowers, herbs, or

vegetables. It is ideal for light-weight packaging like wraps or box filler, but there are many

ways to be creative and it is a great alternative for brands to create less waste. Additionally,

rather than using Styrofoam packing peanuts for packaging that are not easy to decompose,

brands can use biodegradable cornstarch packing peanuts that dissolve in water or can be thrown

into compost piles. Even though they can increase shipping costs because of their weight, it is a

more environmentally friendly option. Styrofoam does get accepted for recycling, but most

people throw that away so choosing the cornstarch option is better (“Pros and Cons of

Biodegradable Packing Peanuts”).

Some brands have started to introduce biodegradable packaging. Allbirds uses 90% of

post-consumer recycled cardboard for shipping their products. The brand Rothy’s uses boxes

made from 85% post-consumer recycled materials and ribbons that seal the boxes are also made

from recycled material. They offer curbside pickup for their recyclable boxes or consumers can

simply return them to the brand since it comes with an added adhesive so extra packaging or

adhesives do not need to be used to ship it back (Cunningham). These are some of the steps

forward that are being taken in order to use more sustainable packaging.

Scoby, the byproduct of the drink kombucha, can help transform the single-use plastic

packaging problem. People discard a lot of plastic (especially in the fashion industry), which

ends up in oceans and takes hundreds of years to disappear. It also breaks down into

microplastics, which can make their way into food and our bodies. A student in Poland

developed a method to turn Scoby into usable, edible packaging for dry food. The Scoby can be

a replacement for plastic packaging and does not have the downsides of plastic since it can either

be eaten or composted. This is a solution that can be further innovated and transformed to assist

the fashion industry in reducing waste, especially when it comes to plastic (Bretan).

The Catalytic Clothing initiative plans to help neutralize pollution by embedding titanium

dioxide nanoparticles into clothing fibers. Even though they are not sure of the scope of their

reach or what may happen if they are absorbed by humans, it is an interesting idea. The particles

released from the clothing would interact with harmful pollutants in the air and create a chemical

reaction that turns those pollutants into less dangerous elements. One example that is given is

that nitrogen oxide will turn into “relatively harmless” nitric acid. These abilities are meant to

last on the product and are an example of an initiative for clothing to help with air pollution

(Threewitt).

More than $120 billion worth of excess fabric sits in warehouses around the world and

ends up burned or buried. Queen of Raw, a marketplace to buy unused fabrics online, helps with

this problem. They have kept deadstock in circulation, are saving the amount of chemicals being

used by recirculating textiles rather than making new ones, measure the amount of CO2 saved

compared to what could have been emitted, and identify the amount of waste saved from

landfills and money saved by fabric bought and sold. They also save 700 gallons of water per

yard of fabric purchased. According to their website, “of the total fiber input used for clothing,

87% is incinerated or disposed of in landfills. The World Economic Forum estimated there could

be materials saving of over $1 trillion just from material reuse, recycling, and upcycling”

(“About Us.”). With the creation of this marketplace, Queen of Raw is making a large impact.

Fabscrap is a nonprofit organization created to meet NYC’s commercial textile recycling

needs. They collect materials that normally would end up in a landfill and ensure that they are

being properly recycled and made available for reuse. According to their website, “New York

City residents throw out 200,000 tons of clothing, shoes, accessories, and linens every year.

Textiles comprise 6% of the City's total waste stream. Residential waste - material that has been

used and discarded by an individual or family -- is picked up by the Department of Sanitation”

(“ABOUT.”). Small scraps are shredded and can be used to create insulation, carpet padding,

furniture lining, etc. When they resell these scraps for many different purposes, they help save a

ton of waste from ending up in a landfill. Each pound of waste from apparel production is

associated with around 2.06 pounds of CO2 emissions, which shows they are making a positive

difference.

Overall, it is important that fashion brands reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in their

operations and value chains. Adding more low-carbon and nature-based solutions can help move

toward a net-zero emission economy. Working with manufacturers across their value chain to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching to renewable energy resources, promoting land

restoration or investing in sustainable land management practices will help the industry improve

as well. Lastly, “frontrunners will collaborate with industry peers, manufacturers, investors and

policymakers to help reverse climate change and to turn their companies into climate-positive

businesses” (Global Fashion Agenda).

Increasing Transparency

Sustainability has become a widely used term in the fashion industry to describe ongoing

projects or initiatives. Designers have started to further integrate recycled fabrics and carbon

neutrality into their collections as it continues to be demanded by consumers. Brands like Stella

McCartney have used recycled fabrics and plastics in their collections. Gabriela Hearst and

Burberry also have begun to create what they call carbon neutral runway shows, but it is

important to recognize that this does not necessarily make a brand completely sustainable. Fast

fashion companies like H&M push out large quantities of clothing and still have called some

collections sustainable. They are causing a lot of waste even if more sustainable materials are

being used. Representing their clothing as sustainable is therefore misleading to the consumer

and is known as “greenwashing.” Deceiving consumers is wrong, especially when more

transparency is expected today (Dixon, Emily. “The Problem with 'Sustainable Fashion'.”).

Traceability is important for fashion brands and manufacturers to see what challenges

there are across their supply chains and how they can implement more sustainable practices. This

helps brands to get the data they need to communicate with consumers, investors and

manufacturers about the impact of their product. Transparency is being accountable for one’s

supply chain and sharing information with consumers, who have the right to know what the

supply chain looks like. Authenticity is equally as important and pertains to the ethos of the

company. Free trade, identifying a company's supply chain, carbon footprint, worker’s wages,

and location of production are all relevant pieces of information. Brands must also keep in mind

that younger consumers are especially concerned with social and environmental causes, so they

lean toward supporting brands that align with their values and avoid ones that do not (Leibowitz

76).

Sourcing ethically is not always easy. Brands and companies have to work with their

suppliers to make sure there are good working conditions, so building a relationship and visiting

facilities at random and by appointment in person needs to be a priority. Making sure to consult

suppliers, understanding how long an order takes to complete, finding out when peak times are,

and the appropriate living wage for the geographical area, are other significant factors.

Companies need to keep in mind that low prices equate to low wages for the factory workers and

placing orders too close to a shipping date or asking for a last-minute change can also cause

workers to work overtime without fair pay. Contacting local organizations, trade unions and

NGOs that deal with human rights issues is a good way to uncover the problems that are being

faced in an area, such as inequities in fair wages. Lastly, it is important to not just trust a

supplier. Brands need to double check that they are not lying about their rules and regulations in

order to get brands to work with them (Leibowitz 76).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a type of business self-regulation that

corporations use to show their commitment to ethical responsibility in carrying out their

operations. This promotes a positive brand image and builds a relationship with consumers. CSR

and transparency need to show up in every sector of a company if they want to be seen as fully

responsible. This is very crucial today because there has been a rise of “cancel culture,” where

people or brands can be “‘canceled’ — in other words, culturally blocked from having a

prominent public platform or career” (Romano). This often happens when a celebrity, public

figure, or even brand does something deemed offensive or wrong. Getting “canceled” can easily

happen since consumers, especially Gen Z consumers, are unafraid to call out brands for doing

something wrong or not speaking up on important issues.

There are many measures to take to show transparency in a company. Green buildings

that achieve the green building certification, LEED, “in the US and other countries have been

shown to consume 25 per cent less energy and 11 percent less water, than non-green buildings”

(Leibowitz 147). Becoming a certified B Corporation can show that a business has met the

standards of being “verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and

legal accountability to balance profit and purpose” (“About B Corps.”). For manufacturing, the

“bluesign® system eliminates harmful substances right from the beginning of the manufacturing

process and sets and controls standards for an environmentally friendly and safe production”

(Leibowitz 111). This is done by tracing everything that happens to a textile during the

manufacturing process and making improvements along the way. Lastly, the Global Organic

Textile Standard (GOTS) “lists all substances prohibited in Organic certification. It lists them by

stage, which is helpful to understand where to watch out for toxic substances in your supply

chain. It also lists what is allowed, so it can help serve as a guide for better alternatives”

(Leibowitz 111).

The Sustainable Apparel Coalition is an alliance for sustainable production in the apparel,

footwear, and textile industry. They developed the Higg Index, “a suite of tools that enables

brands, retailers, and facilities of all sizes — at every stage in their sustainability journey — to

measure and score a company or product’s sustainability performance” (Leibowitz 17). This

allows businesses to make improvements that protect their factory workers, local communities

and the environment.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) “looks at the social and environmental impact of a product

over its entire life, including raw material extraction, material processing, manufacturing,

packaging, distribution, retail, use, maintenance/ upgrading, and disposal or recycling”

(Leibowitz 24). In 2007, Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&Co.) conducted the apparel industry’s first

LCA to evaluate the lifecycle impact of a set of garments. It mainly focused on the company’s

U.S. operations and revealed that the biggest water and energy impact was in cotton cultivation

and consumer care. “Since then, LS&Co. has made tremendous progress addressing areas within

its control, leading to more than one billion liters of water saved to date through the Levi’s®

Water<Less process and implementation of the apparel industry’s first water recycle/reuse

standard in its supply chain” (Levi Strauss & Co. 1). Through an initiative called “Care Tag for

the Planet,'' the brand has also been able to educate and encourage consumers to use less energy

and water when taking care of their clothing. By joining the Better Cotton Initiative®, LS&CO.

has been able to invest in more environmentally friendly cotton and help improve farmer

livelihoods as well (Levi Strauss & Co. 1).

According to Kering’s website, Kering’s Environmental Profit & Loss (EP&L) tool

“measures carbon emissions, water consumption, air and water pollution, land use, and waste

production along the entire supply chain, thereby making the various environmental impacts of

the Group’s activities visible, quantifiable, and comparable” (“EP&L: a Measurement…”). The

impacts are converted to monetary values to measure the use of natural resources. Kering uses

the EP&L to decide what its sustainability strategy will be, how to improve its supply sources

and the best technologies to use. In order to move the industry forward, they have been sharing

this tool with other companies.

More brands and manufacturers have implemented supply chain measurement tools as

they become more available. This helps them understand where and how their products are made

and the environmental and social impacts involved in the production. To increase traceability,

fashion brands understand and measure their value chain impacts, increase transparency and

have stakeholder engagement on sustainability. Companies serious about this will invest in new

technology that gives access to supply chain data and use traceability methods to understand

problems like deforestation and pollution, how they are impacting the climate, and circularity

and biodiversity (Global Fashion Agenda).

When fast fashion began, retailers felt the pressure to cut down prices for consumers,

which caused costs for brands to rise. As a result, companies started to move their local factories

abroad for lower labor costs and to produce raw materials cheaply. This led to very complex

supply chains that were difficult to trace. Now that people are demanding more transparency

from fashion brands, new tools and technologies are helping people learn about how ethical and

sustainable their favorite brands are. This technology is called blockchain and has been used by

companies like Walmart. As a result of using blockchain for food traceability, “Walmart can now

trace the origin of over 25 products from five different suppliers using a system powered by

Hyperledger Fabric (“Walmart Case Study.”). Now, this technology is able to be applied in the

fashion industry. “Blockchain offers end-to-end visibility in supply chains, for example—when

raw materials like cotton leave the farm, they are accompanied by paperwork (which

accumulates at each stage of the supply chain) that usually remains with the producers in their

internal systems. The use of blockchain would allow the information to be uploaded as a block

and anyone with access to a blockchain-based network could procure the information” (Barot

and Manvi). Therefore, blockchain can be helpful for tracking tags and for tracing products

throughout the supply chain (from raw material to the factory and to the consumer) (“Can

Blockchain Technology Make Fashion More Transparent?”). It also helps with shipment

tracking, delivery timing and preventing counterfeit products from taking away profits from the

actual brand (“How Is Blockchain Technology Changing the Fashion Industry?”). Blockchain

shows a list from when the product was first being created without any data being manipulated.

“By integrating blockchain based technology into the supply chain, brands can also protect their

intellectual property by safeguarding their designs, making imitations by fast fashion brands

difficult. Thus, when the origins of a garment can be traced, counterfeit garments will not

possess such a chain of records and can be weeded out from authentic pieces, allowing them to

retain their uniqueness” (Barot and Manvi). Overall, although it is still a developing technology,

blockchain facilitates transparency by allowing consumers to view each stage of the

manufacturing process and see firsthand if a brand is being sustainable and ethical. This will help

consumers trust that their garment is going through a process that matches their set of values.

This is especially important today since consumers want to buy from brands that reflect their

own personal beliefs.

Creation and Utilization of Sustainable Textiles

Commonly used synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon, spandex and most fake leathers

and furs come from crude oil, a non-renewable resource that comes from the earth. It takes a

long time for nature to produce oil and the industry is using it up faster than it can be replaced.

Synthetic fibers shed microplastics through washing and end up in our water, which then ends up

in food and the air. It is harming both people and our oceans. There are studies being carried out

to understand the problem of microfiber shedding and finding solutions to it, but further research

needs to be done to develop fibers or fiber coatings that would prevent shedding or create

washing machine and industrial water treatment filters to capture microfibers (Leibowitz 54).

While there are many great technologies advancing the fashion industry, more will have

to be created to keep progressing forward. When fibers are blended, they are difficult to recycle.

Creating products with one material makes it easier to recycle and therefore have a closed loop

system. Another option is to use sustainable materials, which is becoming more important for

fashion retailers. Natural fibers, such as recycled and organic cotton, organic hemp, and organic

linen are great options. Organic cotton has a lower impact on the environment. It has been found

that compared to conventional cotton, organic cotton is “46 percent less harmful to global

warming, there’s 70 percent less acidification of land and water, the potential for soil erosion

drops 26 percent, surface and groundwater use falls 91 percent and demand for energy could go

down by as much as 62 percent” (Donaldson). Mylo, a synthetic leather fabric created from

mushroom roots, was created by a company called Bolt Threads. They have partnered with

brands like Stella McCartney and Patagonia and most recently, Adidas. As of April 2021, Adidas

revealed the Stan Smith Mylo. “Mylo is used for the outer upper material, perforated three

stripes, and heel tab overlay of the Stan Smith. The midsole is constructed from natural rubber”

(Spötter). This is a great way to innovate an iconic sneaker that otherwise would be made of

leather or a manmade textile that is not biodegradable. Piñatex is another increasingly popular

textile. “It is a natural, non-woven and patent-protected material made from pineapple leaf fibers,

is praised for being durable, breathable and pliable, in addition to tensile strength that is similar

to flax and greater than jute, hemp and sisal” (Meyers). It has been used by more than 500 brands

since 2016, including Hugo Boss and Lancel. Lastly, Lenzing creates fibers made from cellulose,

which is a renewable, natural component of their source, material wood. Cellulose is

biodegradable and compostable, so this is a closed loop cycle (“Lenzing Group.”). These are

some examples of the many great fibers and fabrics that have been invented for brands to utilize.

There are many other companies and programs accelerating the fashion industry toward

using better textiles and systems to create them. The Textile Exchange Preferred Fiber &

Materials (PFM) offers a membership that connects companies with suppliers who use

sustainable fabrics (Leibowitz 101). BIONIC® is a company that specializes in material

engineering. Using coastal and marine plastic, they have created textiles and polymers that can

be used for manufacturing. With the use of ultrasonic technology, IndiDye® has reached “high

levels of color fastness for natural dyes without the use of chemicals, at the same time reducing

water consumption significantly. They utilize a new patented dyeing technology that combines

natural beautiful colors and ancient dyes with an innovative new ultrasonic fiber dyeing process”

(Leibowitz 118). Furthermore, NRDC Clean by Design offers a program where it has helped

mills significantly reduce their environmental impact in fabric dyeing and finishing. The 33 mills

that used this program in 2013 saved “3 million tons of water, 61 thousand tons of coal, 36

million Kwh1 of electricity, 400 tons of chemicals, and $14.7 million dollars” (Leibowitz 33).

Many brands have been working toward creating technology or working with organizations

to make their products more sustainable and innovative. Kloters, a loungewear brand in Italy, is

hoping to make a positive environmental impact with the world’s first pollution-absorbing t-

shirt. The shirt has a chest pocket insert made of a special fabric that absorbs and lowers

pollutant molecules. A lab test showed that one shirt is able to offset the emissions of two cars,

which could make a huge positive impact (Pinnock). In 2015, Adidas partnered with Parley for

the Oceans, an environmental organization, to turn marine pollution into sportswear. The brand

expected to make 11 million pairs of shoes using recycled ocean plastic in 2019, which was

double what it made in 2018. Adidas has an overall goal to replace all of its virgin polyester with

recycled plastic by 2024. Currently, 40% of its apparel is made using recycled polyester

(Morgan).

H&M has created a piece of technology that is said to be the first to separate and recycle

polyester and cotton-blended clothing at scale. Monki, the womenswear brand owned by H&M,

will release products made using the recycled fibers in a small collection. The fashion industry

relies heavily on polyester and also struggles with waste, so this is quite noteworthy. Although

circularity is gaining momentum, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation estimates that currently less

than 1 percent of materials used to produce garments are recycled into new ones. Poly-cotton

blends have proven especially hard to recycle since once the fibers are twisted together, they are

nearly impossible to break apart. This is a breakthrough since H&M has created a possible

solution for this problem with their Green Machine that can separate these blends. It is a closed

loop system, which means that all the water, heat, and chemicals are recycled, although, the

reclaimed polyester is still likely to shed synthetic microfibers in the wash and contribute to

marine plastic pollution. In addition, it currently cannot recover non-polyester or non-cotton

fibers from more complex blends, such as those containing acrylic and elastane. Either way, this

is another step forward and provides a possible solution for the fashion industry to use more

sustainable textiles (Chua).

Educating Consumers to Buy More Mindfully

Educating consumers on how to buy more mindfully is extremely important to make the

fashion industry more sustainable. Studies have found the greatest environmental impact occurs

during consumer usage. It has been shown that around 80 to 90 percent of the total energy used

by a washing machine is created by heating the water. Energy can be reduced by washing

clothing in cold water and hang-drying it. Other than using less energy, air drying also increases

the longevity of clothes (Leibowitz 183).

It is important to educate consumers on how to prolong the lifetime of their garments and

lower their carbon footprint, which “is the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon

dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions” (“What Is Your Carbon Footprint?”). “A

study by WRAP found that extending a garment’s life by just three months would lower the

water, carbon, and waste footprint by 5–10%” (Leibowitz 184).

It starts with the people who are designing the clothing. Making low quality products that

do not last long will not have a long lifecycle even if consumers do what they can to take care of

them. First brands need to create high quality products that can be repaired and then they need to

inform consumers how to care for and repair them, if needed. Washing less, washing in cold

water, washing only when loads are full, washing on shorter cycles, using front-loading, energy

efficient machines, air drying, using non-chlorine bleach and using safe laundry detergents are

some things consumers can do. Brands can further educate the consumer by adding this

information to care labels. Also, if applicable, having information about the materials,

recyclability, and instructions for disassembly, along with placing this information on a brand’s

website would be helpful. Brand recycling, resale, and repair programs would also make it easier

for consumers to care for the product (Leibowitz 185). Furthermore, tools like thredUP’s Fashion

Footprint Calculator give consumers the ability to calculate how their closet contributes to

climate change and access to resources on how they can make changes to improve their impact.

Millennials and Gen Z have a lot of buying power. They care more about the

environment, engage in thrifting, and demand transparency and textiles that are sustainable. It

has even been said that nine out of ten Generation Z consumers think that companies have the

obligation to speak to environmental and social issues (Amed). Therefore, this incentivizes

brands to become more sustainable. In a case study from the Business of Fashion, there is a focus

on Nike, Brandy Melville, Morphe, Depop and Louis Vuitton and how they have successfully

attracted Gen Z, those born between 1997 and 2012. Gen Z currently makes up 40 percent of

global consumers and $150 billion in spending power in just the United States, according to

McKinsey & Co. This means that attracting Gen Z will be important to many brands and

retailers, especially post COVID-19. Gen Z is gradually joining the workforce and are predicted

to have higher rates of consumption. There are now so many ways to reach these young

consumers, who are more vocal than ever about what they want and expect from brands. They

want their values and beliefs to be reflected by their favorite stores. It is important to pay

attention to them, especially now that COVID-19 has changed buying habits. By utilizing

creators and creating communities on different platforms, companies have had success in

attracting this customer. Gen-Z looks to influencers for trends and direction. They follow

influencers in the same way that generations before them looked up to celebrities, actors, royalty

and the wealthy for their cues. While there is no single strategy, campaign or message that can

assure success, there are different approaches that can help brands reach consumers in order to

help educate them on buying more mindfully (Nanda).

A study found that the fashion industry is not providing millennials with adequate

sustainable fashion choices that meet criteria important to them when making a purchase. For

95% of millennials, this includes ease of making a purchase, as well as price and value. There

needs to be more variety of fashion items to meet these expectations. Information on

sustainability needs to be clear and straight to the point, since attention spans of this generation

are short. Labeling any sustainability certifications on product descriptions online or the “ability

to filter products by sustainable attributes like “fair trade” or “100% organic cotton” — much

like they filter products based on price, brand or colour — could sync with millennials’ desire for

ease of use” (Hahn-Petersen).

According to a Business Insider survey of around 1,800 people in Gen Z, the primary

motivator when it comes to deciding where to shop is price. Since their focus is on social media,

there is pressure to always acquire new clothing, which in turn has caused a growth in rental and

resale. Platforms like Poshmark and Depop are being visited more than ever. They provide Gen

Z a way to have a unique look and not have to spend as much money (Hanbury). This is why it is

important for brands to create long-lasting garments. It increases a garments lifecycle and

chances to be used for rental or resale.

Overall, Gen Z and millennials make up a large percent of the population and will

eventually have even more buying power as time goes on. Therefore, it is important for brands to

give them the attention they deserve and appeal to them to buy more mindfully. This applies to

the older generations as well, who currently have a lot of buying power. It is important that the

global community comes together to assist the fashion industry in their efforts towards

sustainability, decreasing its negative environmental and social impacts.

Conclusion: Moving Forward from COVID-19 and the Future of Fashion

The coronavirus pandemic has served as a stopgap or pause in our normal lives; we now

have time to reflect on what we have done as a community. Many fashion executives and

business leaders have been focusing on crisis management. Shifts in the global economy and

consumer behavior now and post-pandemic will need to be understood by leaders in the fashion

industry. As these changes occur, many may wonder what changes may start to happen in the

current fashion system. Throughout the pandemic, the industry struggled on both sides--

consumer demand and supply chain management. Manufacturing was halted in many places and

widespread store closures were especially damaging for many retailers. The pandemic impacted

the low-cost sourcing in manufacturing hubs, such as Bangladesh, by negatively affecting

workers. This situation gives the fashion industry a chance to reshape its value chain and an

opportunity to reassess how it measures its actions (Amed and Achim).

According to McKinsey and Co., large discounts as a result of the pandemic are going to

build a new shopping culture and brands will need to find ways to regain value and rethink their

broader business mission, although, “in the luxury segment, we expect consumers to return more

quickly to paying full price for quality, timeless goods, as was the case after the 2008 financial

crisis” (Amed and Achim). The pandemic also brought values surrounding sustainability and

conversations around materialism, over-consumption and irresponsible business practices into

focus. “The focus on sustainability will be especially prominent for Gen-Z and Millennial

shoppers, whose concerns for the environment were already heightened pre-crisis” (Amed and

Achim). Also, keeping stores open during the pandemic and putting retail workers in danger

(where there are already a lack of healthcare benefits), has directed anger toward retailers.

Although the world continues to experience the negative impacts of the pandemic, it has

uncovered some concerns in the fashion industry that may cause a shift to it becoming more

sustainable.

Social media has shown the power the world has in coming together and connecting during

a crisis. Fashion companies and leaders, such as Christian Siriano, were quick to create face

masks for those in need in New York after Governor Andrew Cuomo reached out for help on

Twitter. Many people continue to share ways to help each other on social media through this

tough time. Everyone has been doing their part, why can’t the global fashion community come

together in the same way to help with climate change? One side effect of the pandemic was a

decrease in carbon emissions. This was due to a compromised supply chain. Orders had to be

canceled, stores shut down, and meetings were moved to online, so travel significantly

decreased. If the fashion industry is to make remarkable changes as it moves toward

sustainability, it is important to insist that businesses increase transparency and take action to

limit their operations that contribute to the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the

atmosphere. Overall, climate change needs the same unity and spotlight as the pandemic

received in order for us to make a positive impact on the environment (Farra, “Now Isn’t the

Time”).

We have also seen an increase in making masks more stylish as they have become part of

our everyday attire. Not only have they been seen on the runway, but they are more noticeable in

innovative technology that is now more relevant. For example, a company called Bioscarf has

created scarves that have an air filter. When tested, it filtered out around 99.75% of airborne

particles. “That means it can help protect you and your family from pneumonia, strep, influenza,

tuberculosis, pet dander, pollen, smoke and many other airborne contaminants that not only

cause allergies but can also be harmful to your health” (BIOSCARF). Even though this product

was created before the COVID-19 pandemic, this is something that is very relevant today.

Scough is a company that created a fashionable face covering. Their goal was to create a

bandana that would have a high-quality filter in order to block air pollution and particles. They

are all breathable, lightweight and can be washed. Their filters last for 90 days as well and are a

more environmentally friendly option rather than using a disposable mask and throwing it away.

While they have a disclaimer that it is not a medical product used to protect against germs or

viruses, they mention they are working on improving their design since COVID-19 (“Learn

More About Scough.”). They have also been promoting mask wearing on their website, so

COVID-19 has sort of been able to bring them to the forefront of fashion as well.

Economic shutdowns as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have created many challenges

for the fashion industry, including disrupted supply chains and decreased consumer spending.

COVID-19 has revealed global supply chain vulnerability and had a major influence on

manufacturing. Many people and businesses were unable to get their materials and products

made where they usually did, causing many to have to change how they were going to produce

their products. International trade became restricted and many orders ended up being canceled.

Followed by closures all around the world, production came to a halt in China first. While

everyone had some sort of struggle, some brands and suppliers were hit harder than others. For

example, J. Crew, Centric Brands, and Neiman Marcus are among many who filed for

bankruptcy (Ricchetti). Since it was more difficult to source globally and transport goods, the

low-cost sourcing countries that are dependent on textile and garment exports for money faced

especially tough times (Teodoro). Although it is possible that sustainability may not even be a

primary concern since some brands need to focus on surviving, this may lead to more sustainable

supply chains, which can impact the entire industry.

It is already known that the manufacturing of garments creates a large amount of textile

waste throughout the supply chain. “A study by Reverse Resources shows that more than 25% of

materials -- and sometimes as much as 47% -- are discarded in fabric and garment factories”

(Ricchetti). Fashion brands and manufacturers have already been working toward more

environmental sustainability, especially when it comes to getting rid of chemicals and reducing

carbon dioxide emissions, but the pandemic may push the industry toward it faster. This leaves

the question of whether or not the fashion industry will shift how it releases collections of

clothing, and what this will mean for big retailers. Some stores are also now out of touch with

who their customer is since there has been a shift in consumer behavior. This is a problem,

especially if they want to attract young buyers, like Gen Z, one of the largest groups of

consumers. The pandemic has and will continue to cause companies to reconsider what direction

they should move toward in order to continue to attract the consumer they want (Farra, “We All

Have A Chance”). Overall, COVID-19 is a crisis that is causing fashion companies to tailor their

strategies to fit their priorities and capabilities, but we cannot forget about the goals to create a

more sustainable industry.

Ultimately, the fashion industry needs to create changes for long-term stability in all

areas of the supply chain. The pandemic has taught the world that so much is possible to do

virtually. Flying around to buying appointments, shows, and events are no longer as relevant as

they once were. As everyone adapts to this new way of coming together, there are not many

reasons why we cannot. The global fashion community can easily collaborate on a variety of

online platforms. Global issues, like climate change, can only get better if the fashion industry

creates resilient models that will sustain it. Being mindful of product design and whether or not a

product is actually needed, is essential for brands to keep in mind. One group will not be able to

fix all of the problems there are, but brands need to start somewhere within the value chain. It is

hopeful that by bringing awareness to the issues the fashion industry creates, necessary changes

will eventually lead to a more environmentally friendly fashion industry and sustainable future.

Works Cited

“About B Corps.” About B Corps | Certified B Corporation, bcorporation.net/about-b-

corps#:~:text=Certified%20B%20Corporations%20are%20businesses,to%20balance%20pr

ofit%20and%20purpose.&text=B%20Corps%20form%20a%20community,as%20a%20for

ce%20for%20good.

“About Us.” Your Marketplace to Buy and Sell Sustainable Deadstock Fabric Textiles

Marketplace, www.queenofraw.com/about-us.

“ABOUT.” FABSCRAP, fabscrap.org/about.

Absar, Syeda Sharmin. “Health Hazards and Labour Laws in Bangladesh: A Narrative-Based

Study on Women Garment Workers.” Asian Journal of Social Science, vol. 31, no. 3,

Nov. 2003, pp. 452–477. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1163/156853103322895342.

Amed, Imran, and Achim Berg. “The State of Fashion 2020: Coronavirus Update - It's Time to

Rewire the Fashion Industry.” The Business of Fashion, The Business of Fashion, 8 Apr.

2020, www.businessoffashion.com/reports/global-markets/the-state-of-fashion-2020-

coronavirus-update-bof-mckinsey-report-release-download.

Amed, Imran, et al. “The Influence of 'Woke' Consumers on Fashion.” McKinsey & Company,

McKinsey & Company, 12 Feb. 2019, www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-

insights/the-influence-of-woke-consumers-on-fashion.

Bain, Marc. “In Just Four Days, Top Fashion CEOs Earn a Garment Worker's Lifetime Pay.”

Quartz, Quartz, 2018, qz.com/1186813/top-fashion-ceos-earn-a-garment-workers-lifetime-

pay-in-just-four-days-oxfam-says/.

Barot, Keiya, and Manvi Rathod. “Is It Time to Decode Your Garment's DNA Using Blockchain

Technology?” Vogue India, 25 Feb. 2021, www.vogue.in/fashion/content/is-it-time-to-

decode-your-garments-dna-using-blockchain-technology.

“Basic Information about Landfill Gas.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 11 Mar. 2021,

www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas.

BIOSCARF, www.bioscarf.com/.

Bretan, Juliette. “Kombucha Slime Is an Edible Solution to the World's Plastic Problem.”

Medium, OneZero, 12 Feb. 2020, onezero.medium.com/kombucha-slime-is-an-edible-

solution-to-the-worlds-plastic-problem-d1b87ce3085e.

“Can Blockchain Technology Make Fashion More Transparent?” Good On You, 26 Mar. 2019,

goodonyou.eco/blockchain-technology-fashion-transparency/.

Chan, Emily. “The Fashion Industry Is Using up Too Much Water - Here's How You Can

Reduce Your H2O Footprint.” Vogue India, Vogue India, 1 Apr. 2020,

www.vogue.in/fashion/content/the-fashion-industry-is-using-up-too-much-water-heres-

how-you-can-reduce-your-h2o-footprint.

Chua, Jasmin Malik. “H&M's Green Machine: A Recycling Solution?” Vogue Business,

Vogue Business, 25 Nov. 2020, www.voguebusiness.com/sustainability/handms-green-

machine-a-recycling-solution.

Cunningham, Katelan. “How Allbirds, Patagonia, and Reformation Choose Their Sustainability

Priorities.” Lumi, Lumi, 10 Dec. 2019, www.lumi.com/blog/how-to-choose-sustainability-

priorities.

Damen, Alexis. “10 Ways On-Demand Manufacturing Can Help Retailers Streamline Their

Operations.” Shopify, 24 July 2018, www.shopify.com/retail/on-demand-manufacturing-

for-retail.

Dixon, Emily. “The Problem with 'Sustainable Fashion'.” CNN, Cable News Network, 11 Oct.

2019, www.cnn.com/style/article/the-problem-with-sustainable-fashion/index.html.

Donaldson, Tara. “Report: The Truth About Organic Cotton and Its Impacts.” Sourcing Journal,

Sourcing Journal, 26 June 2017, sourcingjournal.com/topics/raw-materials/report-truth-

organic-cotton-impacts-68512/.

EILEEN FISHER Renew, www.eileenfisherrenew.com/learn-more.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future, 2017.

http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications.

“EP&L: a Measurement Tool for Sustainable Luxury.” Kering,

www.kering.com/en/sustainability/environmental-profit-loss/.

Farra, Emily. “Now Isn't the Time to Forget About Our Climate Change Efforts.” Vogue, 17

Mar. 2020, www.vogue.com/article/coronavirus-response-why-we-cant-forget-climate-

change-efforts.

Farra, Emily. “These Are the 10 Sustainable Denim Brands You Should Know About Now.”

Vogue, 24 Apr. 2020, www.vogue.com/article/best-sustainable-denim-brands.

Farra, Emily. “‘We All Have a Chance to Start Fresh’-5 New York Designers on Fixing the

Fashion Calendar.” Vogue, 8 Apr. 2020, www.vogue.com/article/designers-fixing-fashion-

calendar-retail-coronavirus-response.

Fletcher, Kate. “Slow Fashion.” The Ecologist, 1 June 2007, theecologist.org/2007/jun/01/slow-

fashion.

Fullerton, Alexandra. “This Wardrobe Staple Is Killing the Planet and You're Probably Wearing

Them Right Now.” Glamour UK, Glamour UK, 14 Oct. 2019,

www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/jeans-environmental-impact.

Global Fashion Agenda, CEO Agenda 2020: Either Sustainability Priorities For the Fashion

Industry, 2020. https://www.globalfashionagenda.com/publications-and-policy/ceo-

agenda-covid-19-edition/.

Hahn-Petersen, Luna Atamian. “Op-Ed: Millennials Say They Care About Sustainability. So,

Why Don't They Shop This Way?” The Business of Fashion, The Business of Fashion, 21

Apr. 2018, www.businessoffashion.com/opinions/sustainability/op-ed-millennials-say-

they-care-about-sustainability-so-why-dont-they-dont-shop-this-way.

Hanbury, Mary. “Gen Z Is Leading an Evolution in Shopping That Could Kill Brands as We

Know Them.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 2019, www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-

shopping-habits-kill-brands-2019-7.

Harwood, Erika. “'Animal Crossing' Fashion Shows Are Now A Thing.” Nylon, Nylon, 26 May

2020, www.nylon.com/fashion/animal-crossing-fashion-shows-are-here.

Haschka, Yvonne, and Malcolm Newbery. “What 'See Now, Buy Now' Means for the Fashion

Supply Chain.” Just, 10 Oct. 2018, www.just-style.com/analysis/what-see-now-buy-now-

means-for-the-fashion-supply-

chain_id134666.aspx#:~:text='See%20now%2C%20buy%20now'%20promises%20consu

mers%20they%20can%20have,No%20need%20to%20wait.&text=Catering%20to%20their

%20need%20for,day%20after%20the%20fashion%20show.

History.com Editors. “Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.” History.com, A&E Television

Networks, 2 Dec. 2009, www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/triangle-shirtwaist-

fire.

“How Is Blockchain Technology Changing the Fashion Industry?” Medium, LuxTag - Everlasting

Legacy, 14 Jan. 2019, medium.com/luxtag-live-tokenized-assets-on-blockchain/how-is-

blockchain-technology-changing-the-fashion-industry-3211d745d064.

Idacavage, Sara. “Fashion History Lesson: The Origins of Fast Fashion.” Fashionista,

Fashionista, 8 June 2016, fashionista.com/2016/06/what-is-fast-fashion.

Jacoby, Jonathan. “What's Changed (and What Hasn't) Since the Rana Plaza Nightmare.” Open

Society Foundations, 2018, www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/what-s-changed-and-

what-hasn-t-rana-plaza-nightmare.

Klerk, Amy De. “Are We Seeing the End of Seasonality in Fashion?” Harper's BAZAAR, 10

Mar. 2020, www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/fashion/a31255947/end-of-fashion-seasons/.

“Learn More About Scough.” Scough, www.scough.com/pages/learn-more-about-scough.

Leibowitz, Domenica. CFDA Guide to Sustainable Strategies. Council of Fashion Designers of

America (CFDA), 2019. https://s3.amazonaws.com/cfda.f.mrhenry.be/2019/01/CFDA-

Guide-to-Sustainable-Strategies_16.pdf. PDF file.

“Lenzing Group.” Lenzing, www.lenzing.com/sustainability.

Levi Strauss & Co. The Life Cycle of a Jean. Levi Strauss & Co., 2015.

https://www.levistrauss.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Full-LCA-Results-Deck-

FINAL.pdf. PDF file.

“Material Guide: How Sustainable Is Polyester?” Good On You, 12 Apr. 2021,

goodonyou.eco/material-guide-polyester-2/.

Meyers, Tracey. “Fashion Forward: Fabrics of the Future.” WWD, WWD, 20 Dec. 2018,

wwd.com/business-news/business-features/fabrics-the-future-1202935732/.

Morgan, Clancy. “How Adidas Is Turning Plastic Ocean Waste into Sneakers and Sportswear.”

Business Insider, Business Insider, 27 Oct. 2020, www.businessinsider.com/adidas-

sneakers-plastic-bottles-ocean-waste-recycle-pollution-2019-

8#:~:text=Adidas%20uses%20Ocean%20Plastic%20to,standards%20of%20Adidas'%20ot

her%20shoes.

Mukherjee, Sudeshna. "Environmental and social impact of fashion: Towards an eco-friendly,

ethical fashion." International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary

Studies 2.3 (2015): 22-35.

Nanda, M.C. “Gen-Z Shopping: Separating Myth from Reality.” BoF Education, 2020,

courses.businessoffashion.com/courses/case-study-gen-z-shopping-fashion-beauty-

consumer-behaviour.

Newbold, Alice. “Why Stella McCartney's Old Bond Street Flagship Is Her Most Honest Project

Yet.” British Vogue, British Vogue, 12 June 2018, www.vogue.co.uk/article/stella-

mccartney-old-bond-street-flagship-store.

Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H. et al. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat Rev

Earth Environ 1, 189–200 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9

Peoples, Landon. “Next Time You Shop At Zara, Check The Pockets For One Of These.” Zara

Unpaid Factory Workers Hidden Messages, 2017, www.refinery29.com/en-

us/2017/11/179593/zara-hidden-messages-factory-workers-turkey.

Pinnock, Olivia. “Can This T-Shirt Reduce Air Pollution?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 5 June

2018, www.forbes.com/sites/oliviapinnock/2018/06/05/can-this-t-shirt-reduce-air-

pollution/.

“Pros and Cons of Biodegradable Packing Peanuts.” Heritage Paper, 29 June 2016,

www.heritagepaper.net/pros-and-cons-of-biodegradable-packing-

peanuts/#:~:text=Biodegradable%20packing%20peanuts%20are%20made,will%20not%20

stick%20to%20clothes.

REGENERATE Fashion, LLC. SDGs for Better Fashion 2018-2019 Progress Report.

REGENERATE Fashion, LLC, 2020. https://regeneratefashion.com/wp-

content/uploads/2020/08/SDGs-for-Better-Fashion-Progress-Report-.pdf. PDF file.

Ricchetti, Marco, and Roberta De Palma. “Will COVID-19 Accelerate the Transition to a

Sustainable Fashion Industry?” UNIDO, 9 Oct. 2020, www.unido.org/stories/will-covid-

19-accelerate-transition-sustainable-fashion-industry.

Romano, Aja. “Why We Can't Stop Fighting about Cancel Culture.” Vox, Vox, 25 Aug. 2020,

www.vox.com/culture/2019/12/30/20879720/what-is-cancel-culture-explained-history-

debate.

Soldatenko, María Angelina. “Made in the Usa: Latinas/Os?, Garment Work and Ethnic Conflict

in Los Angeles’ Sweat Shops.” Cultural Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, Apr. 1999, pp. 319–

334. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/095023899335301.

Spötter, Ole. “Stan Smith Mylo, the First Sneaker Made from Mushroom Mycelium.”

FashionUnited, FashionUnited, 16 Apr. 2021, fashionunited.com/news/fashion/stan-smith-

mylo-the-first-sneaker-made-from-mushroom-mycelium/2021041639481.

Stone, Elaine. “A Century of Fashion.” The Dynamics of Fashion, Fourth Edition ed., Fairchild

Books, 2013, pp. 3–27.

“Tazreen Fire: Fight for Compensation.” Clean Clothes Campaign, 1 Sept. 2019,

cleanclothes.org/campaigns/past/tazreen.

Teodoro, Antonella, and Luisa Rodriguez. “Textile and Garment Supply Chains in Times of

COVID-19: Challenges for Developing Countries.” UNCTAD, 29 May 2020,

unctad.org/news/textile-and-garment-supply-chains-times-covid-19-challenges-

developing-countries.

“The State of Fashion: 100+ Fashion Industry Statistics (2021).” Tommy John, 2020,

tommyjohn.com/blogs/news/fashion-industry-

statistics#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20U.S.%20retail%20e,dollars%20by%202023%20(Sta

tista).

Threewitt, Cherise. “Can Clothing Neutralize Pollution?” HowStuffWorks, HowStuffWorks, 6

July 2012, electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/clothing-neutralize-

pollution.htm.

“UN Launches Drive to Highlight Environmental Cost of Staying Fashionable | | UN News.”

United Nations, United Nations, 2019, news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035161.

“Walmart Case Study.” Hyperledger, Hyperledger, 25 Mar. 2019,

www.hyperledger.org/learn/publications/walmart-case-study.

“What Are the Most Sustainable Fabrics?” Good On You, 28 Oct. 2020, goodonyou.eco/most-

sustainable-fabrics/.

“What Is Microfibers Pollution and Why Is It Bad?” Ocean Clean Wash, 20 Jan. 2021,

www.oceancleanwash.org/the-issue/.

“What Is Your Carbon Footprint?” The Nature Conservancy, www.nature.org/en-us/get-

involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-

calculator/#:~:text=A%20carbon%20footprint%20is%20the,highest%20rates%20in%20the

%20world.

Zoltkowski, Anita. “What On Earth Is A Clothing Supply Chain?” Good On You, 18 Jan. 2017,

goodonyou.eco/what-is-a-clothing-supply-chain/.