Why are Sustainable & Eco Friendly Brands So Expensive?

THE PRICING BEHIND SUSTAINABLE FASHION

BY ASHLEY LEUNG

The expensive pricing of many sustainable clothing brands has rendered sustainable fashion inaccessible and unattractive for many consumers. When we purchase a $200 dress from Reformation, what exactly are we paying for?

Social media and the internet has helped spread awareness of environmental pollution and climate change. However, looking for change in our closets is a slow process because the accessibility, affordability, and trendiness of fast fashion often encourage consumers to turn a blind eye to its harmful impact on the environment.

Mainly due to an increase in clothing consumption and textile production, studies show that the fashion industry is now responsible for about 8-10% of global CO₂ emissions, 20% of industrial water pollution, and 35% of oceanic microplastic pollution in addition to large quantities of textile waste.

As a result, many fast fashion brands like H&M are striving toward sustainability. H&M encourages customers to consider their Conscious line that contains “at least 50% sustainable materials, such as organic cotton and recycled polyester.” However, the very existence of fast fashion brands and their overproduction is still contributing significantly to global waste. This superficial level of appearing sustainable is called “greenwashing,” which is a successful marketing strategy but not necessarily an impressive improvement. Therefore, these environmentally conscious collections are a good start for the fashion industry, but they are far from perfect.

Let’s take a look at two clothing brands wellknown for their sustainability: Reformation and Patagonia. Reformation is a women’s clothing and accessory brand that focuses on sustainable materials and ethical working conditions. They sell online and through their retail stores. As of now, their online prices range from $28 for a t-shirt to $498 for a leather jacket. Some of their most popular dresses are in the $200-$300 range. Patagonia specializes in outdoor clothing and gear and similarly uses more sustainable materials for their products and ensures fair working conditions. Their prices range from $35 for a t-shirt to $899 for a down parka. Many of their best sellers are in the $100-$200 range.

Left: Patagonia Middle: Stan Honda/AFP/ Getty Images Right: Reformation

One reason for the higher prices of what appears to be basic essentials (e.g., plain shirts, solidcolor jackets) is the quality and sourcing of materials. Reformation and Patagonia both use organic cotton for some of their products, which has much less impact on the environment than regular cotton. Textile Exchange’s study shows that “organically grown cotton has the following potential impact savings (per 1,000kg Cotton Fiber) over conventional: 46 percent reduced global warming potential…” Because organic cotton is grown without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides nor can they be genetically modified, they have a much smaller product-to-labor ratio; this leads to a higher price tag for clothes made with organic cotton. Some other sustainable — and more expensive — materials include recycled polyester, hemp, and TENCEL™ Lyocell. In addition to using eco-friendly materials, many sustainable clothing brands are vocal about ethical working conditions. The affordable prices of fast fashion mainly depend on overseas cheap labor and hazardous working conditions unprotected by the United States’ Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Whether it is a marketing strategy or a core value, brands are striving to provide fair wages and safe working conditions for workers. Patagonia, for example, discloses on their website, “Our own employees — the nearly two thousand people who work directly for us in our offices, stores and distribution center — are paid fairly and enjoy good benefits, including generous health care, subsidized child care (in Ventura and Reno)...” “For more than 20 years, Patagonia has been named one of the top 100 best companies by Working Mother magazine because of the flexible work hours and in-house child care center available for employees,” according to Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative’s case analysis.

As for Reformation, over three-quarters of their management team are women or people from underrepresented communities. “We recently updated our benefits package for hourly Ref employees, increased holiday and vacation time for hourly team members, and provided volunteer time off for all employees. We also provide health benefits to all full-time employees include our manufacturing team,” states Reformation on their

“In additional to using eco-friendly materials, many sustainable clothing brands are vocal about ethical working conditions.”

website.

However, last year’s accusations of Yael Afalo, Reformation’s founder, being racist toward past employees as well as conflicting employee reviews of Patagonia and Reformation’s working conditions and wages show that it would be difficult — and ignorant — to exalt sustainable clothing brands as perfect. Overall, sustainable clothing brands’ expensive prices can be justified when considering the additional costs of sourcing sustainable materials, ensuring product quality, and paying workers fairly. One way to lower the prices of sustainable fashion as well as encourage brands to adopt sustainable practices is to increase the demand for sustainable clothing. Currently, fast fashion brands continue to thrive because of the unfaltering demand for fast fashion. As demand for eco-friendly material and sourcing increases, sustainable practices and innovations will be introduced to mainstream fashion industry, which will lower prices. Compulsively throwing $1k at Reformation in exchange for five viscose dresses is definitely not the most sustainable change consumers can make. It’s a great start to purchase more from sustainable clothing lines and brands. However, buying only what we need and what we believe we’ll wear for a long time will ease the overconsumption culture that is enabled at the cost of the environment and the exploitation of workers.