Fast fashion is the area most critiqued in discussion of fashion and sustainability.
The logic of fast fashion has led to additional and often extreme pressures placed on suppliers.11 Labour abuses have been rife in the fashion industry since
industrialisation, however fast fashion garments are increasingly temporal in nature, and thus suppliers are under great pressure to deliver orders even more rapidly. The codes of conduct that major fast fashion retailers expect their suppliers to abide by may not be followed, as reported labour abuses continue. Recent examples include Bangladeshi slave labour used in Coles discount fast fashion offering Mix (Horin 2012), as well as a number of fatal clothing factory fires in Bangladesh brought about by poor safety standards (ABC 2010, 2012).
From a perspective of environmental sustainability, fast fashion embodies the extremes of fashion’s profligacy and pollution. The rise in solid textile waste to landfill is largely attributed to fast fashion (Draper, Murray and Weissbrod 2007;
Allwood et al. 2006; Farrer 2011). Similarly, the growth in demand for cotton, and in cotton-quality substitutes such as viscose and polyester, is attributed to the
heightened demand of fast fashion (Ravasio 2012). This increased speed of material production and consumption is at odds with environmental sustainability. From a perspective of higher fuel prices and fibre shortages, fast fashion will likely prove unviable long term. Journalist Lucy Siegle (2008) notes the beginnings of this, with the cost of shipping rising due to fuel prices. She writes,
If fashion stays fast it will need to become more localised, which will increase cost. So it can be slow and cheap, or fast and expensive. It is the combination of cheap and fast that is unsustainable (Siegle 2008).
Global fast fashion companies have been under great pressure to demonstrate their corporate social and environmental sustainability, and in fact H&M is one of the most pro-active fast fashion companies in this regard, as demonstrated by their high ranking on environmental and social issues from the non-profit site Rankabrand
11 For example, a Sri Lankan factory worker interviewed by Oxfam revealed the toll that agile supply chains can take on workers: “Last year the deadlines were about 90 days… [This year] the deadlines for delivery are about 60 days. Sometimes even 45… They have drastically come down”
(EFF 2009).
(2011), with ten out of sixteen points.12 Table 5.3 summarises the response of the global fast fashion retailers to sustainability. This demonstrates the ways in which fast fashion companies have intervened in product, systems around the product, and in the wider company. From here it is evident that H&M has been the most able to intervene in product design, through their use of recycled or lower-impact fibres in their garments. The overseas brands additionally are members of coalitions such as the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, or report to the Global Reporting Initiative, with unannounced audits conducted of their suppliers’ factories.
12 Patagonia is ranked nine out of sixteen in Rankabrand, which is significant as Patagonia would be conventionally viewed as the more sustainable of the two brands. For instance, Patagonia is a high pricepoint, not as bound to changing fashion trends, and with higher production quality. In
comparison, in observations in Milan, I noted several H&M garments on display that were torn in places due to poor construction.
161
Table 5.3 Overseas fast fashion response to sustainability
Fast
Fast
In Australia, the fast fashion phenomenon has led to rises in fashion consumption and disposal. For example, the TFIA found in 2008 that Australian women under thirty purchased an average of 112 garments per year. In 2010 - 2011, 1,234,764,547 units of apparel were imported into Australia, with a landed price of $4.06 per unit (TFIA 2012). This equates to approximately fifty-six units of apparel per Australian, per year. This high consumption has led to a rise in donations to charity, and
declining quality of the goods donated, as observed by charity workers (Tilley 2008).
13 California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (SB 657) came into effect 1 January 2012 and requires all Californian-based companies above a certain size to audit and publicly-report on their supply chain to ensure no human rights abuses.
163
One charity, The Smith Family, sends 120 million tonnes of donated textiles to landfill each year14 (Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW 2008).
The 2010 National Garment Industry Sustainability report (The Hub 2010, 15) found that in Australia “a key barrier to sustainability is the trend towards ‘fast fashion’ and consumer reticence to pay a premium for an ethical product”. A related challenge is the growing amounts of unsold stock, with Jo Kellock commenting that it is common practice in Australia for companies to over-order clothing to attain the lowest price per unit, and then to incinerate or destroy unsold clothing rather than recycle it or donate it to charity (Simmons 2012). In fact, like many other Western nations, Australian unwanted fast fashion is shipped to African nations such as Uganda, where it is resold. Journalist Amy Fallon found fast fashion discount brands such as Cotton On and Jay Jays for sale in Ugandan markets (Fallon 2012a, 2012b).
Table 5.4 Australian fast fashion retailers’ response to sustainability examines the interventions for sustainability by Australian fast fashion retailers. Comparison of this table with Table 5.3 demonstrates that little intervention for sustainability has been conducted within Australian fast fashion companies when compared to overseas fast fashion. For example, most of the overseas fast fashion companies offer some fabrics that are more ecologically-sound than conventional cotton or polyester. In contrast, no Australian fast fashion companies offer Lyocell, bamboo, or organic cotton.15 In terms of the systems around the product, only Cotton On and Portmans have a visible Code of Conduct for their suppliers, or a CSR policy. Portmans is owned by the Just Group, and as such follows their guidelines. While Bardot is accredited by ECA,16 there is no mention of this on the website, or in store. The lack of intervention from Australian fast fashion companies contrasts starkly with the detailed reporting of H&M, Topshop (via the Arcadia Group) and Zara (via Inditex).
These companies are publicly-owned and hence are accountable to their
shareholders. This is a significant difference from Australian fast fashion, in which of the above retailers, only Portmans (as part of the Just Group, of Premier
14 This figure includes both pre- and post-consumer waste.
15 This statement is based on in-store observations and comprehensive searches of online stores.
16 Although ECA monitors the ethical treatment of workers – social sustainability rather than environmental sustainability – when Australian companies don’t declare their CSR policies, it is significant as it may point to a nonchalance towards all forms of CSR, or possibly to their view that their consumers are not interested in reading about it.
Investments) is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The rest remain privately owned.
Table 5.4 Australian fast fashion retailers’ response to sustainability
Fast
None visible No CSR policy / COC advertised
None visible Cotton On None visible Code of Conduct for
manufacturer / CSR
Supre None visible No CSR policy /
COC advertised
165
Valleygirl None visible No CSR policy / COC advertised
None visible