Guest blog - sustainability of fast fashion? part 1

Today's guest blog comes from Christian Smith.  Christian is a master’s student at University College London, studying Environment and Sustainable Development. We connected because he also works in Fashion. To quote Christian "I love the way it feels to put on a well-fitting suit, the feel of a good quality sweater on the skin. But I also love people and the planet we live in. it’s the only one we have and we need to take better care of it. So I decided to write my dissertation on the intersection between fashion and sustainability – are they mutually exclusive or is there a way to combine the two successfully?"

Thoughts from Christian...

The main focus of this series of posts is to take a close look at various environmental issues surrounding fashion. The world is changing very quickly and resources that were abundant before are not anymore. There are 1.3 billion people in China, over 1 billion in India and nearly 300million in Brazil. If all those countries are to have the same standard of life as Europeans and Americans, we will need three planets just like earth to serve that need. We are getting to the point where “business as usual” right now means no business in the future.
A couple of interesting facts:
1. The global fashion and luxury sector was worth around $1.334.1 billion in 2008
2. The UK fashion industry was worth some £37billion to the UK economy in employing nearly a million.
3. Between 2002 and 2006, there was a 33% increase in the amount of clothing bought.
4. The average person goes through about 35kg of textiles a year, most of which is clothing and is thrown away within a year of purchase. In 2005 this resulted in 1.2 million tonnes of clothing going to landfill.

So what’s the problem? Well, clothing is getting cheaper, but climate change, water shortages and oil prices all point the other way. What is happening that makes clothing so cheap? Well, when value retailers sell their clothing cheaply they usually say it’s because of economies of scale; what they are less quick to say is that the fast fashion trend has also led to lower standards both in the quality of materials used and also in the quality of the finish.
Many have heard of the term Fast Fashion yet many may not fully understand what this means and the knock on effects this type of fashion has.
A report by the UK government states that “the culture of "fast fashion" encourages consumers to dispose of clothes which have only been worn a few times in favour of new, cheap garments which themselves will also go out of fashion and be discarded within a matter of months.” (Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2008)
Fast Fashion is a relatively recent development however, as environmental and ethical issues play more of a role in people’s decision making, this part of the fashion industry already finds itself at a crossroads not just because of its social and environmental impacts but also due to its link to a broken economic system which values short term profits over long term planning and does not accept responsibility for solving social and environmental problems it causes.

The fashion industry relies on many factors. Natural resources such as soil and water are just as important as the people who process materials and make the end products. Many items are today made from materials such as, polyester and nylon which are all oil based; as are women’s tights, zips, flip flops, fake fur and sneakers. Environmental conflicts in the fashion industry have always existed. Since the industrial revolution discharges/effluent from factories has flowed into rivers and lakes. At first this did not seem to matter as it was seen as the price to pay for progress. In more recent years the industry had managed to keep the realities of an extremely polluting industry hidden away from the public by relocating production to developing countries. In so doing, companies were able to outsource production and concentrate on the advertising and marketing of their products. Companies have been very reluctant to accept the role that they play in creating difficult working situations and environmental damage. The photo below shows the damage done through the irrigation of cotton.

This part of the industry works on volume – the more we buy, the more they produce the more profit companies. The only aim of is to squeeze margins. Yet with no monitoring and no real programs in place to collect waste, the majority of this clothing ends up in the trash only after a couple of wears. From a psychological point of view, if a t-shirt is only worth 2 pounds ($3.25 USD) – there is no incentive to keep that t-shirt as we tend to give more value to items that we consider expensive. But when you start to consider all the work that has been done to make these items, it just does not add up. For a cotton t-shirt, we need cotton transportation, processing, dyeing, marketing and advertising costs, paying staff at the point of sale as well as rent and utilities. All that from a 2 pound($3.25 USD) t-shirt? I think not. Something or someone is getting a very raw deal – namely the producers and the planet.

The more we make, the more we cause stress to the planet and the more pressure clothing companies put on their factories and therefore on the people who make clothing. The stories we hear about abuses in factories or children working in cotton fields are a direct consequence of our thirst for cheap fashionable clothing. Moving away from this way of business will allow us to recalibrate the way that business is done and encourage a new norm – one where people and planet are taken accounted for in the search of profit.
Firms are slowly coming to terms with factors that have begun to place limits on their growth. These are systemic issues which will the industry will have to contend and these tie in closely to the nature of the firm and its relationship with the ecosystem that supports it. The effect of globalisation when combined with modern technology is to effectively erase boarders. At the start of the outsourcing process, customers were uninterested in where goods came from. For them, the only thing that mattered was that items that they could not afford previously were now accessible. As environmental discourses started to emerge and the true impact of global industries started to come to light, stories of maltreatment and environmental degradation came to the surface and the supply chain factors are no longer a distant murmur.

The sustainability of time

I was warned of this - the consulting world is full of super busy times and dead times.  I am so very grateful for being busy right now. I am very fortunate to have a few projects going on that are keeping me learning and gaining to skills.
One of my new skills is this thing called "time management".  You see I have been a generally organized person, but for some reason these skills go on vacation when I have needed them.
For instance, the past few months of not being busy - wanting to be busy, I filled a lot fo my time with puttering.  I was getting good as "making work", filling time with random things, so that I didn't have to be reminded that I needed to find more work. Could have used some time management here.

Currently I have a few contracts going on which means I am too busy and scared that I won't get everything done to the quality that I want to.
And I know that I will be not busy again in the future - such is the life of a consultant. So time management is essential again.

Thus my desire to find sustainability with time.  What I have learned and been thankful for is that years ago I figured out what few things are the most important things that must always be in my life.  It is because I know these things they are always factored into my schedule. They are - exercise, eating well, time with my boyfriend, time for my family and friends, and sleep.  So in my newly acquired skill of mapping out my days I had to create a schedule for myself that included everything.
I don't get extra hours in the day, so somethings are shorter than if I had more time.
But I learned years ago when you don't require yourself to have the aspects of your life that give you balance then it all is not worth it.  I can't do an amazing job on something related to work when I am tired or have not exercised or eaten poorly or connected with my love ones.
So I do have a little excel file right now for the next 6 weeks plotting out my work / life balance.  But it is only 6 weeks of being ridged and hey as I have always been saying - sustainability takes some effort.  But is worth it. 

Sustainable food

I am currently up in Hood River Oregon where the valley is just glorious in all of the blossoms.  I am loving the conversations of all the fruit that is starting its growing process and keep asking when are these crops going to be ready to harvest?  You might notice I can't wait.

There are so many aspects to sustainable food and for this post I wanted to think about how much I really need to stay alive, thus sustain my existence.  And couple this will how much food I want to eat.  I could eat and do eat a lot more than I need to stay alive.
The balance of calories is a micro example of a sustainable system.
First you have to determine how many calories you need.  There are all kinds of website that can help determine this.  It gets a bit complicated when you factor in your exercise and lifestyle.  But the average person needs about 2000 calories a day.  So if you break down your meals into 3 a day that is about 667 per meal.  And some of us eat snacks, so move some calories over to snacks and take them away from meals.

Well we all can attest to not eating enough, or eating too much and finding that balance.  Maybe you eat too many calories at one time because you know you are going to be with less at another time and you are planning.  Also what happens when the calories we need are not available - pretend you can't just go to the grocery store and buy apples from around the world?

This has been a neat exercise for me, because it made me think how much I rely on connivence and what kind of changes I would have to make to plan out my food in take and caloric burning if food was limited.  Ultimately this is the kind of level of detail we should know to truly incorporate sustainability into our daily living...

Metrics on less

The world of sustainability is deeply rooted in metrics.  There is the saying "you can't manage what you don't measure".  And the big push is what you are doing less of.  Because less means you are more efficient, you save more, you use less stuff or consumption of goods.  And all of this is about sustainability because we need to live with less in the future with a growing constraint on resources.  But that's not a bad thing - people do well with less.  Because less means - less things to stress about, less stuff to trip over and clean and put away, less means more time for the things you love.

When you have a baseline of one behavior it is relatively straight forward to show how you measure less of something.  For instance, your home uses 10 mega watts of energy a year.  You change some behavior, change out some light bulbs, unplug electronics and soon you are using less energy.  You can measure this and track it.  This is the core of so many sustainability programs across the world.  To take their existing business and keep producing, but with less.  And it is not just energy, but water, materials, chemicals, maybe even people.

What will be interesting for companies of the future is to show their commitment to sustainability, but are already starting out with less.  For instance, a new company builds their building with the latest in design and technology such that it doesn't use any energy off the grid - this company starts with less.  Maybe another company doesn't use any packaging for their products - they don't have less of anything because they started out smart and didn't need to reduce.

Your current business now, and especially new businesses can really set themselves up for a bumpy future if they are relying on less to still offer their products and services.  The idea here is to offer more if the things that have a positive impact, like trust, authenticity, care, and respect - this makes the customer happier.  And actions like these create a connection and build a story stronger than more stuff. 

Shop like you give a damm

I am teaching at the Art Institute in San Diego.  It is the first course on sustainability and fashion for the school and it has been an amazing experience so far.  Firstly I am shocked how much work it is to teach. (So props to all you teachers out there!) Secondly it is so inspiring to watch my students start grasping at how they can make a difference as the next generation of fashion designers.

This last week the course was about the impact of design.  We talked about how much control a designer has to incorporate sustainability into the products that they make. We looked at a lot of new ideas around sustainability and how they are being implemented in the market today.

To get a sense of what is going on we surveyed a bunch of really cool companies that are making significant shifts in the way they think and design products.  SO those of you who are at a loss for who is a good company to shop your values with - check out some of these companies.

The ones you probably know already

Patagonia - (Outdoor clothing) offers only organic cotton for its cotton products, includes many recycled content products and has a take back program to recycle or upcycle old products.

NAU - (Urban and Outdoor  Lifestyle clothing) offers recycled and organic materials.

prAna - (Lifestyle and Outdoor Clothing) offers some recycled and organic products, pioneer in Fair Trade Certified - one T currently.

Levi's - (Lifestyle and Denim clothing) offers a water less denim jean that reduces water use in the manufacturing process.

Stuart & Brown - (Lifestyle clothing) offers organic and other responsible materials.

Loomstate - (Lifestyle and Denim clothing) offer organic cotton for all of their products.

Some other companies that are doing some cool things

Edun - (Fashion Clothing) offers products with the intent to increase capacity and trade with Africa.

Linda Loudermilk - (Fashion clothing) offers products with sustainable materials and political messaging involving the wearer to connect to a cause.

The Arbor Collective - (Surf/Skate clothing) In an industry that has not integrated sustainability well - the arbor collective includes organic and recycled materials in its product line.

Alabama Chanin - (One of a kind fashion clothing) offers reused, organic or recycled materials in a wide range of products, all garments are manufactured by artisans in Florence, Alabama.  Company also has DIY clothing options.

Looptworks - (Casual clothing) offers clothing upcycled from excess fabric and trims.  Unique because no new material is required for the manufacturing of these garments.

These are just a few of some of the companies out there who are pushing for new ideas around materials and design.   Our relationship with our clothes and how we connect to the designer or the company is important because we as consumers are a part of the cycle and it means something to buy clothes from companies who are trying to reduce their impact on the planet and/or improve worker's lives.

Fear of the Positive

Last night I was reading about human behaviors and this article mentioned that we tend to default to the negative.  This made me reflect on what kind of person I was both personally and professionally.  Usually I am a pretty positive person.  BUT - often I do default to the negative. Personally I often have self doubt or fear that has me being negative.  Professionally I find myself looking at all that is wrong in the world and how we need to fix it quick.

The negative can be a motivator, but is it as strong as the positive?  There are two sides to every coin, so I thought about how to approach some of my sustainability work with a positive perspective instead.  (Note, this was not as simple as one would think.)
In trying to "sell" sustainability to companies and clients I rely on some pretty negative tactics - things like risk, fear, government regulations, losing consumer trust, or inefficiencies.  I get some takers, but it has been limited. So I started working on the positive sides to the work that I do.  It felt strange, kinda fluffy in language - but strangely it hit a cord within me that said "this feels better".

So for instance - we were struggling at one company I work with to come up with something for Earthday which is this Friday.  We ended up doing a celebration of everything we already do, using the stories from all of the employees to inspire each other.
Another project for another organization has been focusing on all the positive impacts of the work that they do, again to inspire engagement and involvement.

The positive taps into a part of us that makes our work meaningful, that makes us feel significant.  I need to remember this more, personally and professionally being more positive is just another way of approaching a challenge or subject, but a lot more fun. 

Poisoning the pond

I FINALLY finished writing my white paper (which will be available on my website soon). In the paper I took my thoughts and experiences doing social and environmental responsibility and distilled them down into some talking points that will hopefully help people and companies see sustainability in a different way.  The reality is we have the ability and the resources to make a difference, but the way current business is structured we get stuck.

So what is up with the title of this blog post?

One of my main concerns that I address in my white paper is the backwards way many companies approach sustainability and that is to cause harm and then invest in cleaning it up after the fact.  Companies poison the pond and then fund clean ups of that pond thus looking like heroes.

Annie Leonard alludes to the same idea in her video The Story of Stuff - when you look at all the energy, water, toxins, and waste created in the production process, let alone the product in the end, you have to ask yourself how can this system sustain itself.

I began to notice the dichotomies with various companies who would donate vast amounts of money, employee time and resources to save the world for after-the-fact problems rather than invest in not causing the problem in the first place.

Some examples for you to think about:
The company Dawn who manufactures petroleum based soaps and has a philanthropy campaign "How Dawn Save Wildlife" donating Dawn soap to remove oil from birds and animals from oil spills. (Maybe they should stop relying on oil to make their product in the first place?)

Or Tide, whoʼs parent company P&G donates to the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the product contains chemicals like Ethyl Alcohol which is suspected of causing cancer. (Maybe P&G should invest in preventing carcinogens from getting into daily use?)

There are so many examples of business practices that just don't make sense when you look a layer deeper.  But it is SO much easier to write a check, than to change your business operations. Fortunately I am seeing a new generation of businesses coming into the market using their opportunity to start from a place of authenticity.  The cost and effort to change the poor business practices of many companies today will put these companies not willing to look under the rug of their operations at a disadvantage.