INDUSTRY LEADERS From their powerful position within the fashion system, industry leaders could play a major role in transforming the industry for the better, but as has been previously highlighted, their resistance to change is high for many reasons. Were this resistance overcome, however, they could forge new routes toward a responsible system that, for example, eliminates the exploitation and sufering of its vulnerable workers by working to control the forces that push risk and cost externalizations down the supply chain. hey could also minimize waste and environmental damage by championing a new norm for corporate responsibility, and inding ways to align their higher purpose with the need to be proitable. For this to occur, a balance must be struck between the business imperative of making money and responsible business practices that respect the limits of the planet, the dignity of those making up the garment manufacturing supply chain, and the preferences of their customers. Given the current conditions of the industry, this could likely be a diicult transition, but especially so for those whose business models are in constant pursuit of lowering the bottom line. In these business models, there is simply not much room to manoeuvre. Euromonitor International believes, however, that one of the main challenges facing clothing companies in the future will be breaking the cycle of discounting and the resultant decreasing perception of value by customers, who have been trained to expect discounts (Global Apparel, 2014). Once a point of competitive advantage, they believe
the decreasing cost of clothing, along with “fast fashion fatigue” is now negatively impacting the proitability of some companies. At a deeper level, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman has also found that western societies have begun to see a shift of aspirations from the pursuit of material wealth to an economy that strives to cultivate well-being and happiness (Carbonaro & Votava, 2009, p. 35). If the pursuit of low prices and unfettered consumption are losing their efectiveness, perhaps now is an opportunity to re-evaluate and begin shifting focus toward maximizing the qualitative values of both companies and customers instead of continuing to pursue monetary “value” at all costs. Some companies have already begun to make this transition. While not perfect, athletic-wear company Nike has successfully transformed from “a perceived pariah of child-labour violations to a model for corporate responsibility” (Black [Ed.], 2013, p.112). Over a decade on, they have positioned themselves to proit through diversiied innovation (and data collection), and are more equipped to fund sustainability and social responsibility endeavours. As Hannah Jones, Nike’s VP of Corporate Responsibility explains, “we’re really beginning to see what the business case for corporate responsibility is when we see it as a source for innovation and growth (Black [Ed.], 2013, p.112). he shape that growth takes is important to understand (i.e., material-intensive vs. non materially-intensive), but this statement suggests a signiicant shift in mentality.
Nike has also begun to experiment with collaborative environments that aim to establish a more level playing ield for sustainable business practices. he GreenXchange was created as an online platform for “open innovation” where technologies and intellectual property not core to companies’ business practices could be shared via Creative Commons (CC) licensing. As noted by John Wilbanks, VP for Science at Creative Commons, “here is so much duplication of efort and wasted resources when it comes to sustainability. We need to make it easier for individuals, companies, academia, and researchers to collaborate and share best practices” (Tapscott, 2010). Nike personally shared over 400 of their patents through the platform. Shifting the collective mindset from a competitive environment based on economic constraints to one based on ecological ones is quite obviously an enormous challenge, but eforts to level the playing ield as the GreenXchange has attempted to do could help bring such a scenario closer to reality. As previously referenced on p. 11, Princen, et al. believe it is the only context in which abiding by such rules makes competitive sense.
SMALLER PLAYERS If the industry (and perhaps more importantly, the desires of society) were to shift away from commoditization and high material throughput toward, as Carbonaro envisions, an “economy of culture,” the hopeful future might also ofer smaller players a more diverse environment in which to thrive. In fact, many are already inding ways to take advantage of their nimbleness as niche creators and suppliers of fashion (as well as expert exploiters of digital technologies and media) to push boundaries, reach their audiences and break open new avenues for post-industrial, sustainable futures (Carbonaro & Votava, 2009, p. 39). hese initiatives, like many of those documented in the Environmental Scan on p. 40-41, signal a potential landscape where power has been redistributed through a shift
in focus from economies of scale to economies of quality – characterized by Carbonaro as “quality that truly counts toward better life and impels the growth of culture, education, the arts, science, knowledge craftsmanship, experience, and last bit not least wisdom” (Carbonaro & Votava, 2009, p. 44). Reversing expectation of low prices developed over decades may prove diicult (and an increase in clothing prices does not automatically equate to sustainability), but a more diversiied landscape of players could help break the single-minded outlook that currently dominates the industry and foster divergent views and ideas about what it means to be fashionable. Like a natural wildire that burns to create a hospitable environment for 47
regeneration and new life, so too do the ideas of the “new guard” act as proverbial matches for catalyzing the new paradigm into being. Finally, as envisioned by Professors Kate Fletcher and Lynda Grose, design could be reimagined as a tool for shaping not just what is bought, but also “the policies and mechanisms that shape the very cultural logic of society” (Fletcher & Grose, 2012, p.173) – a role that arguably should be held by a wider range of people. Instead of being relegated to the narrow realm of material things, designers of the hopeful future could become active change-makers, empowered by their training and unique perspectives to imagine the world as those too tied to the status quo cannot.