The Debates

Fast Fashion: Necessary or Nefarious?

30 November 202130 November 2021By
Fast Fashion: Necessary or Nefarious?

Welcome to Carrot Magazine’s debate section. In our first article, Liza Park and Shumaila Iftikhar debate the ethics of fast fashion and sustainable consumerism. 

Exploitative, destructive and demanding

Shumaila Iftikhar

Fast fashion might have its benefits, particularly for people who simply don’t have the money to splash on expensive brands, but it brings with it a world of problems. The COP26 summit has magnified the debate surrounding who bears responsibility for tackling climate change and the tangible, detrimental effects it has on us. As world leaders from across the globe deliberated over existing policies, set goals for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and identified the bigger culprits in the climate crisis, we have wondered how our own habits can contribute to finding solutions. 

Fast fashion, a term that describes a business model built on fulfilling the average person’s desire for the latest designs at a much cheaper price, is amongst the first to take the bullet.

But some say that’s a bullet it shouldn’t take. A commonality amongst fast fashion consumers is the idea that multibillion dollar corporations should receive the blame for exploiting their workers, but this blame-game only distracts ordinary people from taking action.

One campaign by Remake, which started during the covid-19 pandemic, is finding solutions to make avoiding fast fashion easier for all. 

Fighting against exploiting workers 

Remake is a group fighting for climate justice alongside gender justice, living wages and systematically changing policies for the long term, shining a light on the negative impacts of fast fashion across all aspects of life. Last year, they launched a campaign with the hashtag #NoNewClothes, fighting against the exploitation of industry workers in the developing world. 

Polluting the globe one item at a time

Besides emptying your pockets to keep up with the demands of fast fashion, there are reasons why making high-end clothes affordable is not the charitable act it seems. A 2018 study by BiomedCentral found that unsold clothing is exported from the USA back to lower or middle income countries to be sold in second-hand markets. When not sold there, they become “solid waste”, causing blockages harmful to the environment. 

The clothes that wreck habitats and pollute the air we breathe at the end of their lives, also wreak havoc on the environment as they are being produced. According to Greenpeace, 20% of industrial water pollution every year is caused by fabric production. 

The environmental damage of our fast fashion craze is worrying, but the practice itself is inherently exploitative: lower costs depend upon lower wages and abysmal working conditions.

According to GreenAmerica, most production processes are not directly handled by brands. They outsource to Tier 1 companies, who employ other, unauthorised and unaffiliated manufacturing companies. Those companies have no incentive to provide suitable working conditions, and workers have no choice but to accept this. 

Sinking the global south deeper in poverty

Recent history bears testament to the cataclysmic effects of this exploitation. For example, in 2013 the six-storey tall Rana Plaza housing garment factories, amongst shops and banks, in Dhaka, Bangladesh collapsed, killing 1,134 people. An investigation into the incident found that after “structural cracks” were discovered the day before, banks and shops closed but garment workers were forced to continue working to meet demands. 

The impact on lower income countries is profound, but the stark reality of the practice can be found within the UK itself.

Leicester’s sweatshops

An investigation last year by Euronews into Leicester’s sweatshop industry shed light on the horrific working conditions. Despite Leicester becoming the first city to go into a local lockdown, the report claimed that many factories worked at 100% capacity during the course of the covid-19 pandemic. An investigation by The Sunday Times discovered that Boohoo’s supplier was paying its workers around £3 an hour – way under the UK minimum wage. 

The argument that fast fashion cannot be fought at a personal level, and that the onus should instead be on the companies that benefit from it themselves, hardly holds water. The business model is designed to meet demands, and the intensity of those demands fuel the intensity of exploitation. 

By avoiding fast fashion, and instead buying only what we need, exploitation and surplus production would be rare. It’s not impossible. Many retailers have caught up with the changing fashion landscape. Furthermore, some fast fashion companies like ASOS now offer a filter, allowing potential customers to only see sustainable brands and shop greener that way.

 

Unsplash: Rio Lecatompessy

Is sustainable fashion consumption a privilege reserved for the elite?

Liza Park

Fast fashion posits the ever-important question of ethics versus affordability. For many, these two factors are mutually exclusive.  

I consider myself to be a socially conscious consumer. I’m also a university student with a finite disposable income. 

As someone who lauds themselves on being staunchly anti-fast fashion, I often find myself committing the unspeakable act of shopping at the very places I condemn. 

My case isn’t a deviation from the norm. Twitter user @drdevonprice echoes the mentality of many with this tweet:

Part of being an ethical consumer means changing your relationship with clothing. For those who can’t afford to shop sustainably, we must sustain what we can afford. 

Even our conscious generation can justify shopping fast-fashion with the one factor that brings swathes of consumers back, despite all of its detriments:

Money. 

(Or more aptly put, lack thereof.)

“The freedom to decide between shopping fast fashion and shopping sustainably is an exercise in privilege. There are a lot of people who can’t afford to make that distinction” says Alicja Kostecka, a current student at University of London. 

Accessibility, affordability – whatever you want to call it. It’s the curse of convenience; a gift that keeps on giving, manifesting as multiple iterations of the same cheaply made crop-tops. 

That being said, should we vilify those who shop fast fashion out of necessity?

For multi-accredited entrepreneurs like Virgil Abloh, the answer is a resounding yes. This was one of Abloh’s comments during the Apolis’ Speaking Series: 

“Don’t let Zara and Uniqlo educate you on the price of a garment because that’s not fashion. That’s McDonald’s” says Abloh, “Your health is tied to that 99-cent nugget.” 

The Off-White executive officer goes on to make some pretty salient points about the negative humanitarian and environmental aspects of the fast fashion industry. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to overlook the delivery of this statement: poor people eat McDonalds, and poor people wear McDonald’s fashion. 

It’s the same, tired take, saturated with snobbery and classist rhetoric, that places the blame on the consumer rather than the industry itself. 

Clothing conscientiousness under capitalism

You may be familiar with the saying: “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.” 

Bear with me. I understand that this phrase has been through the wringer. By no means should you use this as a mantra to justify a massive Shein haul. 

However, it does pose an important question when put into the context of the ethics versus affordability debate. 

Under a capitalist system, unsustainable businesses remain successful by exploiting those who rely on their cheap products. Unfortunately, discussion has taken to vilifying the consumer in lieu of criticising the multibillion dollar corporations—the true perpetrator of widespread environmental and humanitarian damages.  

This doesn’t absolve the consumer of all responsibility, but does force one to think critically about the feedback loop where the vulnerable bear the brunt of the blame for the actions of the elite few. Fast fashion is no exception. 

Fast fashion alternatives: the Depop dilemma

Many critics of fast fashion offer second-hand shopping as an antidote to shoppers’ fiscal woes. Upon my arrival to London from America, I quickly realized thrifting in London is by no means sympathetic to the thrifty.

Charity shops present a more affordable alternative. However, it often takes hours of sifting to find that “diamond in the rough” piece. For many students, finding this kind of time simply isn’t practical or realistic. 

And then there’s Depop. What started out as a nifty second-hand selling online platform quickly became a host to upper class rich kids reselling toddler shirts as “y2k vintage baby tees” with a ridiculous price tag to go with it. Don’t believe clothing gentrification is a real thing? This viral tweet may serve as a rude awakening.

This is one offence amongst the ranks of many. 

There are many alternatives to shopping fast fashion, but not every solution is a perfect one. For the not-so-wealthy, shopping sustainably can be less lucrative and certainly less glamourous.

 This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be conscious of our own carbon footprints, but I do encourage those with more expendable income to think critically about the double entendre of their own income status: those with excessive wealth are the root of the problem, yet are more likely to be afforded the title of a conscious consumer. 

Conclusion: fast fashion – the good, the bad and the ugly

Fast fashion is unethical; it’s exploitative, unsafe, and horrible for the environment. There is no room for dispute on any of these fronts. This article does not try to deny that; rather, the aim is to change the way we critically assess an issue so intricately woven with social class and status. 

The bottom line: boycotting fast fashion is an unrealistic expectation for many. There simply aren’t enough accessible alternatives for everyone to shop sustainably. The current discussion around fast-fashion has to change. Pushing sustainable and ethical clothing is noble in principle, yet in application it fails to represent the needs of marginalized communities. 

There are ways to rework the conversation around fast fashion. It’s about time we give the platform to the voices that matter the most. 

Check out more articles concerning relevant political issues today.