Opinion | Critics of fast fashion in hard times should think again
4 min read . Updated: 01 Jul 2020, 08:18 PM ISTMillions depend on this industry for livelihood and revised business models could fix its deficiencies
Fast fashion is almost always used as a disparaging term. It is criticized day in and day out by commentators. Social activists, conservatives and environmentalists agree on one thing: We are buying too much clothing that is frivolous and mostly unnecessary.
They’re not wrong. Since covid-19 has put a sudden pause on global consumption, billions of pieces of apparel that would otherwise have been sold in this period were not even produced. But this disruption posed no survival risk to anyone. Since people were not even going out, they just didn’t need to have those new pieces of clothing. Everyone clearly has more than enough apparels in their closets for their “needs".
But the knock-on effect of closed clothing stores in New York, Madrid and elsewhere was felt instantaneously in the factories of South Asia and other production centres. Millions of jobs were lost in a snap. Thousands of small entrepreneurs went out of business. Entire economies of “garment clusters" came to a halt. Images of thousands of migrant workers walking several kilometres with their meagre belongings were flashed all over. Large numbers of them worked in garment units. We were suddenly reminded that the livelihood of millions of people depended on other people purchasing things they did not need. In that sense, Covid showed us what happens when you temporarily take fast fashion away.
So, what is the case against fast fashion? The critique against it can be broadly categorized under two heads: moral and environmental.
The moral critique is that it skews our priorities by taking time and money away from things that we actually need, and encourages a culture of “showiness" and “shallowness". The second and stronger line of criticism is that it has a large environmental and social footprint that is slowly killing the planet, and that the only way to save the environment is to reduce consumption.
There is some merit in these arguments, but they are not universal. For starters, it has to be accepted that the emotional priorities of all people are not the same, and a single yardstick cannot be applied to distinguish consumption from temptation. As for the environmental argument, it is not as if we face a binary choice between fast fashion or none at all. There are ways to contain the negative impact of such consumption and improving its footprint.
It is important to remember that consumerism has not been forced on people, but has been adopted willingly. After World War II, there was a period of rapid expansion in Western economies. Rising consumer demand was supported over time by the outsourcing of manufacturing to lower-cost countries. As globalization increased, it resulted in an enormous improvement in global trade infrastructure. Integrated global supply chains sprang up that allowed organizations to run operations scattered across various geographies with the help of expedited logistics.
These factors changed consumer expectations. They shortened the time gap between desire and acquisition, and also lowered the prices of products. Today, this is evident in every aspect of our lives, from bank ATMs, fast food and furniture to media and even healthcare. Fashion is not alone in this fast lane.
There is nothing intrinsically bad about fast fashion. But during its growth phase, its negative externalities vis-a-vis the environment and society were ignored. Between the design of an outfit and its sale at a retail store, little thought was given to what impact pesticides had on cotton farmers, or if its finishing factory had adequate cooling and lighting, or what would happen to that piece of clothing once it went out of style.
Most fashion companies have operations that are beyond the range of their consumers’ sight. It is not that buyers don’t care, but there is a stark asymmetry in the information available to them versus the database on products available to these companies. Until very recently, it was nearly impossible for a consumer to get enough knowledge of a product to make a truly well- informed purchase decision.
Undoubtedly, the industry needs to address both its environmental and social footprint. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the industry consumes around 100 million tonnes of material resources per year, including oil, fertilizers and chemicals. Tens of millions of workers work in hazardous conditions, even as they struggle to make living wages. These problems are compounded by very low rates of recycling.
But, to change this equation, we need not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We can still avoid eliminating what’s crucial while trying to eliminate the parts that don’t work. To this end, the fashion industry should align its operations with the principles of a circular economy. This can be done by adopting restorative and regenerative business models. Incentives and penalties built into the system ought to ensure that these models have rewards not only for fashion businesses, but also for society and the environment—the triple bottom line.
A responsible fast fashion industry should aim to eliminate the harmful extremities of apparel production, while maximizing value generation in a manner that lets the materials it so liberally uses re-enter the economy without ending up as waste.
A modern economy needs consumerism to stay afloat and the world needs fast fashion to survive. Long may it live.
Sandeep Raghuwanshi is chief executive officer and founder of ESGRobo, a corporate sustainability firm.
Click here to read the Mint ePaperLivemint.com is now on Telegram. Join Livemint channel in your Telegram and stay updated
×![]()