GREEN IS THE NEW
BLACK
Trendy, sexy and ethical? I’m sold! Scrolling online fashion sites and finding a trendy cardigan tagged ‘sustainable’ feels oh-so-soothing. A few clicks and a vibrant plastic pouch arrives on your doorstep the next day.
But fast fashion is a dirty word in an even dirtier world. What you think is ethical clothing is likely a marketing ploy.
Shopping is a dopamine booster so it’s hard for consumers to picture the deep-dark truths which surround the fashion industry. Australians are hearing so much about how terrible fast fashion is for the planet’s future but largely remain unsure who is responsible.
The natural cycle of ever-revolving capitalism provokes huge fabric waste and clogs onshore land-fill.
Australians throw away 6,000 kilos of fashion and textile waste every 10 minutes.
Half-hearted conversations about ethical fashion happen between friends over brunch meanwhile real people are slaving away in cramped factories sewing for minimal wages.
Statistics from Fairwork Australia shows over half of the clothing made in Australia is outsourced, mostly to migrant women in backyard sweatshops.
As disturbing information about slave labour, climate damage and fabric sourcing emerges so too does the consumer guilt of tangling their dollar with unsustainable practices.
People are trying to rub away the grime and choose cleaner options. University student Cassie explains how the temptation of fast fashion lures her back.
Stores are more invested in hopping on different trends than ensuring their supply chain is fair. The problem lies in the countless steps between the design and sale of clothing making it incredibly difficult to regulate ethicality.
The umbrella of ethical fashion covers the quality of working conditions to wages, effect on local communities, agricultural impact, animal welfare and pollution. The list goes on.
Any item of clothing produced quickly enough to mimic current trends cannot be ethically sourced. Yet fashion companies are the loudest about sustainability. It’s plastered all on social media and displayed in user-friendly tabs on their sites.
Camille Reed is the CEO of the collaborative industry body Australasian Circular Textiles Association.
She says large-scale fashion brands often govern their own sustainability values in the absence of stringent regulation.
“‘Shop your values’ marketing isn’t one hundred percent green-washing but companies [don’t usually] invest or come up with design guidelines that help their suppliers, wholesalers, retailers underneath them move towards a more conscious or sustainable product.”
Camille has taken on the huge task of rallying important stakeholders in fashion to logistically employ a circular textile system.
“We want things to be kept regenerative rather than the linear waste model which most consumer goods follow and have followed for donkey years… Taking something from its raw material and ensuring its inherent value has moved through the supply chain from fashion weaving, washing, selling, cutting, designing, manufacturing, export shipping and sold retail consumer use.”
A circular textile economy is an ideal alternative to a linear wasteful one but many Australian brands have yet to invest.
Unethical supply chains are rarely depicted visually in the media, so it’s hard for consumers to empathise with the experience of the afflicted.
A study suggests ninety-two per cent of consumers think sustainable business practices should be the standard; not the exception. A whopping seventy per cent will dole out more on items which don’t violate human rights.
Whether these statistics translate into buying habits is an area ripe for research. Are people really paying more for ethical choices or are they largely still attracted to cheap fast fashion?
Brands needing to sell their pastel stock are unlikely to show the blood, sweat and tears drenching their supply chain.
The Iconic a leading fashion retailer dons a huge ‘sustainability’ section on their website. The pages are filled with images of happy faces in Chinese factories and promises of progress reports.
Have a look through --
The Iconic clearly has the profit margin to invest in a huge marketing budget. Especially since this investment will drive more customers to their page.
The brand aligns itself with manufactured and carefully curated depictions of ethics. Notice the models sporting beige tones and gazing dreamily into the sunset. These images align the brand as ‘close to the earth’ and concerned with the environment.
It’s hard to argue the legitimacy of the Iconic’s commitments to sustainability and videos of current practices. Camille says the onus is on the consumer to do their own research about brands.
“It doesn’t take a lot to get through marketing regulation… Customers need to take the time to be well-informed. They can’t just take off-the-cuff comments for granted.”
But researching every clothing item can zap all the fun out of shopping. It starts to feel like homework and this is where government is falling behind.
Marketing laws are limited to two main provisions:
"The Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct"
"The Australian Consumer Law prohibits a variety of false or misleading representations about specific aspects of goods and services"
Since these are quite broad laws there should be stricter regulation more specific to fashion marketing.
Princess Polly is another huge Australian fashion retailer who quickly climbed the ranks. They’re known for bright, colourful, trendy clothing with a higher price tag than usual fast fashion brands.
After digging around the site, these statements were buried in the ‘about section’.
It’s evident from the limited information and vague phrases like “deeply concerned with human rights violations" the brand is acting from consumer pressure to be ethical.
The website Good On You provides sustainability ratings for brands and outlets. The results are in for Princess Polly: ‘we avoid’. But it’s more progressive to have open conversations with fast fashion brands rather than boycotting them.
“Customers need to be more supportive. If there is a brand you’ve always loved it’s always encouraging if you reach out to them in a way that seeks feedback and information rather than looking to have a go at them.”
The Iconic and Princess Polly are only two fashion outlets out of thousands online. It’s impossible to compare the practices of brands because of the nature of the industry. Their supply chains are opaque and fast-paced.
There's a huge online call for brands to be more transparent about their current practices so consumers can make informed purchases. But is this too big of an expectation and simply laziness on the consumer’s behalf?
Fashion student Ruby says she rarely buys new clothes unless she does extensive brand research.
Ruby is interested in the fashion industry so her research comes from a desire to learn. Fast fashion habits breed a cognitive dissonance which relies on the comfort of marketing to ease less-incentivised consumers into believing they are making the right choices.
There are tools available for regular people to easily know more about where their clothes come from.
Fashion Revolution is an organisation which runs a campaign asking consumers to ask brands on social media #whomademyclothes? It reached hundreds of millions of users online putting immense pressure on the big heads of industry to respond.
You can read more about Fashion Revolution by clicking the diagram.
It becomes clear shoppers need to take more accountability in their role as perpetrators of slave trade and textile waste. We shouldn’t be so quick to cancel brands but encourage them to try harder.
“The more you read the more savvy you become. It’s easy to grab a remark from a headline or an influencer and think you’re informed, but really you’ve only got an opinion on a couple of things you’ve seen” Camille says.
In a minefield of marketing tactics and accusations there are people who take active steps in cleaning up the fashion industry.
Built with Shorthand