Water footprint of a cotton t-shirt:
FAST FASHION – Cheap, addictive and dangerous
From the rise of supermarket fashion to the growth of a national addiction
Fast Fashion gathered pace from the end of the 1990’s when brands began to look for new ways to increase profits. Globalisation had grown rapidly in the 80’s and 90’s and paved the way for value and mid price brands to shift the bulk of their production to the developing world where labour and overheads cost a fraction of those in Europe.
High street brands were coming under increasing pressure from supermarket chains developing their own lines of low cost clothing. Initially they sold items like simple t-shirts and underwear; however the move of George Davies from Next to Asda signaled a new era for supermarket clothing and a move into high fashion, low cost items.
Traditionally, most fashion labels have produced two main collections a year, spring/summer and autumn/winter. However, in order to keep the customer focused on the high street, brands needed to create some interest within their stores mid season. Brands began competing against each other for market share by introducing more lines a year at lower costs, culminating in a situation where fashion houses are now offering up to 18 collections a year (Department and Co-operation International Journal Vol. 33, Oct 2006).
As consumers we have become accustomed to being able to pop onto the high street for a new frock for Saturday night and don’t expect to pay more than £10 for it. We also don’t expect to see that same frock on sale in a fortnight’s time and we certainly don’t envisage wearing it more than three times before it’s out of season and we’re ready to replace it with something else. Fashion has always followed this cycle, but never before have we seen such short intervals between buy – use – dispose – buy again.
How can the high street keep up with it all?
Certain companies re-examined their supply chains by keeping basic items manufactured in the Far East but bringing the production of the more high fashion items closer to home. This had several benefits. Firstly it decreased their financial outlay on forward orders and also allowed them to make decisions about the fashion items much later in the season. This added flexibility and ensured they were able to react to the market quickly and deliver ‘on-trend’ items within their stores. This new system allowed for the development of ‘just in time’ manufacturing and has now developed to a stage where they are able to turn a garment around from drawing to shop floor in just two weeks.
Factory workers are feeling the effects of this. A Sri Lankan factory owner interviewed by Oxfam demonstrates the pressure they are now under;
“Instead of 40,000 garments being manufactured across four styles for 20 weeks at a rate of 500 styles per week… all that is firm is the first five weeks across four styles at 500 per style per week. This is a commitment to 10,000 garments. The remaining 30,000 is unknown.”
The Clean Clothes Campaign (http://www.cleanclothes.org/) describe similar instances with garment workers in China -
“We have endless overtime in the peak season and we sit working non-stop for 13 to 14 hours a day. It’s like this every day – we sew and sew without a break until our arms feel sore and stiff”
“We work from 8 am till noon. After lunch we work from 1 to 5 pm. We do overtime every day, from 5.30 pm. During the peak season, we work until 2 or 3 am.” Phan (22) machinist in a Thai garment factory.
The increase in the amount of clothes people consume also has consequences for the environment. More clothing is shipped and flown from the Far East to Europe than ever before and the life cycle of these garments is decreasing.
Clothing and textiles has become the fastest growing waste product in the UK with consumers sending an average of 74% of the 2 million tonnes of clothes we buy each year into landfill.Moreover, the majority textiles we dump in landfill present particular problems such as synthetic products which will never decompose, or woollen garments which produce methane when they do decompose, contributing to global warming.
The highest fashion consumption rates are for women in their early thirties who read glossy magazines. On average women in this demographic will buy an average of 35kg of textiles per person per year (mostly clothing). Much of this will be thrown out within a year; a small part will be recycled or donated to charity, and the rest will be chucked in the bin.
This addiction has been felt by many ‘invisible’ parties but there are some, close to home, who are feeling the brunt of our disposable pleasures. The Salvation Army, with around 2,750 of the UK’s 9,000 charity clothing banks, has been faced with an ever growing mound of tat to flog to consumers indifferent to pre-worn clothes unless it happens to be vintage. Value fashion retailers will debate forever as to how they can sell clothes so cheaply, usually citing economies of scale, but it has been clear to recyclers for some time that a fall in fibre quality and finishing is part of the equation. This makes the resale of last season’s paper thin, slightly shrunken sun dress a distinctly unappetising commercial proposition. Besides, there isn’t much incentive for consumers to buy worn when a new dress costs less than a lunchtime panini and coffee.
Charity shops were once treasure troves loved by the young and the hip for their unique vintage finds; nowadays they are more like the graveyards of Topshop’s Autumn/Winter collection or the final resting places of unwearable accessories. Genuine bargains are lost – often literally – beneath swathes of unwanted cast-offs that charity shops simply can’t shift. “Fur coats, brooches and patterned dresses have made way for cheap, badly made, mass-produced sweatshop exports,” according to Aimee Richards, 22, a sociology student from the University of Sheffield. “Not the kind of stuff that I want to be giving a loving home to.”
The bulk of discarded fast fashion is chucked into landfill. Meanwhile, the fashion industry has been particularly adept at avoiding green censure and criticism. While other sectors – food and drink, electronics, detergents and even car manufacturers – have been forced to own up to environmental shortcomings either to pre-empt legislation or conform to new regulations (such as the EU directive that means your hairdryer or washing machine can no longer be flung into landfill) fashion appears to have charmed us all in a haze of sequins, air kisses and the seemingly boundless dynamism of fast fashion with its high street empires and super-rich moguls.
But when Defra, the department for the environment, food and rural affairs, began to analyse the impact of different materials in the nation’s landfills a couple of years ago, fast fashion’s get-out-of-jail-free card was unexpectedly revoked. The nation’s penchant for ‘McFashion’ – as one-night-only T-shirts and skinny jeans have been dubbed – was found to translate into more than three million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
And even those who formerly and gleefully proclaimed Primark the new Prada are now suggesting that fast fashion has had its day. It is all about ‘investment dressing’ now – buying one piece and loving it for a long time – now as fashionistas tighten their tiny little belts.
There’s some validity in this argument, as anything that cuts down the rapid turnover begins to reverse the fact that – according to Matilda Lee from the Ecologist – just 2 per cent of the average clothing budget goes on services that repair or lengthen the lifespan of our garments and accessories.
OUR CURRENT GLOBAL CONSUMPTION PATTERNS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.
We have an 8 – 10 year opportunity to transform our current systems and reinvent ourselves or we will cause irreparable damage.
There is a large amount of research and initiatives underway with the view to tackle the problem of over-consumption in fashion, and re-designing the systems of production and distribution.
Our consumption patterns in the UK have risen by almost 40 percent to a massive 2 million tonnes (£23 billion) of clothes per year, with the fast/discount sector (characterised by low cost, short lifetime) making one fifth of the market. With the rise and rise of “value retailers” such as Primark and H&M, and supermarket fashion ranges, the price of fashion has plummeted by 25 percent in the last five years. (The Times, 15th December 2008)
As a result, textiles have become the fastest growing waste product in the UK with about 74 percent of this 2 million tonnes of clothes we buy each year eventually ending up in landfills, where most of which will never die because they are made out of such a deadly cocktail of materials. It is the poor quality of our cheap fashion fixes that have caused this dramatic rise in textile waste, and thus the decline in the value of recycled materials. Even though many of us are diligently off-loading our unwanted clothes and accessories to charity shops across the country, most of what we are donating is simply too shabby to sell and the charity shops are having to find outlets for these donations. Furthermore, only about 30 percent of this ‘tat’ can actually be recycled – the rest is dumped in landfill.
“We have noticed more and more cheap clothes coming in but we can’t sell them in the shops” Rob McNeill, a spokesman from Oxfam says “who would buy a second-hand Primark t-shirt for a quid, when there’s a Primark down the road selling them new and probably cheaper? We can’t compete”.
Our society is suffering from symptoms of classic addiction behaviour – we want to shop more and more and are not getting any happier as a result. The current availability of a quick, cheap fix and the proliferation of advertising and media images that encourage us into this cycle of consumption are to blame for this steady increase in shopping behaviour. The saturation of the UK fashion market by cheap, disposable garments has made us question why we should even consider paying more than £3 for a t-shirt. Most of us are aware that by buying these cheap low-quality garments we are only adding to the issues associated with ‘fast-fashion’, and research suggests that although there is a sharp increase in concern, 53 percent of us are ‘concerned but not willing to act’ (McKinsey Quarterly March 2008).
What is the answer? We know that we can’t continue to ‘shop until we drop’ but has this cheap disposable fashion culture lulled us into a state where we are simply too tight to invest in anything that costs us more then the price of a skinny latte and a tuna wrap? Or is it the frequency of this fashion fix we crave? The lunchtime visits to the high-street to purchase a new outfit for the weekend that won’t break the bank, but equally will be out of fashion in 6-weeks and will be tossed, unloved and barely worn into the charity bag.
I know you’re probably thinking why doesn’t the Government do something about it, or the retailers? Our countries leaders should be tackling this problem! They have their role to play, but in actual fact it’s consumers who can make the most difference. What we demand we will get! The real change will only occur from the bottom up – as consumers we are part of a massive grassroots movement – and we need to open our eyes and recognise this fact and start acting! We need to buy fewer, better quality, more responsible products. Products that have histories to be proud of and will have futures which will help sustain the environment, not harm it. When we part with our hard earned cash we should think about what we are buying – will we love and cherish it? Or will it sit in the wardrobe threadbare and moth eaten after two washes because it’s designed to be thrown away and replaced? THINK about what you are consuming. The next time you find yourself at the till in one of those high-street shops imagine you and the garment(s) you have in your hand in 2 years time. Will they last that long? Will you still cherish them? Will they still be in fashion? Do you really need them?
From curb curb your consumptions
From fashion to high street, the hidden cost of cut price clothes
Poor working conditions have always been a part of the fashion industry. The owners of the first British textile factories in the 18th and 19th century paid low wages, employed children, forced workers to do overtime and allowed hazardous working conditions.
As costs spiralled over the years, factories moved to low-wage, developing countries. In the 1970s it was Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea and today it’s Bangladesh and Indonesia among others.
Making clothes is complex
Making clothes is a complex task and it’s proved difficult to develop machinery to do it. Today you still need an army of people to machine stitch clothes and produce finished garments in a factory. One person sews the sleeves, another the collar and someone else the pockets.
Low pay and unsafe working conditions have not gone away, the problems have simply shifted to developing countries.
Paying workers low wages means a factory owner can make clothes more cheaply, so they’re more likely to win a big contract to supply high street chains.
Some sewing workshops use children as a source of cheap labour, although this practice is decreasing, according to the Ethical Trading Initiative, an organisation that works to improve conditions for workers.
11p an hour
In the developing world, a seven-day working week is common when the pressure’s on to finish an order. And hourly wages in the clothing industry range from 11p an hour in Pakistan, to 43p in China and £5.58 in the USA. Typically, the worker who made the garment will receive as little as 0.5% of the average price the garment sells for.
Trade unions are one way of helping workers achieve fair rates of pay and working conditions but unions are often officially or unofficially banned by factory owners.
The more progressive UK fashion companies are starting to look seriously at what they can do to improve conditions for the workers who are making their clothes.
Buttons from China
High street names such as Monsoon, Marks and Spencer and Next are members of the Ethical Trading Initiative, www.ethicaltrade.org. Members agree to a code of practice that covers basic workers' rights. It looks at hours worked, wages, health and safety and child labour. Members work with the factories they use to achieve improvements each year.
But one of the challenges that fashion companies cite is monitoring working conditions across a complex supply chain – raw cotton from India may be woven in Bangladesh, while buttons and zips may come from China. It can be difficult to ensure working conditions are fair in factories thousands of miles away.
Check the chain
Another challenge is that factories can sometimes sub-contract to other companies without the knowledge or approval of the retailer. So a UK high street store may check its main supplier, but not the next level down in the chain. So unfair working practices and low wages continue and every so often, a high street name hits the headlines.
The Ethical Trading Initiative encourages members to look at the whole chain and to reach out to particularly vulnerable workers, such as homeworkers. Embroidered clothes and accessories are often made by people who work at home doing 'piece work' – they get paid for each item instead of an hourly wage. Because they work at home they are less visible and often suffer poorer living and working conditions.
Campaigning organisations such as Labour Behind the Label want high street stores to go further. For example, instead of paying a minimum wage, Labour Behind the Label wants high street chains to make sure their suppliers pay a living wage – a wage that enables workers to feed, house and educate their families.
From BBC.co.uk
View My Stats
