Smith 1
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Fast Fashion:
In almost every industry today, the pressure is on to have the newest and the best, and the fashion industry is no exception. With the emphasis on fast fashion and trends quickly shifting from one season to the next, clothing manufacturing and production continues to expand across the world. In 2000, global clothing sales equaled $1 trillion, with one-third of sales taking place in North America (Kozlowski, 18). Clothing, footwear, and accessories now move through the lengthy chain of production faster than ever, starting on the runway and moving from raw materials to textile plants to apparel plants to export chains, retail stores, and finally to the consumer in a matter of weeks (Joy, 275). With this new emphasis on increased speed and production volume, companies are turning to cheaper methods of material sourcing, production, and transportation. Not unexpectedly, many of these methods have extremely negative impacts on the environment, ranging from use of natural resources and labor exploitation to harmful waste production and extremely high levels of improper clothing disposal. Many different stakeholders play a role in the process, including raw materials producers, textile and apparel manufacturers, designers, fashion labels, and finally the consumers. Although it is abundantly clear that changes need to be made to move the fashion industry toward sustainability, it becomes necessary to decide who is responsible for leading that revolution.
With fast fashion incentivizing quick production, purchase, use and, ultimately, disposal of clothing, the amount of textile and apparel waste is astronomical. Demand for man-made fibers, including polyester made from petroleum, has almost doubled in the last 15 years (Claudio, 449). This manufacturing process requires exorbitant amounts of crude oil and energy, and results in emissions such as volatile organic compounds and acid gases. Due to the volume and content of their output, many textile-manufacturing facilities are considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be hazardous waste generators. Even growth and production of natural fibers requires large amounts of water and pesticides; cotton alone accounts for a quarter of all pesticide use in the United States (Claudio, 450). In addition to the waste created throughout the production process, a large majority of the waste produced by the clothing industry occurs after production. Up until, and throughout the early 1920s, clothing was almost always repurposed, either tailored to fit someone new or repurposed as rags or bedding for the house. Now, only about 21% of annual apparel purchases remain in the home while the rest is discarded in various methods. One of these methods is textile recycling, estimated to prevent approximately 2.5 billion pounds from entering directly into the waste stream; however, this is only about 15% of all discarded clothing (Claudio, 452). This leaves the rest to be exported and sold for discounted prices in other countries or to enter directly into the waste system only to sit in landfills. It is clear that these methods of acquisition, production, and disposal are unsustainable; something needs to change.
Contrary to what many believe, each step of the clothing manufacturing process happens in a very isolated manner, incorporating outsourcing in almost every stage of the process. This makes it extremely difficult to regulate and prevent many of the issues previously discussed. Many people operate under the belief that outsourcing leads to an absence of personal responsibility on their part for that stage of the process. As we have established that a change needs to take place, and we accept that, generally, in order for change to occur, one or more parties must take responsibility, we must determine whom in fact has the responsibility for action. Moving forward we will establish this responsibility using a three-fold system of characteristics: interest, privilege, and opportunity. When a stakeholder has what we can judge to be a reasonable amount of and combination of each of these three characteristics, it seems to be a fair criterion to determine that party’s responsibility for catalyzing change in the system. Based on where they fall in the production process, some stakeholders have greater instances of interest, privilege, and opportunity than others. I argue that those players with the most privilege and opportunity have the most responsibility to lead the charge in changing the way corporate social and environmental responsibility is viewed in the fashion industry; however true success requires the participation of all players involved in the process.
Questions of Responsibility:
- Should companies be required to produce ethically sourced and manufactured clothing?
It can easily be established that fashion labels and organizations certainly have both the privilege and the opportunity to make necessary changes in the industry. They hold almost complete control over the design process, as well as, provide funding for the project. Without their vision and direction, the product would not be being produced at all. They have the resources necessary to make changes, and the opportunity and positioning to intervene in the current process. The more difficult question is whether or not they have the interest necessary to establish responsibility. There are several reasons they do. First, fashion label executives and designers experience the same effects of mistreating the planet as any other citizen. Second, as established in Bill McDonough’s paper, “A Boat for Thoreau,” in many instances companies can financially benefit from environmentally friendly design incorporating natural materials and methods of production. Companies can reduce their energy usage, enhance their brand, and increase revenues (McDonough, 314). Finally, evidence also shows that when companies use environmentally friendly methods of production and are transparent about the benefits, consumers are willing to pay additional costs, if necessary, for “green-clothing.” The disconnect between talk and action was apparent when consumer knowledge was discussed. Consumers referenced a dedication to sustainability if options were available to them; however most had little knowledge of environmentally friendly brands and products. This places a responsibility on the brands to properly market their product to consumers (Choi, 238). This combination of interest, privilege, and opportunity adequately establishes labels’ responsibility to produce ethically sourced and manufactured products.
2. Should each company be responsible for due diligence in selecting production companies with transparent practices?
To a certain extent, companies have a legal responsibility to ensure that they do due diligence when outsourcing to prevent being charged for negligent hiring. In addition to legal implications, this would seem like relatively little to ask of companies, if in fact we accept the responsibility we established in Question 1. This is a reasonable responsibility for companies to take on in order to ensure their products are ethically sourced. Until we can guarantee manufacturers source responsibility, this is a necessary step in the production process.
3. Should the production companies be held responsible for manufacturing using honest and ethical methods, whether or not there is demand from the fashion labels they are contracting with?
There are many different approaches to this question. Someone whose views align with Sinnott-Armstrong and his paper, “It’s Not My Fault,” for example, would push for government regulation, arguing the manufacturer has no obligations until the government creates them. Many others would argue the company has no obligation until there is demand in the free market for ethically sourced resources, at which point individual manufacturers can make the decision to change how they source materials. A lack of demand would in fact make incentivizing a switch of sourcing methods challenging. In some ways this falls to the discretion of the company, but there are also other factors for them to consider. During the production process, the large majority of worker exploitation and environmental abuse takes place during the raw materials and textile phase. So it is already clear changes already need to be made.
Additionally, we can turn back to our criteria for responsibility. These companies have both the privilege and the opportunity. Instead of using their privilege to acquire materials and labor at the cheapest prices the market has to offer, they have the opportunity to intervene in this stage of the production process. Without raw materials, textile, and apparel manufacturers that pledge to ethically source, players later in the production process would not be able to make sure their products are ethically sourced. The environmentally friendly production process begins here.
We must now establish interest. Similarly to question one, these players will also experience the negative effects of environmental harm. They may also be more likely to attract dedicated workers who also value what they and their mission statement stands for, especially those on the forefront of this movement. In many ways the process will break down if these players do not get on board because labels will not have the opportunity to ethically source. However, if we move in that direction, the free market will most likely force this change anyway, so they may see benefit in making changes sooner rather than later in order to gain early market advantage.
4. Should the government be held responsible for creating laws and regulations and then enforcing these regulations at each step of the process, creating accountability for companies?
The government certainly has privilege, opportunity, and interest in intervening, and Sinnott-Armstrong supporters would strongly argue that they, more than any other party involved has this responsibility. However, in many ways a complete overhaul of the system may do more harm than good and at a very high financial cost to society. If companies and organizations feel they are being forced to make these shifts, they may be less motivated to look for materials and manufacturers that truly fit the “green fashion” label, and simply look for ways to source and manufacture that just provide the illusion of checking off all the new boxes. Although it may be helpful for some general government regulation to take place, it would be very difficult for the government to oversee the entire industry at every phase.
Additionally, in some circumstances after changes are made, regulation no longer becomes necessary. For example, after a complete environmental overhaul at a Swedish manufacturing facility, regulators noticed the factory was no longer producing the harmful waste and outputs it once had, but was putting out water cleaner than the Swiss drinking water that was used in production, eliminating the need for regulation (McDonough, 310). It would be much more effective to see self-motivation for change in the companies that would then lead to more self-regulation.
5. Should consumers care if their clothing is sourced and produced in an environmentally friendly manner?
Whether or not people should want ethically sourced clothing, the evidence is there that they do. Studies show that the strongest indicator of consumer willingness to pay for eco-friendly clothing is knowledge of the product. It is consumer knowledge that is currently lacking. In many instances, partially due to scandals with “eco-friendly” clothing claims in the early 1990s, consumers fear that these claims and labels are not completely truthful. Based on current evidence, we can be fairly certain that consumers are willing to pay for clothing that is sourced and produced in an environmentally friendly manner, if companies take the initiative to adequately educate consumers and remain transparent about the production process.
Another important factor to consider is design. Many consumers interviewed shared the importance of sustainability to them, they were very conscious to incorporate sustainable practices into their lives regarding food, lighting, and energy usage; however, when it came to fashion the only thing they were not willing to sacrifice for sustainability was the design and luxury of the clothing (Joy, 285). Based on the nature of fashion itself, beauty and design is not something the industry can successfully evade and still see the same growth and success. Therefore, it is crucialto sales and success that in switching to environmentally friendly sourcing and manufacturing, the integrity of the design and the industry is not forgotten.
6. Should consumers be obligated to use their spending power to influence companies to produce in a socially responsible manner?
It is in this group of stakeholders that we see a divide in who may have more or less responsibility. Even if we take for granted that every member of this group has an interest in changing apparel production practices and protecting our environment and our planet, not every member has equal privilege or opportunity to enable them to be able to make a difference. Firstly, the current climate provides consumers with limited options for buying environmentally friendly clothing. Does this mean that consumers should be obligated to purchase from only these brands in order to express their preferences to fashion brands and labels? Many members of this group certainly have the privilege and the opportunity to exercise their spending power in this way, and we have already established interest. However, this still leaves a large portion of this group with no fiscal responsibility. At first it may seem wrong, or unfair to place a burden on only part of this group; however, we would never expect a third world country contributing almost nothing to global warming to take responsibility and begin making societal changes. Similarly, the portion of the consumer group with limited privilege and opportunity is also much less likely to be contributing significantly to the waste in the system. And until this portion of consumers has reasonable-priced, environmentally friendly clothing options, they will continue to have little fiscal opportunity to participate in advocating for these changes. However, it could be argued that they in fact have more incentive for change, as they are likely experiencing more of the negative effects, and should participate in other ways.
Evaluating Responsibility:
In evaluating each stakeholder’s responsibilities, it becomes clear that no one group will make a substantial impact attempting to change our current system individually. The first move could be made by the raw materials and textile manufacturers to begin sourcing and producing responsibility in order to provide brands with the opportunity to outsource responsibility. Designers could take initiative and design only with responsibly sourced materials, incentivizing manufacturers to begin producing them. Finally, consumers can also begin the process for change by using their spending power to demand ethically sourced and produced clothing and to reduce the cycle of clothing waste. Each and every stakeholder has the ability to catalyze this process for change; however none is capable of doing it alone.
This responsibility for change is a social responsibility requiring communication, participation and accountability from all parties involved. However, it is undeniable that no change will occur if cultural attitude as a whole is not altered, which is extremely difficult to do. It is easy to fall into the trap of believing one’s behavior does not matter, does not contribute, or will not make a difference. The fashion industry itself is based fundamentally on consumption, trends, and disposal. Without creating an attitude of making each piece an investment and treating it in a way that will last, we will continue to see copious levels of waste and disposal and we will continue to see manufacturers put out clothes made to last through only several washes. However, this particular shift in culture would require a change in the fundamental characteristics of the industry, which seems unlikely and far in the future at best.
Due to the difficulties in ensuring a cultural shift, it may be most realistic to look to new methods of design that allow for cradle to cradle manufacturing of materials and apparel. If people can simply re-enter the clothes they no longer wish to wear into the lifecycle, those clothes can then be broken down and used in the design and manufacture of new merchandise. However, this would require serious focus and innovation in the raw materials and textile phase of apparel creation, and would involve buy-in from the major players in those phases. The more time spent observing and diagnosing this situation, the clearer it becomes that stakeholder buy-in is crucial to the success of any potential solution; especially those with the highest levels of opportunity, privilege, and interest.
Works Cited
Choi, Tsan-Ming, et al. "The Impact of Ethical Fashion on Consumer Purchase Behavior."Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal16.2 (2012): 234-45. Web.
Claudio, Luz. "Waste Couture: Environmental Impact of the Clothing Industry."Environmental Health Perspectives115.9 (2007): 448--454. Print.